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

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#141

Post by BobbyJo »

Nevermark wrote: post #109
BobbyJo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would mitigate the problem if institutions could be strengthened by design to be less sensitive to corruption or special treatment. 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 kn…

I don't think the onus is on any one of us to come up with fixes to a problem this large. The government employs hundreds of incredibly smart people whose job it is to fix these types of issues. I, and I think most other people as well, would even be fine with small corrections here and there that tested what worked.

A fundamental problem, that we are all burdened to solve, is how do we get from an ideological government to a scientific one. Until we do that, we're all just plugging holes in a sinking ship.

Re: Elon’s Out

#142

Post by ta8645 »

georgeburdell wrote: post #132

Musk holds a key piece of America’s future in space in SpaceX. I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before he starts dangling that to get what he wants in cases like this. I still am generally favorable toward Elon, but I think we’re seeing him transform into a villain

I don't know about a villain, but he definitely isn't a saviour. Was hoping he'd follow through in reforming Twitter. But it turns out, even with all his resources, he's actually pretty weak in comparison to the forces set against him.

Re: Elon’s Out

#143

Post by govg »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #127
theptip wrote: post #29

There's been a lot of speculating around here on exactly what it would take for Musk to get out of this deal; here's the TLDR of the analysis from Levine: > Musk cannot get out of the deal just because one of Twitter’s representations is false. He still has to close the deal unless the representation is false and it would have a “material adverse effect” on Twitter. This is a famously under-defined term but it genera…

> If the bots are 6% of mDAUs, whatever. It seems like the purchase price should be of the order of 6% less in that case. 6% of $44 billion is not a trivial amount of money.

These are figured that Twitter has been filing with the SEC for ages. How does it make sense if the purchase was agreed upon when all this was public information?

Re: Elon’s Out

#144

Post by jollybean »

avalys wrote: post #110
jollybean wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's worse than that. 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.

Hey Zeus.

How could Musk possibly have done this, which must have been against the advice of his Bankers?

"I'm sending men to mars, ergo, I know more about M&A than i-bankers?

This is the kind of hubris that takes people down.

Re: Elon’s Out

#145

Post by BobbyJo »

MrMan wrote: post #118
Nevermark wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would mitigate the problem if institutions could be strengthened by design to be less sensitive to corruption or special treatment. 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 kn…

This is a forum for white guys trying to become more powerful, and who hate government or any limits on their actions

I'd like to see the data on that one. I think most people here recognize that limits on individual power can increase freedom.

Such a reductive view, on any group, isn't productive.

Re: Elon’s Out

#146

Post by akelly »

petilon wrote: post #71

This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke. I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billi…

If that was his plan, why didn't he put an out in the contract?

Re: Elon’s Out

#147

Post by towaway15463 »

bmitc wrote: post #93
QuarterReptile wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax. Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. >I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea…

> Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence. What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned. Those things and countries you…

It’s rather ironic that a discussion of Elon Musk prompted you to make that assertion.

Re: Elon’s Out

#148

Post by [deleted] »

MrMan wrote: post #121
bmitc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be your opinion, but I think it stands in disagreement with several events and facts of the Republican party. There are oodles of articles and books addressing the growing extremism of the Republican party, so I don't think it's even a controversial opinion. By just saying "oh, they're just another political party with different beliefs" is enabling their extremism. Any rational discussion with a Republican,…

You are pissing in the wind. This place is essentially r/conservative and most of these people are totally fine with how things are progressing. I think the US is completely fucked and no rich people I know care, at all

[deleted]

Re: Elon’s Out

#149

Post by theptip »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #127
theptip wrote: post #29

There's been a lot of speculating around here on exactly what it would take for Musk to get out of this deal; here's the TLDR of the analysis from Levine: > Musk cannot get out of the deal just because one of Twitter’s representations is false. He still has to close the deal unless the representation is false and it would have a “material adverse effect” on Twitter. This is a famously under-defined term but it genera…

> If the bots are 6% of mDAUs, whatever. It seems like the purchase price should be of the order of 6% less in that case. 6% of $44 billion is not a trivial amount of money.

This isn’t how “material adverse event” works, which is the term that was written into the contract that Musk signed.

Normally “is the mDAU figure correct” is the kind of thing you answer before you sign the merger agreement and lock in your purchase price.

Also note that the baseline in SEC filings was 5% bots, so 6% is only 1pp higher. The claim was never that it was zero.

Re: Elon’s Out

#150

Post by hotpotamus »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #140
alphabetting wrote: post #4

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…

> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…

Anytime the idea of a wealth tax is brought up, I see commenters coming out of the woodwork to say that it would be impossible to actually collect it from the wealthy. Though I will note that it seems like we are able to collect yachts and planes from Russian oligarchs now, so perhaps our techniques have advanced in the last few months.
Post reply on HN