Now is a good time to flood Wikipedia with donations. For the first time in my life, i have just donated to them and will do so again. You can do it too for a minimum of €2, no requirement for recurring donations or any nonsense.
He doesn’t need to pay. Twitter is already worth less than the debt, if he continues to break that company apart there’ll he no reason to even consider paying the debt off.
The way I understood it is that he didn’t get a loan to buy the company, but had a bank itself buy Twitter as a loan, so Twitter itself is the collateral. That’s what I did when I bought my apartment: a bank bought it from the constructor and let me live in it while slowly buying it from them over hundreds of installments. If I stopped paying the bank would kick me out and sell the apartment to someone else.
That isn’t quite right. If you stopped paying the bank would kick you out and sell the apartment to someone else, but if they get less than you owe them for it, they will also send you a bill for the remainder.
And then sue you to get that money.
Interestingly, if they get more than you owe them for it, they will cut you a check for the difference.
But you are actually wrong about how and what the order of operations is.
You are buying the house, the lender (bank) writes the check directly to the seller, and you sign a mortgage agreement for that much with the bank and they put a lien on your house. The bank does not own the house, you do. The bank owns a promissory note from you, backed by your personal wealth and credit and the value of the house (that they have a lien on).
In the case of Twitter, yes, Twitter itself is part of the collateral, but so was Elon musks personal wealth and Tesla shares.
I checked their reported expenses and couldn’t really find anything they “blow” money on. Their revenue is smaller than a midsize EU football team, and considering the value comparison between the two, that makes me think either we disagree completely, you have extra info that you did not share, or I don’t understand you.
I mean, I’m not sure what they use all that money to develop, but they definitely don’t need all this money to just develop and sustain. Despite activity having hit its peak in the 2000s, spending continues to increase, and extensive feature request and enhancement backlog still stands while developers focus on whatever the foundation’s whim is. Not to mention there’s some controversy over the Tides Foundation.
I’d argue that you have to be horrible already to have loads of money. Any reasonably good person would be using their excess wealth for a good cause rather than building ego rockets.
Money = power, and power corrupts. I’m sure there are some people who are horrible before they become wealthy, but I think money (and power) has a way of blunting peoples’ empathy.
Normal people stop exploiting others before they reach having unfathomable amounts of money. So somebody with different values and morals will never have so much money since it is impossible to make such money without being corrupt and a piece of shit
No. Assholes are assholes, and Elon is just an asshole with money.
Compare this man child to a billionaire like Yvon Chouinard, founder of the company Patagonia, and you’ll understand that money doesn’t change good people.
Thanks for the video. That guy seems to go off on a lot of tangents, sets up too many strawman and red herring fallacies. He also doesn’t actually prove that Yvon is somehow evil in a way that’s comparable to Elon, or that he lied about anything.
The only real criticism he had was to say that Yvon is purposely evading taxes and assigns that motive with absolute certainty (red herring).
It sounds to me like Adam has a problem with the system. Hell, he even said that it doesn’t matter if good work is actually being done, because he doesn’t like the idea of billionaires using their money for good. Then he goes on to give an example using Walmart (not an ethical company) and Bill Gate’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… bizarre how he even went there as a way to disprove what Yvon has done with the company.
I’m not saying that Yvon or Patagonia are perfect. Heck, I don’t give a damn about the CEO of any company, and I think I only own one of their products, so I have no loyalties at all.
But they are a for-profit business (they are very clear about that) who operates under some of the most ethical guidelines available, and they have a multi-decade proven track record of environmental stewardship and human labor practices.
We need more companies like them, even if Adam doesn’t.
Add comment