[wbsss4412]

I’m making my comments in the context of the thread:

>we need new antitrust laws that are a bit more proactive when it comes to super-massive companies like Adobe

> What do you think happens to VC investments when it’s harder for companies to be acquired?

> maybe a culture of creating small companies out of VC capital only to be acquired by megacorps is not the best way forward for society

> What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on

> A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out

The whole point was that anti trust should be stepping in more, and then people were making over the top claims about there being no alternative.

The whole point is that it is not up to the public shareholders to sell to whoever they want if the government will block the sale.

[randomdata]

> then people were making over the top claims about there being no alternative.

Nobody said such a thing. I did ask what the alternative is. Going public isn't an alternative. That's what is happening. Figma is being transferred into a public trust. And that is the worry expressed with respect to its future, because the general public has no reason to care about the product and will not act in the interest of the product.

Anti-trust could, in theory, do more to prevent the general public from not caring about the product they control. The problem is that laws (where Figma and Adobe are located) are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.

[wbsss4412]

> What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on. Retirement age comes faster than you might think. Even if you deny an exit strategy, the principals are still going to stop eventually, and the product will still come to an end at that time. Allowing a sale at least provides an opportunity for the product to live on, even if there can be no guarantees about how the next guy decides to treat it.

This is what you wrote in response to the idea that anti trust should be used to block these kinds of buy outs.

> The problem is that laws are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.

That is frankly an absurd oversimplification. Shareholders are a miniscule subset of the general public.

[randomdata]

> Shareholders are a miniscule subset of the general public.

You mean shareholders of Adobe? Sure. But the rest of the population see how it applies to their own shareholdings. According to Gallop polling earlier this year, 58% of Americans own stock. I speculate you'll find even more owning stock indirectly (pensions, etc.).

Or do you mean in other countries? America certainly ranks much higher than many other countries with regards to what portion of the general public are interested in such matters. Which is no doubt why it is more relaxed about such things. This probably wouldn't fly in many other countries, but those countries are not where this is taking place.

[wbsss4412]

Setting aside the fact that your own measure means that 42% of Americans own zero shares, meaning that it is already not representative. The fact that 58% of Americans own a share does not imply that they are shareholders of every single one of the ~6,000 companies listed on the public markets in the US. Further, 10% of Americans hold 89% of the stocks in the US, and therefore as many voting shares.

So yes, I do mean the US. I’ll reiterate: it is absurd to imply that “the public” in reference to shareholders is somehow synonymous with “the public” in reference to voters in America.

[randomdata]

> 42% of Americans own zero shares, meaning that it is already not representative.

You don't need it to be representative, just to form majority. 51% is more than sufficient. 58% provides a healthy margin.

> The fact that 58% of Americans own a share does not imply that they are shareholders of every single one of the ~6,000 companies listed on the public markets in the US.

Should it imply it? I don't see the relevance.

> Further, 10% of Americans hold 89% of the stocks in the US, and therefore as many voting shares.

Fun fact, I guess. I don't see the relevance here either.

Unless you're suggesting that 10% of the population is more likely to speak to representatives on the regular, not hide behind a computer on HN all day while assuming their representative is a mind reader, thus being disproportionally represented? I could definitely see that being true based on my anecdotal observations, although I lack the data to confirm.

> it is absurd to imply that “the public” in reference to shareholders is somehow synonymous with “the public” in reference to voters in America.

If you make the false assumption that the public requires 100% support to do anything. Back in the real world...

[wbsss4412]

Ah yes, so according to you, in the “real world”, shareholders interests and the interests represented by the government are functionally equivalent. This must be why we have no minimum wage laws, worker protections, nor does the FTC ever block any mergers.

> If you make the false assumption that the public requires 100% support to do anything.

You’re sitting here complaining about not being perfectly understood over and over and yet here you claim I said 100% support is required. I said one group isn’t representative of the other, ie it’s interests are not reflective of the pother groups interests.

> You don't need it to be representative, just to form majority. 51% is more than sufficient. 58% provides a healthy margin.

Assuming 88% of that 58% are in actually in agreement.

> Should it imply it? I don't see the relevance.

You made the argument that the shareholders of one public company are somehow functionally equivalent to the public at large:

> Anti-trust could, in theory, do more to prevent the general public from not caring about the product they control. The problem is that laws (where Figma and Adobe are located) are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.

Your position is basically: we already live in an anarchy capitalist society with extra cruft.