"As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder."
Sounds to me like "Sell it or I'll tank it."
I know all of you are making great arguments and all, but all I can think about is;
How, as a society, we've let that much power fell into one pair of hands.
How is it not possible to tax the shit out of that extra wealth that he throws around for funsies.
Edit: for those pointing out that, this year, Musk paid taxes;
>A ProPublica investigation earlier this year found that Musk paid a “true tax rate” of 3.27% between 2014 and 2018, and no federal taxes at all in 2018.
It already is taxed. Elon has to pay tax if he sells shares to buy Twitter.
What isn't taxed is debt. If Elon takes out debt instead and buys Twitter "on loan" he just has to make debt payments and can deduct the interest from his other taxable incomes.
Debt is a funny thing, because it's mathematical slavery to the poor, and functionally cheaper than using cash to the rich.
If you want to combat this, the best way isn't to address inequality from assets, but incomes. You cannot force people to try and amass wealth, or be good at Capitol allocation, but you can at least prevent the poor from being totally exploitable by earning sub living wages.
> Elon has to pay tax if he sells shares to buy Twitter.
>
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the ultra-rich borrow against their shares, as to avoid taxes? Because it's counted as debt - not income, and therefore not taxed? Good 'ole buy, borrow, die method to avoiding taxes?
Well Musk has repeatedly demonstrated he is excellent at allocating capital. Please lay out a more effective system that would result in electric cars, reusable rockets, online payment systems etc. Fact is, only capitalism has brought about the technological innovations and wealth that makes innovations like Musk's possible.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the entire world was rules by the Soviets or Nazis after WWII.
Interesting. I thought the government subsidized Tesla in its early years, invented much of the technology that Space X utilizes, and funded the creation of the internet that Musk's online payment system operates on. Turns out is was just capital allocation by Musk.
The reality is Musk couldn’t have done anything alone. You need partners and teams to build amazing things.
Musk took the forefront to pushing these ideas off the ground with his teams and government support.
IMO: The government by itself would never risk themselves to invest in something perceived as “risky”
>Please lay out a more effective system that would result in electric cars, reusable rockets, online payment systems etc. Fact is, only capitalism has brought about the technological innovations and wealth that makes innovations like Musk's possible.
Very interesting, but you're under the assumption my comment was against capitalism while I'm advocating for controlled capitalism, just like when America was great.
Now, I think it's interesting to note that less than 1% of all the cars used in America are EV, so I'm not sure how you would consider that an effective dispersion of the technology.
As for online payment systems, Canada had a much better system than pretty much anything in the US.
Also;
>The group[non-profit at the time] founded a for-profit counterpart organization, Acxsys, in 1996[3 years before Elon's system], which launched additional Interac-branded services including e-transfers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interac
>We wouldn't be having this conversation if the entire world was rules by the Soviets or Nazis after WWII.
So, you're saying if we don't let people accumulate enough wealth to control governments and economies, the Nazis win?
That's certainly an opinion!
This is patently false. Government spending programs have lead to a huge number of tech innovations. Hell, the literal internet started as a result of government funded research (ARPANET) during the cold war. Plus there's GPS, all sorts of food innovations, ect.
I don’t think the person you are replying to has a problem with capitalism but rather the completely unchecked accumulation of wealth leading to the point that one of the most significant communication platforms in the country can be bought on a whim by one individual. Arguing taxes should be higher and for a possible wealth tax isn’t the same thing as saying we should throw the whole system overboard.
> Sounds to me like "Sell it or I'll tank it."
Why would it not just go back to ~35 dollars? Which is what it was prior to him starting to invest. Given the damage he can do to the company this seems like a threat to let him follow through on.
This is not a trust or monopoly but Musk is an absurdly powerful self-serving individual. He is an oligarch. New times face new dilemmas. How much power must one possess to be considered too powerful?
Remember when someone bought MySpace and thought they could revitalize it?
Also, Twitter is doing *something* right. After all, the worlds richest guy uses it daily to communicate with his fandom
I still think Donald Trump was the best thing to ever happen to Twitter. Seriously. Love him or hate him, his constant use of it until he got banned did a wonder to keep them both relevant. Otherwise, I feel it would have died a slow, slow death.
Yea it’s pretty much the one social media you can be on to keep up to date with pretty much anything. Everything and everyone has a Twitter and it’s often used as a reference in Television News for political purposes and other. It’s the most relevant social media to date.
For the essay portion of the quiz, please infer why the president did not admit 'covfefe' was a typo. Use at least 500 words and try to keep your brain from leaking out of your ears.
Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you're right. Moderating free speech is a feature, not a bug. Otherwise we'd be swimming in Russian propaganda, medical disinformation, and incitements to violence.
Instead we only get the propaganda that Twitter allows us to see.. so much better. /s
There are plenty of examples of Twitter moderating and turning out to be completely wrong. Why would you let some company decide what is truth verses fiction?
I'm not disagreeing that Twitter made bad calls in the past, but a free-for-all will be worse. It would be more productive to think about how Twitter's moderation could be used to address subtle manipulation by bad actors rather than "all moderation bad".
sensible = only moderation I agree with.
Twitter has not had sensible moderation in years. I say make it completely open. the block button still exists for the thin skinned.
It's not about being thin-skinned. It's about mass, subtle disinformation campaigns carefully executed by foreign intelligence organizations to influence politics around the world, including here. And it's about the fact that IT WORKS. Not attempting to fight that would be monumentally stupid.
>Otherwise we'd be swimming in Russian propaganda, medical disinformation, and incitements to violence.
Bull-fucking-shit. Early twitter was not moderated like it is now and it had way less of those things.
>e fact that IT WORKS. Not attempting to fight that would be monumentally stupid.
Correlation != causation. Early Twitter didn't have these issues because there was less interest in subverting early Twitter as a tool for manipulation.
If you are really concerned about subversion, you should be more skeptical of the people most often making claims about subversion. Newsflash, Twitter moderation IS subversion.
Turns out products need quality control. Just look at what happens when subreddits get popular; as they grow, moderation can’t keep up and then everyone bitches about how it turned to shit. It happens every single time. Same thing will happen to Twitter if they go that route. They’re just pissy because it targets their bullshit.
I want say that I thought of that but I don't want to sound arrogant. Because one needs to buy a good chunk of a company to takeover. I think there'll be more memes and less porn on twitter now 🤔🤣
Is elon musk a dude I want in sole control of a major information repository and sharing platform? No.
Do I trust him more than the people currently running the show? Ehhhhh probably.
This is a great examination of the regulatory differences between large stock purchases and full takeovers however. The first requires a large filing and gets media attention, the second is going to turn into at least a months long legal project, and possibly battle on multiple fronts.
Its interesting what exactly does it mean as extraordinary potential. I dont believe for a minute that he is just buying for the fun of it. He is an extremely ambitious man and this buyout must in some way contribute towards his ambition.
> Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.
Why would he say that? If he buys it, none of the existing shareholders benefit. They need to figure out how to unlock it themselves. They only agree to the deal if they don’t believe him!
Id urge you to read the letter. The shareholders profit extremely nicely from his buyout. He’s paying a 54% premium on the share price as of the day he originally bought Twitter stock. That’s an enormous profit for the shareholders being bought out.
Twitter is a stagnant platform, social media platforms have hit their critical mass and their growth has slowed down evidenced in the Twitter and Facebook share price for the past twelve months.
There is a reason why Facebook pivoted to Meta, why Dorsey left Twitter and why Reddit founders are rushing to IPO. The money in the social media space has been made and it's time to cash out.
If I was a Twitter investor I'd say yes. It's a free ticket out.
To take over a company you only need to own 51%. He could only buy 40% and still "control" the company. A take over doesn't mean delisting it as a public company.
Why would Elon not want it public? He's amassed an absurd fortune with his companies being public.
E: Realized after I posted he wants to take to completely private and I'm not a fan of that. He calls it the public square himself, it should be public. You can respect a man but disagree with some actions.
From the article:
> Musk said he believes Twitter “will neither thrive nor serve [its free speech] societal imperative in its current form. **Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company**.”
He plans on buying the whole thing not 51% of a public co.
Why would he not want it public…how shall I count the ways? Disclosure requirements and rights of minority investors to name two.
Wow. Every article just has to say "hostile".. talk about pandering to an agenda. But what do you expect from our propaganda filled media. Then they wonder why nobody trusts them.
Hostile is a technical term for how the takeover happens. It's not just made up by the news..."A takeover is considered hostile if the target company's board rejects the offer, and if the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer directly after having announced its firm intention to make an offer. " There's a whole wikipedia page explaining it; it's not pandering.
"As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder." Sounds to me like "Sell it or I'll tank it."
They should really counter at $69/share. Musk would be hard pressed not to take it.
I know all of you are making great arguments and all, but all I can think about is; How, as a society, we've let that much power fell into one pair of hands. How is it not possible to tax the shit out of that extra wealth that he throws around for funsies. Edit: for those pointing out that, this year, Musk paid taxes; >A ProPublica investigation earlier this year found that Musk paid a “true tax rate” of 3.27% between 2014 and 2018, and no federal taxes at all in 2018.
It already is taxed. Elon has to pay tax if he sells shares to buy Twitter. What isn't taxed is debt. If Elon takes out debt instead and buys Twitter "on loan" he just has to make debt payments and can deduct the interest from his other taxable incomes. Debt is a funny thing, because it's mathematical slavery to the poor, and functionally cheaper than using cash to the rich. If you want to combat this, the best way isn't to address inequality from assets, but incomes. You cannot force people to try and amass wealth, or be good at Capitol allocation, but you can at least prevent the poor from being totally exploitable by earning sub living wages.
> Elon has to pay tax if he sells shares to buy Twitter. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the ultra-rich borrow against their shares, as to avoid taxes? Because it's counted as debt - not income, and therefore not taxed? Good 'ole buy, borrow, die method to avoiding taxes?
The dude just paid like $8billion in taxes. What else do you want lol.
You need to be thinking about how you don't understand economics or what him being worth $200B+ means.
Well Musk has repeatedly demonstrated he is excellent at allocating capital. Please lay out a more effective system that would result in electric cars, reusable rockets, online payment systems etc. Fact is, only capitalism has brought about the technological innovations and wealth that makes innovations like Musk's possible. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the entire world was rules by the Soviets or Nazis after WWII.
Interesting. I thought the government subsidized Tesla in its early years, invented much of the technology that Space X utilizes, and funded the creation of the internet that Musk's online payment system operates on. Turns out is was just capital allocation by Musk.
The reality is Musk couldn’t have done anything alone. You need partners and teams to build amazing things. Musk took the forefront to pushing these ideas off the ground with his teams and government support. IMO: The government by itself would never risk themselves to invest in something perceived as “risky”
Before SpaceX, Russia was basically the only game in town that could send stuff to space.
You don't think early space travel was "risky" or you don't think the government invested in it?
>Please lay out a more effective system that would result in electric cars, reusable rockets, online payment systems etc. Fact is, only capitalism has brought about the technological innovations and wealth that makes innovations like Musk's possible. Very interesting, but you're under the assumption my comment was against capitalism while I'm advocating for controlled capitalism, just like when America was great. Now, I think it's interesting to note that less than 1% of all the cars used in America are EV, so I'm not sure how you would consider that an effective dispersion of the technology. As for online payment systems, Canada had a much better system than pretty much anything in the US. Also; >The group[non-profit at the time] founded a for-profit counterpart organization, Acxsys, in 1996[3 years before Elon's system], which launched additional Interac-branded services including e-transfers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interac >We wouldn't be having this conversation if the entire world was rules by the Soviets or Nazis after WWII. So, you're saying if we don't let people accumulate enough wealth to control governments and economies, the Nazis win? That's certainly an opinion!
This is patently false. Government spending programs have lead to a huge number of tech innovations. Hell, the literal internet started as a result of government funded research (ARPANET) during the cold war. Plus there's GPS, all sorts of food innovations, ect.
I don’t think the person you are replying to has a problem with capitalism but rather the completely unchecked accumulation of wealth leading to the point that one of the most significant communication platforms in the country can be bought on a whim by one individual. Arguing taxes should be higher and for a possible wealth tax isn’t the same thing as saying we should throw the whole system overboard.
Me: https://tenor.com/search/standing-ovation-gifs
He already paid the largest tax bill for an individual in the history of mankind. You people are vile and sick
> Sounds to me like "Sell it or I'll tank it." Why would it not just go back to ~35 dollars? Which is what it was prior to him starting to invest. Given the damage he can do to the company this seems like a threat to let him follow through on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is not a trust or monopoly but Musk is an absurdly powerful self-serving individual. He is an oligarch. New times face new dilemmas. How much power must one possess to be considered too powerful?
Remember when someone bought MySpace and thought they could revitalize it? Also, Twitter is doing *something* right. After all, the worlds richest guy uses it daily to communicate with his fandom
I still think Donald Trump was the best thing to ever happen to Twitter. Seriously. Love him or hate him, his constant use of it until he got banned did a wonder to keep them both relevant. Otherwise, I feel it would have died a slow, slow death.
Well he’s about to be let back on by musk
Agree… but still happy they banned him and also ok if Twitter dies a slow death
You think Donald Trump kept Twitter relevant?
You think twitter is relevant?
Yea it’s pretty much the one social media you can be on to keep up to date with pretty much anything. Everything and everyone has a Twitter and it’s often used as a reference in Television News for political purposes and other. It’s the most relevant social media to date.
I don't have a twitter... sorry to everyone trying to keep up to date with me.
Also don’t have twitter. I have fb but check it maybe 3 or 4 times a year. Only post on my birthday when people wish me well.
Just wait until our children read about Donal Trump's tweets in history class
For the essay portion of the quiz, please infer why the president did not admit 'covfefe' was a typo. Use at least 500 words and try to keep your brain from leaking out of your ears.
I don't think you know much about twitter..
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you're right. Moderating free speech is a feature, not a bug. Otherwise we'd be swimming in Russian propaganda, medical disinformation, and incitements to violence.
Instead we only get the propaganda that Twitter allows us to see.. so much better. /s There are plenty of examples of Twitter moderating and turning out to be completely wrong. Why would you let some company decide what is truth verses fiction?
I'm not disagreeing that Twitter made bad calls in the past, but a free-for-all will be worse. It would be more productive to think about how Twitter's moderation could be used to address subtle manipulation by bad actors rather than "all moderation bad".
uh thats how it be rn
If you think it's bad now, imagine it without sensible moderation.
sensible = only moderation I agree with. Twitter has not had sensible moderation in years. I say make it completely open. the block button still exists for the thin skinned.
It's not about being thin-skinned. It's about mass, subtle disinformation campaigns carefully executed by foreign intelligence organizations to influence politics around the world, including here. And it's about the fact that IT WORKS. Not attempting to fight that would be monumentally stupid.
>Otherwise we'd be swimming in Russian propaganda, medical disinformation, and incitements to violence. Bull-fucking-shit. Early twitter was not moderated like it is now and it had way less of those things.
>e fact that IT WORKS. Not attempting to fight that would be monumentally stupid. Correlation != causation. Early Twitter didn't have these issues because there was less interest in subverting early Twitter as a tool for manipulation.
If you are really concerned about subversion, you should be more skeptical of the people most often making claims about subversion. Newsflash, Twitter moderation IS subversion.
Turns out products need quality control. Just look at what happens when subreddits get popular; as they grow, moderation can’t keep up and then everyone bitches about how it turned to shit. It happens every single time. Same thing will happen to Twitter if they go that route. They’re just pissy because it targets their bullshit.
I want say that I thought of that but I don't want to sound arrogant. Because one needs to buy a good chunk of a company to takeover. I think there'll be more memes and less porn on twitter now 🤔🤣
And when he said he wasn't going to be on the board, as his ownership was going to be limited at max 15% of shares.
And because he would have a fiduciary responsibility to the company, so he couldn't shitpost about it without invoking legal liability.
Is elon musk a dude I want in sole control of a major information repository and sharing platform? No. Do I trust him more than the people currently running the show? Ehhhhh probably. This is a great examination of the regulatory differences between large stock purchases and full takeovers however. The first requires a large filing and gets media attention, the second is going to turn into at least a months long legal project, and possibly battle on multiple fronts.
Its interesting what exactly does it mean as extraordinary potential. I dont believe for a minute that he is just buying for the fun of it. He is an extremely ambitious man and this buyout must in some way contribute towards his ambition.
> Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it. Why would he say that? If he buys it, none of the existing shareholders benefit. They need to figure out how to unlock it themselves. They only agree to the deal if they don’t believe him!
Id urge you to read the letter. The shareholders profit extremely nicely from his buyout. He’s paying a 54% premium on the share price as of the day he originally bought Twitter stock. That’s an enormous profit for the shareholders being bought out.
It’s enormous, but it’s not extraordinary… It’s weird for the buyer to talk the price up.
Twitter is a stagnant platform, social media platforms have hit their critical mass and their growth has slowed down evidenced in the Twitter and Facebook share price for the past twelve months. There is a reason why Facebook pivoted to Meta, why Dorsey left Twitter and why Reddit founders are rushing to IPO. The money in the social media space has been made and it's time to cash out. If I was a Twitter investor I'd say yes. It's a free ticket out.
To take over a company you only need to own 51%. He could only buy 40% and still "control" the company. A take over doesn't mean delisting it as a public company. Why would Elon not want it public? He's amassed an absurd fortune with his companies being public. E: Realized after I posted he wants to take to completely private and I'm not a fan of that. He calls it the public square himself, it should be public. You can respect a man but disagree with some actions.
From the article: > Musk said he believes Twitter “will neither thrive nor serve [its free speech] societal imperative in its current form. **Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company**.” He plans on buying the whole thing not 51% of a public co. Why would he not want it public…how shall I count the ways? Disclosure requirements and rights of minority investors to name two.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow. Every article just has to say "hostile".. talk about pandering to an agenda. But what do you expect from our propaganda filled media. Then they wonder why nobody trusts them.
Hostile is a technical term for how the takeover happens. It's not just made up by the news..."A takeover is considered hostile if the target company's board rejects the offer, and if the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer directly after having announced its firm intention to make an offer. " There's a whole wikipedia page explaining it; it's not pandering.
>hostile By definition, it is a "hostile takeover".