Galaxy brain: both are bad, although at least a public company is, ostensibly, trying to make a good or provide a service (lol).

▲

gruez a day ago | parent [-]

>although at least a public company is, ostensibly, trying to make a good or provide a service (lol).

/s?

▲

venturecruelty a day ago | parent [-]

No? Companies aren't about making things anymore, they're about stock buybacks and making as much money as possible while doing as little as possible (or selling our data). That's why the refrigerators have ads and break after two years. At least private equity is more honest about being vulchers, whereas Kohler is going to look you dead in the eyes and try to convince you you need a toilet with a camera in it. What a joke.

▲

gruez a day ago | parent [-]

>At least private equity is more honest about being vulchers,

Again, what's the basis of this? Half the people in this thread seem to take it for granted that PE is somehow "worse" than public companies, but can't seem to articulate why. The only legal difference between public companies and "private equity" is that the former has stricter reporting requirements and can be bought by non-accredited investors. There's nothing about "ostensibly, trying to make a good or provide a service" or whatever.

	▲	edoceo a day ago \| parent [-]
		PE does this wealth extraction trick which breeds the ill-will. Eg: purchase a few mom&pop veterinarian business in some area. Squeeze the service rates, trim hours, reduce staff, add some debt. The PE investor gets cash out - the business is destroyed and the community loses a (critical? valuable?) service. It's a common pattern. But not all PE is like this. Like "not all men" and "not all guns" - but enough that the pattern is easily associated - and disliked by many w/o the power to keep them out.