Agree. That's the definition of a "acquisition bubble": when acquisition value is so far higher than societal value. For the record: I'm not disagreeing with you. Putting things like this in perspective just makes one wonder what has led us here… :)
"Societal value" is a veeerrrry loaded term here, to the point that trying to argue from it verges on tautology. Who are you to decide what the "value" to society of a large company is?
Besides, usually when people are flinging around that ill-defined loaded term, they're comparing something like a farmer to a social media platform, where one provides obvious concrete value and the other is providing value much higher up the Maslow hierarchy. But here we're talking about two entertainment companies, one built on two-way communication and one built on the older one-way consumption model, that peculiarly 20th-century aberration. Is it really so obvious that the valuations are that wrong? I'm totally unconvinced it is so obvious that it goes without saying.
Comments
Agree. That's the definition of a "acquisition bubble": when acquisition value is so far higher than societal value. For the record: I'm not disagreeing with you. Putting things like this in perspective just makes one wonder what has led us here… :)
"Societal value" is a veeerrrry loaded term here, to the point that trying to argue from it verges on tautology. Who are you to decide what the "value" to society of a large company is?
Besides, usually when people are flinging around that ill-defined loaded term, they're comparing something like a farmer to a social media platform, where one provides obvious concrete value and the other is providing value much higher up the Maslow hierarchy. But here we're talking about two entertainment companies, one built on two-way communication and one built on the older one-way consumption model, that peculiarly 20th-century aberration. Is it really so obvious that the valuations are that wrong? I'm totally unconvinced it is so obvious that it goes without saying.