alt Hacker News> it would make being a public company even more burdensome than it already is
Every company doesn't have to be public. The US taxpayer underwrites US securities markets, and companies that trade on our public markets have access to some of the deepest pools of low-cost liquidity in the world. But companies are obviously free to list elsewhere.
> the number of public corporations is already in decline.
Separate problem. IIRC HBS studied this and basically the issue is we stopped enforcing our anti-competition laws a while back[1]. So we end up with a fraction of firms that each sector would financially support. Both because it creates giants that are much harder to compete against, and because it allows mergers between competing firms that AFAIK could be deemed illegal under existing laws.
1 - See, for example the Robinson-Patman Act, whose dormancy allows big box retailers to exist. This law has never been repealed.
When companies stay private longer, private capital stays tied up for longer, decreasing public liquidity and keeping bad private investments afloat for longer. Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees. Right now badly performing companies can limp along tying up liquidity and locking up employee equity only to head to an eventual bankruptcy or bad IPO.