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

361–370 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#361

Post by dehrmann »

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.

At least a court decided Elon can say anything he wants because he's full of shit so often, he has no credibility.

Re: Elon’s Out

#362

Post by qudat »

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 a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA.

Why waive due diligence then? What’s that saying don’t assume malice when it can be explained by ignorance.

Re: Elon’s Out

#363

Post by cdash »

rurp wrote: post #297
towaway15463 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably also an example of a rule that should be retired. Either that or they should remove clearance if you enjoy whisky.

I agree it's a dumb rule, but that seems orthogonal to whether Musk should have to follow an established rule. Repealing the rule would be best, but while it's in place equal enforcement is much better than enforcment for everyone except petty billionaires.

Equal enforcement just is never the way the world works, exceptions are made when its important enough.

Re: Elon’s Out

#364

Post by dehrmann »

ta8645 wrote: post #142
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.

Imagine a five-year-old with billions of dollars. He'd build electric cars (aren't they s3xy?), tunnels, trains, rockets, and flamethrowers, all while having playground spats.

Re: Elon’s Out

#365

Post by dodobirdlord »

treis wrote: post #342
dodobirdlord wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is certainly some limit to how much of his stake he could sell out of at once without spooking the market and destroying retail investor confidence, though it’s hard to say what that limit is. Without some cover story I suspect an $8.5 billion sale would be newsworthy and significantly impact the share price.

He sold like 14 billion last year. Had a Twitter poll and everything.

Arguably the Twitter poll and attendant media circus with Bernie Sanders about taxation was also to provide pretext for a large sale without spooking retail investor confidence.

Re: Elon’s Out

#366

Post by kcplate »

raziel2701 wrote: post #353
kcplate wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This to me seems the most reasonable explanation and explains most of the behaviors involved on both sides. I don’t buy into “it was just a joke that went too far” theory. Musk doesn’t want a turd. Twitter, essentially made a deal with the devil (from their perspective). Despite being initially opposed to this deal, they now has to sue to try and make it happen, because I suspect if it doesn’t “south of $30” is going…

Musk decided to pay $54.20/share (because weed joke) for twitter under the guise that he was going to fix the bot problem. Now he wants to back out of the deal because of the bot problem. He makes no sense.

He wants to back out because the size of his wallet has gotten smaller because of the market, twitter’s value is significantly less than when the offer was made, and apparently Twitter is holding back on providing some data. If he proves that last part, Twitter is screwed because there is no doubt it’s going to underscore the bot problem even further and I think their stock is going to dip into the low 20s.

Re: Elon’s Out

#367

Post by petilon »

mlindner wrote: post #358
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…

> Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA. This is outright false and goes directly against his multiple stated instances of saying that the Tesla stock price is overvalued. Don't make things up to suit your biases.

If you believe your company's stock is overvalued, how can you fault someone for selling the stock? Bill Gates sold TSLA stock that he borrowed. If you truly believe that TSLA is overvalued, then it makes no sense to fault someone for selling it.

Re: Elon’s Out

#368

Post by serf »

HWR_14 wrote: post #196
JaimeThompson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking weed makes you lose your security clearance, Musk did it on camera and still has his because of "reasons". That is one example of the rules that apply to most others not applying to him.

> still has his [security clearance] because of "reasons". Does he? I don't remember any resolution to that, but I thought they "temporarily" suspended it pending an investigation and then never completed the investigation.

> ...I thought they "temporarily" suspended it pending an investigation and then never completed the investigation.

that's the theme of this entire thread : rich person has a slap on the wrist announced publicly but then the punishment is never successfully fulfilled.

MS antitrust style.

Re: Elon’s Out

#369

Post by bmitc »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #220
towaway15463 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's so many layers of delightfully nested irony. Give more money to the federal government so they give more big tax credits for Tesla purchases, but Tesla can't exist any more in this fantasy world where nothing outside of the federal government can grow beyond $500 million in scope.

I clearly referred to personal wealth.

Re: Elon’s Out

#370

Post by bmitc »

towaway15463 wrote: post #147
bmitc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What is ironic?
Post reply on HN