What's new
By:
Filters

Musk and Twitter

Motorcharge said:


:homer:
Click to expand...

Motor, I need that link. Bandiacam.com is a no-go from my two browsers. Thanks.

Edit: I cant scroll through MSNBC without wanting to smash my laptop . . .
 
Splib said:
Motor, I need that link. Bandiacam.com is a no-go from my two browsers. Thanks.

Edit: I cant scroll through MSNBC without wanting to smash my laptop . . .
Click to expand...
No idea where to link you to. I pulled that clip already edited down from somewhere else. Never went to the link in the watermark. Hell, never go to the link in watermarks in general.
 
Captain said:
True.

But why not just sell at a massive profit...(while giving the SEC the middle fingers)...then with the proceeds start his own social media company...take his followers with him from twitter...(something that has already seemingly failed by parlor and truth)...but just might work with him as the CEO....and further dilute twitter into a leftist echo chamber.

I look forward to seeing how he plays this out...either way...entertaining to watch
Click to expand...
I think of him like a Bond villain. He is crafting a good plan but eventually will lose in the end.
 
IEATRKS84 said:
If the pill does kick in, it would be a fucking nightmare for twitter. The stock share price would plummet and all of the stock holders would have grounds to sue. Companies in the past have used this tactic to prevent hostile take overs, but the stakes here are so much different than any other situation weve seen.
Click to expand...

Twitter was created to sell, thats always been the goal, theres no way they don't sell. Can you imagine the pressure all the Karens and Kevins are getting from investors that don't give a shit about being PC ?
Pretty awesome to see
 
IowaOffRoad said:
Derail to clarify this:
This isn't true for either company anymore, though there's some shady shit that happened with regard to GM "paying back" the .gov.

Chrysler: They were small enough when the recession came to actually get buyers who could float the whole nut, which is why Fiat was interested. Fiat was negotiating with creditors to buy the company before the .gov came in, pushed by the unions, to accept their "help". Once the .gov got involved, all the deals that Fiat was trying to make with the creditors went off the table as the creditors thought they would recoup more of their losses once the money printer got involved. This backfired as the .gov pushed for repayment to creditors of less than they were negotiating with Fiat for. Sergio Marchionne pushed the new FCA to pay back the .gov as soon as they could, being free of any .gov debt (and control) in 2011. This was one of Sergio's first goals once acquiring Chrysler as they (rightly IMO) figured that the government being involved in their decision-making would be very bad.

GM: So big at the time that nobody wanted to assume the whole of GM, all the players wanted to buy pieces of it (remember when a Chinese company wanted to buy the Hummer brand?). Again, with prompting by the unions the .gov got involved. They 'restructured' the help they gave GM several times (I remember something about they traded shares in GM to a position in the GM retirement/pension plan which is somehow separate from the car company). In 2013 the .gov sold the last of the GM shares they took on, but at a drastically reduced rate. So, the .gov basically wrote off a bunch of the GM debt by doing so. I'm not sure of this, but I believe they still hold some position in the pension plan.

I agree that both companies should have been left to their own devices (as well as every damn bank they bailed out). If you don't tie your shoes, trip over them, but it never hurts, what incentive do you have to learn to keep your shoes tied? Yes, GM would be gone as we know it. Perhaps Chrysler would be radically different (though it already is). Perhaps there would be no "big banks" anymore? Would the world be better or worse today? Did anybody really learn anything from tripping over their laces in '08? No, which is why it will happen again.

There's a lesson from the great depression (or more recently the '80s farm crisis) that can be used with regard to this topic. I'm using it because it's very tangible to me, but can be understood by anybody. With all the farmers that went broke during both times all the land that needed to be farmed got farmed. I know this is hard to believe, but there was a major glut in farm production in the '20s and even the very early '30s. The land that was "abandoned" was marginal land that wasn't productive when commodity prices were low. The .gov burned, slaughtered, and buried tons of grain and thousands of farm animals in the mid '30s to try to increase the commodity prices by bringing on scarcity. This is the perfect example of a government solution. In the '80s there were tens of thousands of people who 'lost the farm' to the bank. Did those farms not get farmed? Far from it, the bank just leased them out to others until they could get the property sold. Again, some farms did sit idle, but they were marginal farms anyway. With the increase in farm production per acre it was overflow production. I'm assuming you can see the parallels here between this and banking/auto manufacturers. So the banks default, other banks will buy the assets that have value and will be able to provide loans. So the automakers go belly up, other will come in and scoop up what production capacity is necessary to serve the market. This is how capitalism works. If capitalism isn't working, its because someone is fucking with it.
Click to expand...
Need a ❤️ option instead of just like. You nailed it.
 
I’m not following at all. If he hits 15% , then only people with less than 15% get to buy the new shares? Yes, sounds illegal. To me, it seems that they are changing the rules on shares that he already owns. So I would say he gets his money back plus any possible gain and interest. That’s what I would sue for.
Boss said:
I put it on Rumble just now.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to forward that clip to Tucker.
 
Any chance these moves by Musk are a way to prove shareholder capitalism has failed. So stakeholder capitalism can be championed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh