3 ms·

If you read my assertion carefully, I said "control" not "fund". I understand that large public institutions are heavily invested in both VC and PE. My point is

If you read my assertion carefully, I said "control" not "fund". I understand that large public institutions are heavily invested in both VC and PE. My point is simply that public markets are less attractive because wealth is controlled by a small number of hands. Are the teachers themselves deciding where to put their money? Suggesting that the real beneficiaries of venture capital and private equity are the "regular working people" sounds like a fairly obvious canard. Also, I did provide evidence---in fact the thrust of the article I cited is that diminishing numbers of IPOs are making wealth inequality more acute. Furthermore, it's presumptuous of you to assume that "wealth inequality" is my hammer of choice---I cited a piece from the Cato Institute! Here's a good source: http://wir2018.wid.world/part-3.html http://wir2018.wid.world/part-3.html

hueving 9y ago
>If you read my assertion carefully, I said "control" not "fund". So then your association with income inequality makes even less sense. If you're just referring to the centralization of the control of funds that happens with anyone who puts their money in a pool that has a manager. It has nothing to do with inequality because teachers make very little and so does their chosen pension leader and yet the latter has investment control over massive sums of money. >sounds like a fairly obvious canard. Yawn. An appeal to obviousness is tiresome to respond to. If you think you have a point to make, elucidate it. From where I sit, as long as pensions are involved in private equity, it benefits working people too. >in fact the thrust of the article I cited is that diminishing numbers of IPOs are making wealth inequality more acute So then it's not a symptom, it's a cause. To explain the difference: Lack of IPOs are not caused by income inequality but the lack of IPOs lead to more income equality.

hueving 9y ago

>If you read my assertion carefully, I said "control" not "fund". So then your association with income inequality makes even less sense. If you're just referring to the centralization of the control of funds that happens with anyone who puts their money in a pool that has a manager. It has nothing to do with inequality because teachers make very little and so does their chosen pension leader and yet the latter has investment control over massive sums of money. >sounds like a fairly obvious canard. Yawn. An appeal to obviousness is tiresome to respond to. If you think you have a point to make, elucidate it. From where I sit, as long as pensions are involved in private equity, it benefits working people too. >in fact the thrust of the article I cited is that diminishing numbers of IPOs are making wealth inequality more acute So then it's not a symptom, it's a cause. To explain the difference: Lack of IPOs are not caused by income inequality but the lack of IPOs lead to more income equality.