Asklemmy

So in the US, there are two kinds of corporations: Public (as in publicly traded on the stock market) and Privately owned (shareholders with stock unavailable to the public).

Publicly traded companies are required to be much more transparent to the public and their potential/active investors (to deter earnings fraud ala Enron), so therefore have plenty of data published for analysts to work with.

Privately held companies, by contrast, don't need to tell the public anything. By not being listed on the stock market, they can do almost anything they'd like with little danger of their business practices being scrutinized (It also doesn't help that the US is relatively weak when it comes to business regulation to begin with).

However, one advantage of this is that they aren't beholden to public investors demanding growth above all else - Publicly traded companies are legally bound to prioritize shareholder demands ahead of any other duties. Valve, for example, is able to perform a lot more pro-consumer moves with their services and software because they don't have Wall Street hounding them for quarterly returns.

Unfortunately, the reality is you can't have the best of both situations from the public's perspective. The US has more financial obscurity than is typically presented, and that often manifests as businesses dodging regulation, oversight, and accountability as much as possible. Mars, for instance, probably has skeletons in their closet on the supply chain front (abuse in the production of chocolate), that may give them incentives to remain as private as possible - no financial records, no transparency reports, no investor conferences.

(Also slightly away from the subject but consolidation is incredibly high in the US - many industries are effectively controlled by an oligopoly of companies)

Capitalism isn't a system that functions by any real plan of humans, but by what's profitable. Capitalism is a control system in a sense, relying on profits for information. In more "advanced," higher stages of capitalism, with less working class organization to resist it, laws better reflect whoever has the most capital. Statesian capitalism isn't "designed," it's a system of plunder that is more naked due to the US Empire being the global imperial hegemon. Denmark is imperialist, but secondary to the US (as well as other countries like France, Germany, the UK, etc), and has stronger worker organization, as well as proximity to the former soviet union, so it isn't quite as nakedly terrible.

How come this is not required in USA, the "home" of capitalism?

I dont know why, but the US is definitely the home of pure unadulterated capitalism, no air quotes needed. Why would private entities need to disclose anything to public interest? There is no reason to add competition to the market, most that try get bought up or sued out of business.

I know nothing about any of this except capitals sole interest is to make any money as easily or as shady as inhumanely possible.

Even in some EU countries it's not required.

At least in my country (CZ) there are more types of companies some have to disclose earnings, yearly economic outcomes... and some don't have to do it. Even there it is different on how much it is disclosed publicly or only to "shareholders" (owners usually) and how detailed it is.

Competition isn't really a thing in the US at the high level.

They all work together to make sure new competitors can't compete.

Most countries don't require it for privately traded companies.

The standard for reporting for private companies is usually far lower than publicly traded companies because it is expected that people with enough money to invest in financial companies have enough money to invest in their own auditing.

Also, as you pointed out, there is value in that data. It appears to be that companies would rather keep their data private than look at others' public data.

In general the concept is that related buyers have a right to be informed but anyone else in the market. So if you were to buy stake in a private company during that youd have the right to the books during that sale and covering that is fraud.

Kind of like how buisnesses would have no right to know how much equity i have unless it was relevent to any actual agreement.

Not saying i think its right way or better but i dont see total transparency of details not related to a direct sale and the partipants to be necceray for a market to be "free".

A startlingly high fraction of US businesses rely on a combination of tax evasion, accounting fraud, and wage theft to make the business work. Everyone knows this, but it's still sufficient reason to keep reporting minimal.

The USA is not capitalist in the sense most people (e.g. Adam Smith) mean. It is a protectionist oligarchy, that is capitalist only in the sense that it protects those with capital over all else. Monopolies and trade restrictions protect the capital class at the cost of the populace, and most laws are now written by corporations who hand them to their sponsored representatives. It is exactly what Adam Smith warned against.