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

91–100 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#91

Post by whiplash451 »

jcranmer wrote: post #30
refurb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies. Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

> 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.

Also, if we’re talking dozens of billions of dollars, yes, it totally makes sense for a company to engage into a multi-year battle.

Re: Elon’s Out

#92

Post by bmitc »

nightski wrote: post #81
bmitc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should avoid something just because there are more problems. We should fix those other problems as well. The primary issue is that there is a single extremist party, not unlike those found in the Middle East, that is hell bent on undermining America for want of power. By systematically undermining education, public health and services, infrastructure, treating government projects as jobs programs, et…

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 powerful subset of them, have become an extremist group. And they are well-funded by conservative and libertarian ideologues who care about nothing other than power and money and can use their wealth to avoid any downsides in their quest.

Once you start looking into the ideologies of people like the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and his family, Peter Thiel, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Sheldon Adelson, Ronald Cameron, Steve Wynn, and others, you start seeing very weird and strange beliefs that are incompatible with a functional society. The primary thread is that these people do not care about others. Just look at the Koch brothers' political donations and the businesses they run. Is it then any surprise why the Republicans might not care so much about climate change and policies to mitigate it?

We have one extremist political party, and then the other, somewhat incompetent, party spends all their energy fighting back against the extremism of the other.

Re: Elon’s Out

#93

Post by bmitc »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #80
bmitc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I continue to be super concerned about this. 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. Makes one realize just how bought out Congress is. Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

>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 mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.

Re: Elon’s Out

#94

Post by tyleo »

xxpor wrote: post #61
tyleo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could put him in Chancery jail? The law is already undermined if no attempt is even made at upholding it.

But that's not how it works when you simply owe money (usually, modulo things like probation violations and child support, but lets ignore that for now). We don't have debtors prisons). They can seize his money though, garnish his wages (lol in this specific case though), etc.

I’m being loose with words but I do mean that he should see punishment. Not necessarily jail.

Re: Elon’s Out

#95

Post by moralestapia »

refurb wrote: post #28
xiphias2 wrote: post #11

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

Pretty much. It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies. Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

>Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

LOL, I'm sure the juice will be worth the squeeze on a $44 billion dollar house.

Re: Elon’s Out

#96

Post by dopidopHN »

rlt wrote: post #83
nightski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price. I also question whether cor…

> Meh the government doesn't need more money to conduct frivolous and corrupt spending with. I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.

Or do something useful and somewhat efficient with the money. Eg: good, reliable public school, roads, network infrastructures, renewable energy sources.

I’m a US tax payer since less than a decade. My experience is that I pay a significant portion of my incomes to taxes that only marginally benefit me or folks around me.

Recent uptick of direct distribution is nice.

But a leadership in the stewarding of the land would be tasteful and send the right message IMO.

It’s fascinating to see the Western European countries I’m familiar with being blinded by the economic might of the US but not realizing how little the average citizen benefit from it.

Re: Elon’s Out

#97

Post by moralestapia »

anonu wrote: post #54
nabla9 wrote: post #2

This is a second time Musk has offered to buy a public company in bad faith. His reputation as a sufficiently reliable counterparty is gone.

Musk doesn't care about that one iota. He has more money than god. And he's done that by being fairly effective as the head of two big companies.

>He has more money than god.

Yeah ok ... .

Re: Elon’s Out

#98

Post by tyleo »

dan-robertson wrote: post #77
t_mann wrote: post #74

Can we also take a moment to appreciate the tongue-in-cheek writing style of this (fairly thorough, by my impression) analysis of rather dry things like SEC filings, merger covenants,...?

(Note that he writes a newsletter like this roughly daily, though not ordinarily on weekends. It’s is free to subscribe to)

Money Stuff is really good. Some of my favorites are right around when GameStop started to spike.

Re: Elon’s Out

#99

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

bmitc wrote: post #51
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #49

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.

I continue to be super concerned about this. 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. Makes one realize just how bought out Congress is. Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

According to the Laffer curve it should probably be 70% or so to maximize government income, but yes.

If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay.

(I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)

Re: Elon’s Out

#100

Post by edgyquant »

tenpies wrote: post #82
moomin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those things that could genuinely cause problem for the entire US (corporate) legal system. There’s a genuine danger that the result of this case will be “some people are too powerful to be regulated by the US system, and this is now obvious”.

[flagged]

The fact your argument rests on a convicted billionaire is pretty ironic
Post reply on HN