111–120 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where? https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS791US791&biw=1...
In one of their SEC filings. You need to search EDGAR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true for every employee of every public company on the planet. We're discussing it here because Mr. Musk thinks the rules don't apply to him.
Sorry that's simply false. You have all your freedoms. You can get fired for exercising them but that doesn't mean you don't have them. If the shareholders wanted to fire Elon Musk they would, but they aren't so the SEC should butt out of the issue.
Also, the SEC is a regulator for a reason. Saying the company is cool with it (even when it’s really unclear if that’s actually true give the voting setup) is completely irrelevant to if the behavior is acceptable to society. After all, grifters are totally fine with gritting when they’re the ones doing it, but that doesn’t mean grifting a societal benefit.
[0] https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last two pages (pp. 11 and 12) are a great example of why you shouldn't be an arrogant dumbass towards the government. The SEC quotes his 60 minutes interview with Leslie Stahl where he says he doesn't respect the SEC. While I think the SEC has a legitimate grievance here, I'm also guessing this is partly vindictive. Play stupid games... And I say all that as a big supporter of Elon generally.
It goes to intent. Typically the law tries to at least somewhat take into account intent, like if someone omits something from a filing by accident or in a deliberate attempt to conceal, for example. Pointing out his statements demonstrates that he's aware of the rules and is choosing not to respect them. That's usually a sign that someone should be on the higher end of the typical punishment range for a given act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...Can a corporation demand an employee waive their right to speech as a private citizen? I think even if so, that's a terrible idea.
This is true for every employee of every public company on the planet. We're discussing it here because Mr. Musk thinks the rules don't apply to him.
This is where a software solution might actually help. As an example, I've added some keywords to a script in my IRC client that if they exist the message is stopped by my client. In Elon Musks' case this should be Tesla (and probably some other court mandated muzzles) and should be on their Twitter clients, and other "designated publication channels" that the ruling covers. Why? Because remembering to not do things…
Why? Because remembering to not do things is a restraint that is extremely mentally burdensome and thus difficult to get correct 100% of the time. When you're the CEO of a publicly traded company, getting paid millions in stock comp to run that company, you don't get to use the excuse "it's mentally burdensome". The whole reason they're in that position, getting paid those obscene amounts, is that they're supposed to…
At this point, the board of directors should just demand deletion of his Twitter account. I admire Elon for his vision, and actually also admire his radical style despite of its unpopular image - I watched the video where he smoked pot on the radio show. It was a really amazing conversation about future of humanity. He just needs to stop tweeting. You may say it’s fixing the symptom, but here if we take Twitter away,…
...Can a corporation demand an employee waive their right to speech as a private citizen? I think even if so, that's a terrible idea.
Said citizen and his company avoided prison time and massive fines respectively by agreeing to said restrictions as the result of earlier fraudulent misrepresentations on a private account he demanded the corporation register as an official public account for regulatory purposes.
So...yes. Definitely they can enforce an agreement he voluntarily entered into for a medium he deliberately turned into a regulated source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, how is that market-moving given Elon's very public history of stirring the pot? You expect this from him.
I think for most crimes, saying "But I have a well known history of doing this" would make prosecutors less lenient, not more.
Just from an economic line of thought, even a cursory look at Tesla and Elon's history of public statements would make a reasonable investor think "Gee, the CEO talks a lot. Maybe don't read too much into it."
My knowledge of how publicly traded companies work is very limited, but: Was what he said really that bad? He said: >Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019 And then later corrected himself with: >Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k. This seems like a pretty simple mistake to have made,…
Unfortunately, the baseline for your understanding requires a reasonable amount of intelligence, a reasonable amount of empathy, and a reasonable amount of ability to frame situations in context.
The reality is that, surprisingly enough to people like yourself, the majority of the population does not actually have all three of those abilities. It was something that was unbelievable to me until I was close to something that dealt with public opinion.
You are absolutely correct on your take of the situation. The reality, unfortunately, is that the majority of the population is not capable (not their fault) of understanding the situation at that level.
This is why messaging out of corporations and politicians tends to be so odd. The majority of people are simply not capable of understanding things at your level.
Edit: I would strongly encourage people here to look up the median reading level in the United States. Then find an example text above that reading level(it's around 9th grade) and realize that half of the United States is below that level
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a human being who also happens to be the head of a public corporation. We can't expect every single action he takes at every point to be filtered into legalese. IMO, if he had said this in an earnings call, or presented it in a way that made it seem "official", then I could get the problem, but it's twitter .
We don't even hold our president liable for what he says on twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a pretty simple mistake to have made Elon Musk is the head of a public corporation, not a random Twitter user.
He's a human being who also happens to be the head of a public corporation. We can't expect every single action he takes at every point to be filtered into legalese. IMO, if he had said this in an earnings call, or presented it in a way that made it seem "official", then I could get the problem, but it's twitter .