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

New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#101

Post by AndrewKemendo »

marknutter wrote: post #95
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The government was a customer that paid for a product/service. Are you saying all entities that sell to the government are being "propped up" by the government?

Yes

There are no non-corrupt government contractors if for no other reason then the government contracting market is not a open and free market it is regulated specifically by the federal acquisitions regulation which was in large part written and consistently adjusted by non-elected corporate leaders: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/dod-seeks-contractors-...

Read war is a racket and it will be clear: https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#102

Post by saalweachter »

inglor_cz wrote: post #14
saalweachter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super voting shares were a mistake to allow in general.

Why? Accredited investors don't seem to mind, and they should be able to judge the pluses and the minuses.

Accredited investors did mind for the longest time; dual class shares were banned outright for like 40 years by the NYSE (and they'd declined to list individual companies before that because of investor outcry).

They only allowed them again in the 80s as part of the larger wave of "let's stop regulating capital".

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#103

Post by ben_w »

ralfd wrote: post #39
khriss wrote: post #21

> Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars This trope needs to die. SpaceX has no plans to go to Mars. Elon meanwhile regularly says forward looking stuff to attempt to justify the lofty valuations of his companies. Let's just say there is a ... mixed track record on these proclamations (Full self driving, Hyperloop anyone?)

This trope has to die. SpaceX Starship design is optimized for Mars (instead of Blue Origin NG) and the gigantic Starship Factory and multiple launch pads under construction in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (plus potentially foreign countries) only make sense with Mars.

While yes, I agree Mars appears to have been Musk's long term goals:

> the gigantic Starship Factory and multiple launch pads under construction in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (plus potentially foreign countries) only make sense with Mars.

There's a few other things that also make sense as use-cases for that infrastructure. Orbital manufacturing is already starting to get interesting. I don't want to bet either way on space-based data centres, the research I've seen from Google says that makes sense at $200/kg which Starship can only reach if SpaceX solves re-use and that's clearly difficult but I don't want to say impossible.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#104

Post by lotsofpulp »

kristofferR wrote: post #80
altcognito wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why he (and other billionaires) are pining to get Social Security replaced with an indexed based retirement fund?

Not to mention that they always harp on it being supposedly unsustainable and insolvent, while deliberately not mentioning that it is solely because the social security is the most regressive tax, where the more you earn the lower your rate. If it was a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage of instead of a regressive tax where only working people pay the rate, then social security would be well funded. Obv…

This is not correct. For people who earn less than the SS wage cap ($184.5k in 2026), Social Security is a progressive tax due to the bend points in the benefit formula. You explicitly get less benefit for each additional dollar you pay in tax.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html

But every dollar of income earned over the SS wage cap reduces effective tax rate. The more you earn, the less the effective Social Security tax rate is for you. At Elon Musk levels, it rounds down to zero. Therefore, there would be no motivation for super rich people to get rid of social security.

The only material reduction in tax rate would be for those relying on annual earned income of a few hundred thousand dollars or less (i.e. the bottom 95% of income earners).

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#105

Post by ben_w »

pjc50 wrote: post #100
kjksf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk just tied his compensation to having 1 million people on Mars. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Do explain to me his evil plan of becoming rich by lying about going to Mars and yet agreeing to only get paid when he does go to Mars.

We currently have 0 people on the moon. The Antarctica population peaks at about 5,000, which is a paradise compared to Mars, with drinkable water and breathable air. It even has naturally occurring food! You can get there with a mere boat! One million people on Mars within our lifetimes is a total fantasy. Like the Nigerian Prince emails, its main purpose is to identify marks.

> Like the Nigerian Prince emails, its main purpose is to identify marks.

I may be overly-generous to the guy (bad habit, billionaires don't need or benefit from best-faith interpretations of the stuff they do, leads to sycophancy), but I think this may be more like grandiose delusion than a 419 scam.

The continual promises of full-self-driving, however, those definitely seem like a 419: up-front fees for promises never delivered on, repeated again with newer better hardware. What version is the hardware on now?

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#106

Post by RhysU »

bell-cot wrote: post #62
RhysU wrote: post #28

> The New York and California pension systems would become holders of SpaceX shares through their passive allocations if the company is admitted to major U.S. stock indexes. If they have discretion, these pensions can replicate the S&P500 minus SpaceX if they don't like SpaceX's governance. If they're forced to passively hold precisely the S&P500 then shaddup and stop active managing. Next.

> If they have discretion... True. But doing so would be a fair amount (by index standards) of overhead and hassle. Plus they'd get endless complaints any time the S&P500 was outperforming the "S&P 499" that they were using. Plus they'd put themselves in the crosshairs of a whole range of activists who wanted them to switch to an "S&P 498", or ...497, or ... - by excluding various other companies the activists didn't…

> But doing so would be a fair amount (by index standards) of overhead and hassle.

Any product provider, like Blackrock, would jump at the opportunity to sell them an S&P499 given the scale of those pension funds.

> Plus they'd put themselves in the crosshairs of a whole range of activists...

Not to mention putting their own jobs on the line if SpaceX outperformed the rest of the index.

The first point, that an S&P499 is easy for them but they won't do it, means they have no conviction. The second point (where I agree with you), that it's obvious we-tried CYA lacking any real teeth that'll go nowhere, means they have no courage.

They're an asset manager: put your money where your mouth is. If their hypothesis is that SpaceX governance will be bad then short the bloody thing and use the proceeds to buy the S&P499. It's not a complicated trade given their industry position and ability to call third-party providers.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#107

Post by Ajedi32 »

altcognito wrote: post #94
elevation wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social Security replaced with an index Yes please! I learned just how bad of a deal Social Security is when an employer (a bootstrapped startup) offered a predatory 401k plan. It was free for my employer to setup but the employees were stuck with extremely high fees. It was so bad that John Oliver made an episode[0] about it! Yet, even for the worst 401K plan in America, the projected retirement returns were 1600%…

Are you aware that SSI is an insurance (or lifetime annuity) not an investment? SSI covers disability, and supplements income no matter what happens. Disability? You're covered. Live to 105? You're covered. Market dips 50% in a period you have a lot of expenses? Your benefits are unaffected. Tax advantaged 401k is already the vehicle of choice for retirement funds.

1600% higher returns can cover a lot of eventualities.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#108

Post by rjmunro »

bell-cot wrote: post #62
RhysU wrote: post #28

> The New York and California pension systems would become holders of SpaceX shares through their passive allocations if the company is admitted to major U.S. stock indexes. If they have discretion, these pensions can replicate the S&P500 minus SpaceX if they don't like SpaceX's governance. If they're forced to passively hold precisely the S&P500 then shaddup and stop active managing. Next.

> If they have discretion... True. But doing so would be a fair amount (by index standards) of overhead and hassle. Plus they'd get endless complaints any time the S&P500 was outperforming the "S&P 499" that they were using. Plus they'd put themselves in the crosshairs of a whole range of activists who wanted them to switch to an "S&P 498", or ...497, or ... - by excluding various other companies the activists didn't…

I'd like to be able to invest in an "index minus certain companies which I choose" fund so that people can exclude companies that they don't like for whatever reason.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#109

Post by kristofferR »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #104
kristofferR wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that they always harp on it being supposedly unsustainable and insolvent, while deliberately not mentioning that it is solely because the social security is the most regressive tax, where the more you earn the lower your rate. If it was a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage of instead of a regressive tax where only working people pay the rate, then social security would be well funded. Obv…

This is not correct. For people who earn less than the SS wage cap ($184.5k in 2026), Social Security is a progressive tax due to the bend points in the benefit formula. You explicitly get less benefit for each additional dollar you pay in tax. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html But every dollar of income earned over the SS wage cap reduces effective tax rate. The more you earn, the less the effective Soci…

That's what I'm saying, they pretend that the only way to fix SS is to cut services/replace it, because actually fixing it without cuts would involve removing the lobbyhole/cap that makes their rate close to zero.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#110

Post by compsciphd »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #107
altcognito wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that SSI is an insurance (or lifetime annuity) not an investment? SSI covers disability, and supplements income no matter what happens. Disability? You're covered. Live to 105? You're covered. Market dips 50% in a period you have a lot of expenses? Your benefits are unaffected. Tax advantaged 401k is already the vehicle of choice for retirement funds.

1600% higher returns can cover a lot of eventualities.

it doesn't cover you getting disabled so you can't work anymore at the age of 30 after working 8 years.

1600% higher return is great when you work from yours 20s to your 50s/60s and can essentially self insure yourself at that point with it, but as the person you are responding to you is (I believe) trying to say, that's not everyone.

Post reply on HN