|
|
|
|
|
|
by byteclub
5644 days ago
|
|
|
"Increasing the value of the firm they are investing in? Great job guys." Did Goldman increase the number of Facebook's users or add a new awesome feature? Did they address the privacy concerns of Facebook's users? Did they make Facebook experience better for the users? No, no and no. All they did is increase the "perceived financial value" of the company, which as we know from not too long ago, is intangible and fleeting at best, and total BS at worst (Reminds me of the $100bn "valuation" that 37signals got http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1941-press-release-37signals-...) As far as I am concerned, Goldman can do whatever it wants as long as its actions don't have negative effects on the rest of us. Internet bubble of 90's hurt many people, and so did mortgage bubble of late 2000s. I don't want Goldman to contribute to and profit from another one of those. How do we make sure it doesn't happen? |
|
|
* Rolling up other companies in their space (Yelp, Twitter, 4square, Instagram, Rdio, who knows)
* Buying their way into a strategic but lateral market (search, advertising, mobile, hardware, ISP, who knows)
* Drastically improving hiring and retention by improving comp packages and adding headcount
* &c &c &c
Your comment seems basically nonsensical, suggesting as it does that there is no way to improve Facebook that isn't visible in a commit log.
I also object to the comparison between the Internet bubble and the mortgage bubble; the structural causes of both were different, the underlying value of the tulips being sold in both were different (at the end of the Internet bubble we had, you know, an Internet), and most importantly the mortgage bubble was a financial black hole that sucked every homeowner involuntarily into its gravitational field, whether or not they were jackass speculators.