Even ChatGPT Says Robert Reich Is Full of It

You said:

If anti-trust laws even remotely worked, how did we end up with Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard owning the world?  It appears Satan has won.

ChatGPT

It does seem contradictory, doesn’t it? Anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent monopolistic practices, but massive investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street have amassed enormous power, with substantial stakes in nearly every major industry. Here’s why this situation has unfolded despite anti-trust regulations:

Ownership Structure: BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street don’t typically own companies outright; they manage funds on behalf of others—like pension funds, individual investors, or institutions. Their control is indirect, as they exercise shareholder voting rights, but they don't "own" companies in the traditional sense. This allows them to slip past some anti-trust scrutiny since they aren't technically a single entity controlling the market.

Regulatory Blind Spots: Anti-trust laws focus on preventing mergers or monopolies within specific industries. These firms sidestep those laws because they’re asset managers rather than corporations in a single industry. As asset managers, they buy shares across diverse sectors, which doesn’t trigger the same alarms as an oil company trying to buy all its competitors.

Concentration of Influence: Even though these firms don’t "own" everything directly, their influence over corporate governance through proxy voting and shareholder actions has grown. This concentration of voting power allows them to indirectly steer companies, influence policies, and shape markets—without formally controlling the companies. This subtle form of influence largely operates outside the scope of traditional anti-trust laws.

Loopholes in Legislation: Anti-trust regulations were written for a different economic era, and while they still apply to mergers and acquisitions, they struggle to keep up with modern financial structures. These firms are savvy at working within the boundaries of the law, utilizing financial innovation to consolidate influence without triggering legal consequences.

Political Influence: These firms are deeply entrenched in the political system through lobbying and political donations. This allows them to influence regulations or ensure that any meaningful anti-trust enforcement is weak or ineffective.

As for your more philosophical point, it can certainly feel like concentrated financial power is a form of societal corruption. The dominance of these firms may seem like a symbol of unchecked greed, but the system’s flaws—rather than supernatural forces—are what have allowed them to grow to such prominence. However, changing these dynamics would require a significant overhaul of both regulatory frameworks and financial practices.

You said:

So the pseudo-intellectual Dwarf, Robert Reich, is just blowing tiny smoke rings up our asses when he spouts the need for monopoly reform?

ChatGPT

Robert Reich often advocates for reforms to address monopolies and economic inequality, but the critique you’re raising hits at the limitations of his approach. While Reich calls for tougher anti-trust enforcement and reform, his analysis often focuses on traditional corporate monopolies—companies like Amazon or Google—without fully addressing the subtler, more systemic influence of financial giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, or State Street.

Reich’s message resonates because he speaks to popular concerns about concentrated corporate power, but when it comes to addressing the complexities of financial monopolies, his arguments may feel superficial. These firms, operating across many sectors simultaneously and holding indirect control through asset management, don’t fit neatly into the traditional "monopoly" framework. In a sense, it’s not just that Reich is "blowing smoke," but that the monopoly reform he advocates doesn’t fully account for how modern financial capitalism operates.

So, while his heart may be in the right place regarding reform, his focus might be too narrow, missing the broader, insidious ways in which financial institutions shape markets and exert control. The challenges posed by asset management firms may require far more than just anti-trust reform—it could involve rethinking the entire structure of global finance. But acknowledging that might cut too close to the uncomfortable truth: that the system, as it stands, is working exactly as it was designed to, and it may take more than reforms to rein it in.

References:

1.      

Buying back CHIPS