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

251–260 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#251

Post by mustache_kimono »

sroussey wrote: post #211
throwaway09223 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about Musk pressuring Cooley to fire a lawyer who previously worked against him at the SEC. But the result was that Cooley told Musk no. Hardly a success story for Musk. There's no shortage of law firms willing to go up against billionaires. Hell, there's no shortage of firms willing to go up against criminal enterprises like drug cartels. The idea that Musk is somehow more threatening than the types t…

Cooley then lost business from Musk firms.

Of course they said no. They'd never be able to get an attorney to come work for them again.

This Musk will ruin careers stuff is way, way overblown. If they lose his business, he wasn't worth working with in the first place.

Re: Elon’s Out

#252

Post by 082349872349872 »

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…

Note that in TFA, the continuation of this very silly statement is footnoted [6], which literally starts with "I made this joke before...", so none of us ought to be taking it seriously.

Re: Elon’s Out

#253

Post by Anon1096 »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #207
nerdawson wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve creating artificially inflated asset prices You can buy shares in other car manufacturers. Why would Tesla disproportionately benefit from inflated asset prices?

Because car companies are boring, and in an era of cheap money the meme wins. “Sexy” automakers also got insane multiples, look at where Lucid and Rivian were trading. But the capital is diverted to whatever asset people think will keep going up, not the one that will create value in the form of profits. This is also why GameStop, AMC, DogeCoin, Shiba Inu, NFTs, Pokémon cards, etc. were trading so high, the meme is t…

You've basically written a lot of words here to say that Musk is making companies people want to invest in, and somehow that's the Fed's fault.

Re: Elon’s Out

#254

Post by loceng »

roca wrote: post #166
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

The "cave diver paedophile" incident made it abundantly clear to everyone willing to see that whatever else he may be, Musk is a malicious clown. It was always only a matter of time before that had greater consequences.

No post body was provided.

Re: Elon’s Out

#255

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

double_nan wrote: post #205
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Laffer curve is a fact-free zone except for at it's two end points. The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.

It’s fascinating. Not only that is fact free, but it’s based on an assumption that the purpose of the government is to collect maximum tax value from the citizens. Is it thought?

It's not based on this assumption at all. In fact, the Laffer curve is named after an economist who did his best to provide "intellectual heft" to politicians who wanted to reduce taxation as far as possible (and maybe a little further than that), later summarized by one of them as "shrink[ing] the government to the point where we can drown it in the bathtub".

Re: Elon’s Out

#256

Post by rurp »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #215
sroussey wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cooley then lost business from Musk firms.

So what? This is business as usual for law firms. They will lose clients every time they take a case due to conflicts of interest and so on, even if everyone has a happy outcome. What Musk did was petty and questionable, but it didn't fundamentally change anything for Cooley. It's not a big deal.

It's unlikely Musk expected Cooley to cave to his ridiculous demand. It's very likely the intended target for this action was every person who deals with Musk's future illegal actions.

Re: Elon’s Out

#257

Post by xorbax »

slotrans wrote: post #219
throwaway09223 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. It's completely disconnected from reality. There isn't even one single court imposed fine which he hasn't paid.

But he has agreed to SEC sanctions and then subsequently ignored them...

One suspects Twitter may have more means and motivation to get what they're owed from Musk than a purposefully-emaciated regulatory body.

Re: Elon’s Out

#258

Post by 8jef »

hnbad wrote: post #233
HWR_14 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cash rules everything around me. Serious question: Are you in the US? Any Western European country? There's a tendency for people in corrupt areas to assume the whole world works like that.

Not the parent, not just cash, but capitalism literally means capital is (political) power. Just because you don't bribe police officers with cash that doesn't mean your political system isn't corrupt. In the West we just find it more comfortable to talk about lobbying and public-private partnerships instead of calling it what it is.

This

Re: Elon’s Out

#259

Post by rurp »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #234
dragontamer wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How goes his court ordered Twitter sitter that's supposed to prevent Musk from Tweeting about material effects related to Tesla? That's what I thought. Musk just ignores the law and gets away with things on a regular basis.

That was a stupid order that would never survive scrutiny under prior-restraint doctrine. Specific performance is something different, though... I can't think of any constitutional problems that might block enforcement of that.

Musk and his lawyers agreed to the provision, and a court approved the deal. That is pretty strong evidence it's not an absurd provision.

Re: Elon’s Out

#260

Post by loceng »

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…

I think there's an even better explanation, and liquidating $8.5 billion of Tesla stock may just be the icing on the cake:

Elon despises the SEC and he's now has exposed that the "less than 5%" of accounts are bots, that the SEC should have verified and accepted their methods for determining that number - and it should be adequate and reasonable to give a grounded-in-reality output, and it seems like it's a total bullshit statement.

I'd be surprised if Twitter stockholders don't sue the SEC.

Post reply on HN