Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is a lot of stuff you're saying here that sounds simple but isn't.

...once you admit that there can be restrictions on property rights, it's unclear how property rights in and of themselves is a steelman of private equity. Why not just say that "you can't sell to private equity" is one of the restrictions?

What do you think that would look like in practice? Private equity is investment in non-public companies -- the purchase of shares in non-public companies or the purchase of the companies outright. In many cases, the private equity firms themselves are public; but in many cases, they are private, as well.

There isn't a way to make a rule that "you can't sell to private equity" but there can be a rule like "you can't sell a private company at all" or "public investment funds can not purchase shares in private companies" -- if you try a few of the variations that are possible, you'll see that they're all bad rules, I think.

You really have to think about hard about what you mean by "a private equity company". It's not as easy as it looks. If a manufacturing firm starts to buy up suppliers (many of which are small, private entities), is it a private equity company? It's buying up non-public companies.

My point with these arguments is just to say that private property rights are not a steelman for private equity. I'm not saying that these are simple answers to the claim that we need private equity, I'm just saying that the concept of private property is also not a simple answer to the claim that we don't need private equity.

That said, I agree with you to some extent. I think it's not actually so hard to define what I think is bad about private equity, but it's true that that badness is not confined to private equity. In particular I think the distinction between public and private companies is almost entirely meaningless; what we should care about is what companies do, whether they are publicly traded or not. From that perspective private equity is not really different from publicly traded "holding companies" that do basically the same thing.

The crux of it, for me, is companies that are just doing "the business of business", and are not organized around human beings doing things that they genuinely care about and want to do a good job at. You can never run a good company by trying to run "a company", rather than trying to run a steakhouse, or a pet groomer, or a bank, or a car wash, or some particular company that does a particular thing. The problem of both private equity and public "holding companies" is that they value money to the point that they no longer sufficiently value the actual substance of the good or service that the business provides.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

The distinction between public and private companies is deeply meaningful for someone like you, who wants to see reforms in corporate governance.

You just want the problem to be solved, by someone else, without having to think too hard about it -- that is the way a lot of people feel. This is abdicating any real say in what actually happens, though.

This is one reason that companies doing "the business of business" are here -- because of people doing business the other way while not really knowing what they are doing. They pile up some combination of assets, good will, procedures and human capital but can't get the combination to balance profit and loss -- so someone else comes along and buys them and uses a more functional approach to actually get the business to work.

There are so many people who sincerely want the right thing to happen but then look at the mechanics of getting it to happen and say, this is meaningless, tedious, &c. They don't really get to be a part of the solution (though they will find their capital and efforts drawn into the problem unawares, often enough).

Learn about these things and know the difference between public and private companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com