[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.

[randomdata]

> This must be why we have no minimum wage laws, worker protections, nor does the FTC ever block any mergers.

Uh huh. The public that directs the government have jobs and have to live in society, so they are quite concerned about these things. The public might also be concerned about the future of Figma, but other comments suggest that they won't be. And I tend to agree as it is a fairly niche product. If something like Microsoft/Windows, which almost everyone uses, was being sold to Adobe it might draw more questions from the public.

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

For sure. They often don't agree. Just as we are only speculating that Figma is destined to disappear here. The public that holds control might decide it's the greatest thing since slice bread and make it Adobe's flagship product. The future is uncertain. I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

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

You must be replying to the wrong person. Careful which button you press.

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

Quite the opposite. The public very much coordinates centrally. We just got finished talking about 51% being significant because of that centralization... Replying to the wrong thread confirmed. I hope you find your way back to where you wanted to be.