Eh, I mean, I still think some kind of "market-based" capital system is reasonable - I don't want government-orchestrated markets for all goods and services, but clearly our society has not done enough to regulate the immoral extremes of free markets.
I’m amazed when people think that societal issues can be solved by better regulations. This time we’ll get it right and be benevolent! This time!
Completely ignores history / human nature.
The genius of part time politicians and limited government was that it protects us from ourselves. We are indeed our own worst enemy. The only incentive for public service should be public service. The lack of skin in game with huge upside leads to idiocy like million dollar bus stops, 10k toilets and anti-trust enforcers becoming m&a lawyers.
Career politicians and lobbying plus the “retirement” back door to Wall Street, consulting and big business in general has completely distanced the US government from those who it purports to serve. At this point it’s basically like an asshole king who uses the monopoly on taxes to enrich themself. Except that the asshole king is a cohort of a class of people and Wall Street.
In hindsight this is inevitable. At least the previous monarchy believes in noblesse oblige.
The state and its policy encourage free markets to be immoral because they fetishize "growth" as a metric. I'm not saying growth is bad, but morally speaking, it should be consisered at best neutral. A growth-agnostic capitalist system would be interesting.
Agreed. Our society should be measured in the happiness and health/living security of its citizens, and by technological advancement. The acquisition of wealth can be a means to that end, not the end itself.
There’a no consistent definition of market capitalism in these types of forums. The fact of the matter is that under a laissez faire model, this type of behavior is expected. Claiming otherwise is simply the no true Scotsman fallacy.
In a free market, a few players can buy the market and make it un-free. Capitalism certainly includes manipulating markets so as to increase the return on the capital.
Most certainly is private equity. Didn’t read the article?
The 4b special dividend that will be issued will go to two PE firms. According to the author’s analysis this will strip out the working capital and enrich the PE participants. Likely sending the company and by extension the workers to the debt markets.
I didn’t read the financials but if true this is just shithead financial engineering. :(
I was wrong to write that the deal is not private equity, it is setup by private equity firms, but it is up to all the other investors to see if they want to go ahead with the deal, hence the need for a shareholder vote.
I do not see how the special dividend can legally go to two firms. It would have to go to all shareholders.
Cerebrus does own 150M/475M shares = 30% of Albertsons, but for some reason, I do not see Apollo in the list of top shareholders.
This is anti competitive behavior, perpetuated by Wall Street that is enabled by the tax code.
Independent / other grocers can’t compete because the fundamentals of the business have nothing to do with the game being played.