this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
743 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

59483 readers
5449 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
743
Musk's new idea (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by BlackRose to c/technology@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (8 children)

He's worth $240B.

Him spending $44B on Twitter is similar to someone worth $100k spending $18k on a car or a house remodel or something. Its proportionally a decent amount of money, but it's not gonna break him if he totally loses it all.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah but he took loans from the billionaire equivalent of loansharks to buy it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But it will humiliate him, and that's the only way to hurt him.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

He doesn’t seem to be trying that hard to not totally fuck Twitter, though.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure the rest of his $200B will make him feel better.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Money can't make you happy. And he doesn't act like he's a happy person as it is.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think money can help a whole hell of a lot of people find and fund happiness.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Elizabeth Holmes was "worth" 4.5B, now I'm worth more than her.

That's the life of frauds. One day you're a billionaire, the next day you're in jail with 0.

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Its networth, not cash. $240B in stonks can fluctuate very often

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oh no, they might dip severely and he’ll only have $60B or as a little as $10 billion!

His problem seems to be more cash flow. As a prominent shareholder and executive, he can’t sell large amounts of his stocks without PR and legal risk. He could do what people like Bill Gates do and sell them slowly on a set schedule, though.

[–] sol@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago

they may even fluctuate up, especially if you own a bunch of monopolies backed by the goverment

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, the reason it’s not going to break him is that Twitter took on the loan, not himself.

[–] valkyre09@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

Yes

I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Not the same, a house can't be a legal person, the owner is the legal person of the house. The money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. To do the same with a house, you need to do it through a company.

That is possible because companies can have limited financial responsibility, meaning the money they owe are not owed by their owners.

It's a pretty nifty arrangement, to help the rich stay rich no matter what happens.

Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

We are stupid for not being rich enough, and still allowing the rich unfair advantages.

[–] zaph@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

There's a type of insurance for everything.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

Only if it was destroyed intentionally.

Of course, it could be argued that Musk is destroying Twitter intentionally, but that's for a court to decide.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's what bankruptcy is for. Twitter files bankruptcy, and they can officially tell the banks to stuff it.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not quite. The the $33 Billion of equity Elon Musk put up junior to the $13 Billion loan.

That means that if the company starts at $44 Billion then falls to $15 Billion, then Twitter still owes $13 Billion, but Elon Musk only has $2 Billion now.

Leveraged buyouts are... well... levered. It grossly increases the risk of losing everything.

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

he has that much in stock, he doesn't have that much cash. he also has to make huge payments on what he borrowed to buy twitter so that may affect cashflow and then value of his other companies..

[–] sol@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago

Not having that much in cash is a good way to not pay more taxes. If any of his stock is valued 1 cent less than what it's supposed to be worth in the stock market i'm down to buy all of them.

[–] sol@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 year ago

With the difference that a car is not the second most popular social network in the world and a big business