Quite the racket, using your investment so you can pay more.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing three investing companies, accusing them of conspiring to manipulate energy markets.
Paxton and ten other attorneys general filed a lawsuit against BlackRock, State Street Corporation and Vanguard.
They're accusing the companies of acquiring substantial stockholdings in U.S. coal producers and then weaponizing their shares to pressure the coal companies with "green energy" goals. Paxton’s office said the investment companies pushed to reduce coal output by more than half by 2030.
The lawsuit alleges that deliberately and artificially constricting supply increased prices and enabled the investment companies to produce “extraordinary revenue gains.” The lawsuit claims the move violated federal laws that prevent a major shareholder, or a group of shareholders, from using their shares to lessen competition.
MSN
The big three? That's big news. Woke capitalism! lol.
In the United States, determining whether there is a conspiracy to manipulate energy markets typically involves analyzing several legal elements under both federal and state laws, as well as regulations set forth by agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Here are the key considerations:
1.
Conspiracy Definition: Under U.S. law, a conspiracy generally requires an agreement between two or more parties to commit an illegal act. This agreement can be explicit or implicit and does not require that the illegal act be completed, only that there is an intention to commit it.
2.
Intent: The parties involved must have the intent to manipulate the market. This can be demonstrated through communications, actions, or other evidence showing that the parties planned to engage in deceptive practices.
3.
Overt Act: In many jurisdictions, at least one overt act must be taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. This means that there must be some action taken by the conspirators that moves them closer to achieving their goal of market manipulation.
4.
Market Manipulation Standards: The specific actions that constitute market manipulation can vary, but they often include practices such as:
-
False Reporting: Providing false or misleading information about supply, demand, or prices.
-
Wash Trading: Buying and selling the same asset to create misleading activity in the market.
-
Cornering the Market: Acquiring enough of a commodity to manipulate its price.
-
Collusion: Agreements between competitors to fix prices or limit supply.
5.
Regulatory Framework: The FERC has specific regulations and guidelines regarding market manipulation in the energy sector. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to investigate and penalize entities that engage in manipulative practices. The relevant regulations include the prohibition of "manipulation" in energy markets, which is defined broadly to include any action that creates an artificial price or market condition.
6.
Evidence: Investigations into conspiracy to manipulate energy markets often rely on a combination of documentary evidence, communications (such as emails or recorded calls), and market data analysis to establish patterns of behavior consistent with manipulation.
7.
Penalties: If a conspiracy to manipulate energy markets is established, the involved parties may face civil penalties, fines, and other regulatory actions, including potential criminal charges in severe cases.
Overall, proving a conspiracy to manipulate energy markets involves a thorough examination of the actions and intentions of the parties involved, as well as compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
The firms have increasingly focused on
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing, which has become a significant topic in political discourse. This focus can lead to tensions with certain political factions. For example,
some Republican lawmakers have criticized large asset managers for promoting ESG initiatives, viewing them as a form of "woke capitalism."
I can mention some prominent figures and groups within the Republican Party who have been vocal critics of ESG initiatives and what they term "woke capitalism." Here are a few notable examples:
1.
Senator Josh Hawley (MO): Hawley has been a vocal critic of corporate activism and has spoken out against companies that engage in what he views as "woke" practices.
2.
Senator Ted Cruz (TX): Cruz has criticized large corporations for adopting ESG policies and has argued that such practices undermine free market principles.
3.
Governor Ron DeSantis (FL): DeSantis has taken a strong stance against what he calls "woke" policies in various sectors, including business, and has supported legislation aimed at limiting the influence of ESG in Florida.
4.
Governor Greg Abbott (TX): Abbott has expressed opposition to companies that engage in political activism and has signed legislation aimed at countering ESG initiatives in Texas.
5.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA): Greene has been outspoken against corporate involvement in social issues and has criticized companies for adopting progressive policies.
6.
Representative Jim Jordan (OH): Jordan has criticized corporate America for what he sees as a shift toward progressive values and has spoken against ESG investing.
7.
The Republican National Committee (RNC): The RNC has issued statements and resolutions opposing "woke capitalism" and has encouraged Republican lawmakers to take action against companies that engage in ESG practices.
8.
Various State Legislators: In several states, Republican lawmakers have introduced or passed legislation aimed at limiting the influence of ESG in investment decisions, particularly concerning state pension funds.
As I said before, the US politics is all about the fights between the wealthy elites, both blue and red, using the working or lower class as a political tool.
Which do you prefer? Woke Right or Woke Left? lol.
