[gammateam]

> but that their popularity is leading toward a handful of financial institutions holding controlling interests in most of the largest companies.

Which allows for them to do things like demand publicly traded recruit women to their boards. Which is a useful talent when you are focused on economic growth, and your holdings are focused on extreme paper-meritocracy that fails to result in actually addressing additional portions of a market because their talent pool can't perceive it.

https://newsroom.statestreet.com/press-release/corporate/sta...

oh no the potential.

[dasil003]

Right, because when shadowy groups get unimaginable leverage and power the first thing they do is apply affirmative action pressure to address gender imbalances.

[gammateam]

> Right, because when shadowy groups get unimaginable leverage and power the first thing they do is apply affirmative action pressure to address gender imbalances.

Yes, that is exactly what happened, dasil003

https://newsroom.statestreet.com/press-release/corporate/sta...

State Street has 2.7 Trillion AUM

[whatok]

State Street also used that as a marketing stunt to launch an ETF while they were being sued for sexual harassment and pay discrepancies between male and female employees. Marketing is marketing is marketing.

[gammateam]

yes, and also 300 companies added female directors

nothing exists in a vacuum

[whatok]

Nothing exists in a vacuum just like solely attributing companies adding female directors to a marketing stunt. There was large momentum on this front already that would have happened with or without this.

[gammateam]

The point is that this is a positive use of centralized private ownership

The only real rebuttal would therefore be negative uses of centralized private ownership