[altairprime]

You’re advocating that the household quality of life of the masses is worth considering. That precept is not held by private equity, and that taints the otherwise neutrality of the question. (I am strongly against neutral positions, but it weakens your argument as presented to have invalid neutrality, and I’m even more strongly against private equity, so.)

[iknowSFR]

I’m not following this. Can you explain a bit more plainly?

[altairprime]

> I would love to see a multi-decade model of 4 scenarios measuring quality of life, economic growth, and wealth distribution

“Spending money studying quality of life is a waste of good money that could be making us wealthier.” - Private Equity

“Wealth distribution doesn’t need to be studied. Distribute your wealth to us, obviously.” - Private Equity

Claiming that those deserve studies is to suggest contradiction of those two beliefs, which I’m representing here as quotes based on my best-faith summary of their industry’s actions to date. People tend to react with hostility when someone suggests that their beliefs might be mistaken, especially when peacefully allowing debate to occur might reduce their future earnings.

> I’m not advocating for any specific outcome

Your question itself advocates for a reevaluation of the validity of those two beliefs, an outcome that you value as higher importance than complying with Private Equity’s values, so this declaration of “not advocating” is false. And since simply posing your question alone is enough to antagonize Private Equity, some of which is here on HN participating, any attempt to avoid doing so is impossible if you want to question their beliefs. (I support this!).

It’s plainly apparent that you have an opinion, or else you wouldn’t be interested in these questions at all. Consider reworking your approach to more clearly state why this matters to you personally and what you’re advocating for. For example, ‘I think private equity is operating under the false assumption that they benefit quality of life, aka trickle down, and that we should disprove that’. (My example is not intended as a valid expression of your opinion, it’s just a stylistic sample.)

[MattPalmer1086]

I actually find the parent much clearer than your criticism of their lack of clarity!

You assume that they are secretly advocating for something, on the basis that quality of life isn't something private equity cares about (according to your own assumptions). Even if it isnt, so what?

I took would be interested in seeing the proposed model of the different scenarios and I am also not secretly advocating for any particular outcome.

[altairprime]

Unknowingly, more likely; not ‘secretly’. I don’t think there’s any intent to withhold an opinion, but the willingness to question precepts at all is itself an opinion (and one that I agree with regardless of topic). Literal religious wars have been fought over that sort of willingness, so I tend to state it more plainly than is typically comfortable.

[MattPalmer1086]

Got it, thanks. So stating "quality of life is also an important factor, this should be part of any analysis" would be a more up front way to motivate the request.

[altairprime]

Yeah!