I think Quirt ultimately has a point.

There are reasons, and there are justifications.


This is a popular idea with their base. Not because their base thinks corporate managers can allocate capital more productively than institutional investors.

Rather, it's popular because it seems like a punishment for rich people.


Any first year primatologist could tell you this was going to be a popular proposal.

I don't think most people are looking to punish the rich. (I'm certainly not. I'm sure most of them came by their wealth quite legally using the system that is in place.) But one has to be blind not to see that our unfettered system is a mess and does not ("cannot work" is probably more accurate) work for 90% of humanity. It is Congress' duty to look at this situation and come up with solutions for fixing the system. Obviously many rich people will not like anything that makes things more equitable. On the other hand there are certainly some very wealthy people raising their voices for a more just system--and who raised their voices against the tax cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Also, it's good whenever you hear any economic proposal to imagine the voice of Thomas Sowell in your head saying "and then what?"

It's already well remarked upon that there are fewer and fewer benefits and more and more costs to going public. In fact we now have a term 'Unicorns' for large companies (over $1B) that are still private.

A lot of these companies find it easier and less onerous to raise money in the private markets. As a result fewer of the best investment opportunities are available to average investors. This type of thing will only make it worse.

And a very large part of that is because of SEC reforms over the past few decades that have unlocked the ability of companies to secure financing in the private markets without conducting a public offering.