>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 referri

>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.