Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 451 posts

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#71

Post by monero-xmr »

nabakin wrote: post #68
monero-xmr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept we live in a society which decides at some arbitrary point that my property becomes the collective’s. However I philosophically disagree with this present state of affairs

Ownership is a useful framework for sure, but if it comes at the expense of destroying competition, I think we can agree that's not healthy for the economy and society as a whole.

I disagree with the concept of “monopoly” or rent seeking in a free market. And the only way a market becomes non-free is with government regulation

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#72

Post by delfinom »

oooyay wrote: post #36

My experience with mergers and acquisitions is that it's akin to keeping a warm body on life support. When I worked at a company that did a lot of M&A I was sitting around like, "Why couldn't you have just built that?" When I worked at a company that was recently acquired and went through the merger process I was like, "wow I see why you bozos would've never built this yourselves." That isn't to say there aren't comp…

The only ones that benefit are the executives from temporary boosts of revenue numbers hitting targets for their bonus payouts.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#73

Post by digitaltrees »

timr wrote: post #27
bix6 wrote: post #5

founders would ultimately benefit from “a world in which you have six or seven or eight potential suitors” rather than “just one or two.” Real talk Lina

yep. So perhaps don’t block every potential transaction on flimsy pretense? Icing the transaction market seems like a great way to scare off potential competing acquirers in the name of social engineering. I don’t know. All I know is that Lina is out of power, and suddenly we see an upswing in M&A. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Her point is that m&a isn’t the best thing for the economy or founders. Unchecked m&a creates cannibal capitalism where one mega zombie firm scoops up all competition.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#74

Post by kelnos »

monero-xmr wrote: post #62
rcxdude wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a company for its customer base is rarely good for the customers, though. That's the main point, I think. Why should society allow someone to take control productive entity simply so they can extract more value from it? There needs to be some value for the customer or the public as a whole for that to be a good thing.

If I build a company I should be able to sell it to whoever I want for any reason. It’s my company

A "company" is a legal framework that we, society, has decided is allowed to exist. That also means that we are allowed to put any requirements and restrictions on it that we like. The health of our society is what matters, not the wealth of any particular founder.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#75

Post by Sherveen »

Everyone in this thread who posts some variation of "wow love it how the government gets to decide if you get to sell your startup or how the market should work" should be handcuffed to their chair and forced to answer these 3 questions:

1. is there any role for gov't antitrust in your view of modern capitalism? 2. if there is a role, why is Adobe x Figma not the perfect example for enforcement? 3. if your answer is "Adobe clearly isn't a monopoly, look at the existence of Figma as evidence," why are you dumb?

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#76

Post by kelnos »

monero-xmr wrote: post #71
nabakin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ownership is a useful framework for sure, but if it comes at the expense of destroying competition, I think we can agree that's not healthy for the economy and society as a whole.

I disagree with the concept of “monopoly” or rent seeking in a free market. And the only way a market becomes non-free is with government regulation

The world has never, ever seen a free market, and probably never will.

The idea that completely unencumbered markets would actually give good outcomes for society is a complete fantasy.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#77

Post by kelnos »

DenverR wrote: post #26

Love the FTC getting to decide if you’re permitted to sell your startup or forced to deliver more shareholder value.

I do love it. Companies don't exist solely to enrich their founders, they exist to provide a benefit to society. There needs to be a balance, of course, but if allowing a sale does not benefit society, then we should not allow it.

> your startup

You're under the misconception that companies "belong" to individuals. Companies are legal frameworks that society has decided upon. We could legally decide that M&A just isn't allowed, ever, if we wanted to. (I don't think that would be a good idea, but I hope you see my point.)

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#78

Post by DenverR »

breadwinner wrote: post #29
DenverR wrote: post #26

Love the FTC getting to decide if you’re permitted to sell your startup or forced to deliver more shareholder value.

If a big company in dominant position is allowed to gobble up any and all upstart competitors that's bad for competition, and it is the FTC's job to preserve competition.

How was Figma able to generate any value operating in Adobe’s powerful monopoly?

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#79

Post by refurb »

digitaltrees wrote: post #73
timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. So perhaps don’t block every potential transaction on flimsy pretense? Icing the transaction market seems like a great way to scare off potential competing acquirers in the name of social engineering. I don’t know. All I know is that Lina is out of power, and suddenly we see an upswing in M&A. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Her point is that m&a isn’t the best thing for the economy or founders. Unchecked m&a creates cannibal capitalism where one mega zombie firm scoops up all competition.

Yet there are plenty of examples of monopoly or near monopoly businesses getting their butts handed to them by startups.

Yahoo, BlackBerry, Kodak, Nokia, Sears.

So it’s clearly not “once you have a monopoly it’s game over for competition”. Markets aren’t stagnant, and as they change it provides opportunities for new competitors to do that “new thing” better than the monopolies.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#80

Post by neom »

digitaltrees wrote: post #73
timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. So perhaps don’t block every potential transaction on flimsy pretense? Icing the transaction market seems like a great way to scare off potential competing acquirers in the name of social engineering. I don’t know. All I know is that Lina is out of power, and suddenly we see an upswing in M&A. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Her point is that m&a isn’t the best thing for the economy or founders. Unchecked m&a creates cannibal capitalism where one mega zombie firm scoops up all competition.

An interesting read on this kinda thing in South Korea: https://www.reddal.com/insights/growing-korean-smes-and-star...
Post reply on HN