https://financialpreparedness.substack.com/p/the-united-nations-global-compact

. . . Due to the ascent of passive investment strategies (including index funds and exchange-traded funds) and 401(k) plans (which often offer only index funds as investment options), the Big Three investment managers (Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street) now easily have enough proxies to control the board of directors (and thus the management and policies) of virtually every publicly traded company. And it just so happens that the Big Three themselves are dominated by some of the world's most extreme ESG ideologues (for example, Blackrock CEO Larry Fink is on the board of both the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations).

Although these institutions have a legal fiduciary duty to manage the many trillions of dollars of wealth with which they have been entrusted for the benefit of its owners, they have thus far been able to get away with brazenly ignoring this duty, especially since the current regime fully supports this misappropriation of shareholder capital (as any good Marxist would).

. . . These goals are really just a Trojan Horse for a massive power grab. Make no mistake: the UN (and its supporters) would very much like to become a one-world government, which would result in unprecedented tyranny on a global scale.

Additionally, the UN has long been notorious as one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Roughly two thirds of member countries have a corrupt government themselves. So when you put representatives from those countries together in an organization that spends Other People's Money and lacks transparency and accountability, you shouldn't be surprised by the result.

And it's not just financial corruption, either. For many years, I've read a number of articles about how UN peacekeepers sexually abuse the refugees (including children) at the camps that they are supposedly protecting. If you support the UN, you're either willfully ignorant or malevolent.

So what is the UN Global Compact? According to its website, it's “The world's largest corporate sustainability initiative. A call to companies to align strategies and operations with universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption [oh, the irony] and take actions that advance societal goals.” Its ambition is to “accelerate and scale the global collective impact of business by upholding the Ten Principles and delivering the SDGs through accountable [to the UN, not to shareholders] companies and ecosystems that enable change.”

Do you see how striving to help the UN reach these goals might conflict with companies' legal, fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value? How do you think this change in the purpose of a corporation might affect the free cash flow and value of the assets that shareholders are left with, and the amount of dividends they receive? How soon do you think these changes will become apparent and too obvious to rationalize or ignore?

One major problem with statists' economic and tax policies is that they simply assume that market participants will just sit there and take the financial abuse and won't change their behavior. This is why, for example, the additional revenue from a higher tax rate never materializes. For some reason, people don't want to work hard or take risks just so they can send a lot of money to the federal government (or in this case, the UN). Savvy investors such as hedge fund manager John Paulson are starting to figure this out and are threatening to go Galt. If you put the weight of the world (or the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals) on Atlas' shoulders, he will shrug.

Instead of companies joining the UN Global Compact, they should join an Investor Global Compact, where they promise to manage the company for the benefit of its owners. Perhaps after the next financial crisis (which I have said since 2009 will be the worst in human history) when stock prices are in the gutter and companies are starved for capital and desperate for survival, such a compact will emerge as a way for companies to distinguish themselves by promising investors not to destroy their capital like the previous management team did. Until then, caveat investor.