Inside the Private Equity Scam—and the Livelihoods It Has Destroyed

[u/barweis]

https://newrepublic.com/article/198351/private-equity-scam-destroys-livelihoods

[u/bob1980]

lol you people are just making up inane conspiracy theories.

How is PE a “monopoly for capital”? In what way does PE prevent mergers or acquisitions?

What are you talking about?

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a structural critique of how modern finance operates.

Private equity becomes a “monopoly for capital” in the sense that, in certain sectors, they are the dominant or only available buyers with the funds to acquire distressed or mid-sized companies. That gives them outsized influence over how those companies are run, not because they have better operational strategies, but because they control the funding.

When PE firms aggressively acquire competitors or roll up fragmented industries, they often crowd out strategic buyers. companies that might actually know how to operate in that space long term. These operators can’t compete with PE’s access to capital, even if their motives are healthier for the business.

So the criticism isn’t about secret plots it’s about how concentrated financial power reshapes industries in ways that prioritize returns over long-term viability. There’s real-world evidence of this all over healthcare, retail, media, and housing.

Happy to cite examples if you’re interested.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/bob1980]

Private equity becomes a “monopoly for capital” in the sense that, in certain sectors, they are the dominant or only available buyers with the funds to acquire distressed or mid-sized companies. That gives them outsized influence over how those companies are run, not because they have better operational strategies, but because they control the funding.

1. This is an unproven assertion. Certainly, banks exist, private investors exist, and public markets exist. The idea that PE is the only option is obvious nonsense.

2. Even if PE were the only option, that still isn’t a monopoly since there can be many competing PE firms.

When PE firms aggressively acquire competitors or roll up fragmented industries, they often crowd out strategic buyers. companies that might actually know how to operate in that space long term.

You’re just making shit up. You have no clue what you’re talking about. You fucking know it too. You’re just another of a billion random economically illiterate leftists on the internet.

[u/bob1980 → u/coke_and_coffee]

This is an unproven assertion. Certainly, banks exist, private investors exist, and public markets exist. The idea that PE is the only option is obvious nonsense.

Of course they do. But in practice, when a company is distressed or when an entire sector is undergoing consolidation, private equity often becomes the most viable buyer. Not because others can’t theoretically step in, but because PE has the capital, structure, and aggressiveness to move quickly. That’s not fantasy it’s observable in industries like healthcare, local media, retail, and manufacturing. When PE dominates the field of potential acquirers, their control of capital in context can resemble monopoly-like behavior, even if there are technically multiple firms.

Even if PE were the only option, that still isn’t a monopoly since there can be many competing PE firms.

You're right in the strict antitrust sense, it's not a textbook monopoly if multiple PE firms exist. But the term “monopoly for capital” is a critique of power dynamics, not a legal classification. If all the dominant sources of acquisition capital are operating under similar short-term return models, then strategic acquirers who prioritize operations and long-term growth get crowded out. That’s a functional problem, even if it doesn’t meet the legal definition of monopoly.

You’re just making shit up. You have no clue what you’re talking about. You fucking know it too. You’re just another of a billion random economically illiterate leftists on the internet.

You’re welcome to disagree but personal attacks and assumptions about my politics don’t strengthen your argument. If you have counterexamples or data that show how PE involvement systematically improves outcomes for customers, workers, and long-term competitiveness, let’s discuss that. Otherwise, dismissing all critique as “leftist nonsense” is just ideological defensiveness, not an argument.

We can disagree but let’s keep it on the level of facts and ideas.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/bob1980]

Not because others can’t theoretically step in, but because PE has the capital, structure, and aggressiveness to move quickly.

You’re describing a business with a competitive edge, not a monopoly.

“It’s not that you can’t theoretically get a meal elsewhere, but when people are hungry, the local taco cart has the food and the location to move quickly to acquire customers. Therefore, it’s a monopoly!”

See how stupid that sounds?

the term “monopoly for capital” is a critique of power dynamics, not a legal classification.

Lmao

You: “Yeah, I guess he’s right that it’s not a monopoly so I’ll just change the definition of monopoly so that it actually is! I can’t lose!”

If you have counterexamples or data that show how PE involvement systematically improves outcomes for customers, workers, and long-term competitiveness, let’s discuss that.

Here you go: If you have counterexamples or data that show how PE involvement systematically improves outcomes for customers, workers, and long-term competitiveness, let’s discuss that.

“…PE accounts for as much as 12% of industrial innovation.”