101–110 of 767 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming that is the appropriate penalty (I know nothing about Chancery law), why exactly can’t they just issue a warrant for his arrest and put him in jail? He doesn’t have a private militia or anything like that
And who do you imagine would do the arresting bit on behalf of the Delaware court?
I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…
Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? Delaware courts are pretty fast. The court case could conceivably be finished before the end of this year.
Presumably Musk’s legion of lawyers can find some way to drag things out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like there's another buyer out there offering $44 billion. Twitter has no reason to settle, unless maybe the stock price goes way up.
It’s like a divorce. You can either reach a settlement or spend a ton of money fighting for years. You imagine how distracting it would be for Twitter to have this in their quarterly updates? They certainly aren’t selling the company until it’s resolved. My prediction - lots of public tough talk, then a quiet resolution.
There's basically no way they could possibly spend even a tiny fraction of the overall deal's worth fighting this even if it went on for years. Not spending that money to fight this would really be stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it ironic I don't even know which party you are referring to because it accurately describes both in my opinion? But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation wher…
I'm not sure it's ironic as much as it is either not paying attention or not being honest with the situation. One party being extreme does not make the other party the good party. It just means that one party is extreme, which is a fact. The Democrats are not a paragon of a political party. They are as inefficient, middle of the road moderate, corrupt, etc. as any political party. But the Republicans, or at least a p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it ironic I don't even know which party you are referring to because it accurately describes both in my opinion? But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation wher…
I'm not sure it's ironic as much as it is either not paying attention or not being honest with the situation. One party being extreme does not make the other party the good party. It just means that one party is extreme, which is a fact. The Democrats are not a paragon of a political party. They are as inefficient, middle of the road moderate, corrupt, etc. as any political party. But the Republicans, or at least a p…
I'd like to learn how to read billionaires' minds. Anyone know a good book I can read so that I can have the skills of this opinion writer?
“I want more” You’re welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
In very direct, real terms, assets are power. They represent resources to do things. The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
There are lots of successful examples - constitutions, voting, term limits, separate judiciary, non-political commuters, etc
The big problem I see in the design of egalitarian systems, is explicitly addressing the need for continuous response to new forms of centralization. I don’t know of any significant systems that were designed with any explicit statement of prioritizing that (vs. just general support for fixes, amendments, etc.)
For instance, the centralization of US political power into only two parties, where (temporary) single party rule of three branches is actually a practical possibility should have triggered some major reforms before it spun out of control.
A simple requirement that no coordinated individual or organization have sway over more than 25% of political seats, and political organizations at the federal and state levels must be separated, would do wonders for decentralization and better representation.
But the constitution is silent on any guidance or requirement on addressing new power centralization problems.
It is the hard root problem of power, but not systemizing progress on it is to accept inevitable dystopia
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a common misunderstanding because the reporting around this is so bad. > Musk and Twitter agreed to a so-called reverse termination fee of $1 billion when the two sides reached a deal last month. Still, the breakup fee isn’t an option payment that allows Musk to bail without consequence. > A reverse breakup fee paid from a buyer to a target applies when there is an outside reason a deal can’t close, suc…
What did I misunderstand? Yes, I get that if there are 'material issues' maybe he can walk (even though he apparently waved a lot of that). He can't just walk away for 'no reason' and not pay the fine. The crashing price is probably not a legit reason.
He can't just walk away and _pay_ the fine.
He is obligated to close the deal and Twitter can force him to do so. If some external force stops the deal from happening - or if he can show that Twitter egregiously violated the agreement - he can get away with not buying Twitter, but he still has to pay them $1B.