This is so wacky it’s astounding.
You don’t buy a company for their servers or employees, those can be found elsewhere for the same price. You buy a company for its users and its brand. To throw away one of the most icon brands in the world, which is present in the footer of every major website in the world, is baffling.
What is the end game here?
I’m sure he has an end-game.
It’s everything up to that point where he’s completely at a loss.
I think his endgame is just boosting his ego. He tried to get this X thing to stick since the PayPal days.
We are just watching the midlife crisis of a guy with way too much money showing that billionaires are not immune to terminally online brain rot.
He realized pretty fast that he offered WAY too much money for Twitter. Like, we’re0 seeing maybe 5x what it was really worth at the time. But, because he did everything out in public like the narcissist he is, he knew there was no way he was getting out of the sale in court.
So he got as much of the cash from banks and other investors as possible. An amount of debt that could ruin someone with even his net worth. Now he’s driving their investment into to the ground so the banks will end up writing off most of the debt rather than asking for repayment. So far, it seems to be working.
Now he’s driving their investment into to the ground so the banks will end up writing off most of the debt rather than asking for repayment. So far, it seems to be working.
Maybe I’m financially illiterate, but I don’t understand how that works. Like… if I take out a loan to buy a house and then deliberately burn down the house, that doesn’t get me off the hook. If anything, I’ll probably end up going to prison to boot. Why exactly would the banks just write off Musk’s debt instead of going after him and his other assets in court?
Most of the money in the world economy is known as “Book Money.” It exists only because an investor somewhere decided it did and invested based on that number. When a bank or investor stops thinking it’s worth that much one of the things they can do is a Write Down. The money (which never really existed anyway) ceases to exist, the banks books (and possibly their rating as a lender) are affected, the investee should become considered a bad investment, and the money is deleted from the world. But there are no other real consequences unless the investor or investee destroys enough of their wealth that they become insolvent.
You bought your house with earned money. Real money. It can’t just be erased in the same way because you played by the rules the whole time.
Lenders are not as stupid as you think. 75% of Twitter’s purchase price was paid by Musk himself or loans secured against his Tesla stock. None of that will be “written off”.
The number I’ve seen it closer to 55% but, regardless, all the Tesla money was acquired exactly the same way and will be written off the same way too.
Tesla has positioned itself as a tech company instead of a car company, and if its investors decide one day that it’s a car company it’s value will drop 60 - 80% overnight. Of course the investors will never do that because 1) it will leave a lot of them in ruin and 2) the gigafactories for batteries are probably actually valued pretty accurately. But remember ever time Telsa talks about robots or super computers they’re trying to make everyone forget that their valuation multiples should be closer to Ford than Apple.
Not only wacky but hideous? I mean if you are going to re-logo (forget that it be for idiotic reasons…) the least you could do is make the design look decent… this?? 😂
He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his “X” app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.
I think it’s a terrible idea that’s a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it’s usage. The rest of the world isn’t interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.
It’s the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there’s no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you’re too busy playing a dozen others.
The rest of the world isn’t interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.
I’m not entirely sure this is true. Look at the constant posts and commenting on how people hate to deal with the complication of additional apps / sites. It’s a major negative of the fediverse, it’s one reason I think Signal shot themselves in the foot getting rid of SMS. It’s why people keep using Amazon or Netflix even as they get worse and worse and more expensive. Heck, I’m not even immune - I wish we had one fast and cheap way to transfer money rather than Zelle, Paypal, various bank schemes, venmo and on and on. I wish we had a universal shopping cart thing like Paypal checkout more widely adopted vs making ever more accounts and typing in all my details for a one time order from a different website (and this is one reason why people gravitate to Amazon vs individual sites).
I’m not saying I’d like an all in one app, but I can see it potentially being interesting to people if it simplified their lives. I don’t think Musk and X are likely to be able to do it, but I don’t actually think there’s no interest.
In most nordic countries, we have a single payment app that’s been codeveloped by the major banks. everyone has the app and it’s automatically connected to your checking account. We also have easy direct bank-to-bank money transfers at every bank. Most online stores in Sweden also use Klarna which saves your credit card information for you across all sites.
I think it’s one thing to be the one stop shop for a single category of goods, but when one company tries to to be in every pie, it crashes and burns. Look at how much of a mess AWS is, or how Google closes a service every few months, or how Facebook is a cluttered mess.
Low barrier to entry can be good, but you’re just opening yourself to exponentially more competition by trying to be in every market.
There is a kindle ground that people want between an app for literally every small part of something and absolutely everything in a single app.
They don’t want 100 different newspaper apps to read 100 different newspapers when they all work differently.
Twitter and Facebook serve different purposes and made sense to be separate.
At this point it’s foolish not to consider this as possibly the greatest tax writeoff in history. Elmo is setting himself up to never pay another dime in taxes the rest of his life. Not that he probably pays that much as it stands, but still.
You can’t defer losses like this forever. You can throw your money in a fire, but in the end that’s not going to help you very much.
which is present in the footer of every major website in the world
OMG, I just realize that the little blue bird will be replaced with an X everywhere. A generic looking, forgettable X.
I also realize that instead of saying “follow me on Twitter” or “I’m on Twitter,” people will say “follow me on X” and “I’m on X,” which sounds like you’re talking about Ecstacy or Molly. Very 1990s club kid. (He’s Gen X so I’m sure he’s well aware of how this sounds.)
I am seldom a conspiracy theorist but I am really starting to think that he is deliberately trying to destroy Twitter, I mean X.
I don’t think so, his “X” idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it’s his next big idea. I’m sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he’s listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don’t think he’s open to ideas or criticisms on it.
This isn’t a logo. It’s a cry for help from a severely distressed mind.
W̸͖͆H̵̡̹̖͂̂̑̅Ǎ̷̲̩͔̿͜͠T̷̩̫͗’̶̺̩͖͚́̚Ś̴̭̺̼̳ ̶̼̱̗̓̄̾H̸̡̗̫̝͘A̵͍̥̔̾P̸͇͎̾́P̵̙̦̀́ͅE̸̢̧̹͐͝͠N̸̫̲͙̘͝I̵̳͍͇̼̾̋̀̕N̶͚͖̪̒̈́̈G̵͕̱̓̃
̷̛̰̣̠͛͊ ̸̳̼̹͂ ̸̳͕̳̔̈̉͝ ̸̛̲̋̄͘ ̴͎͐ ̸̝̃̽̚W̵͓̙̏̄̀̉Ḩ̶͚͍͗͠A̷̢̹̥͙͑͐͆T̷̫́̉̄̚’̸̧͍͌͆͜Ş̷̗͚̻̓̉͒͠ ̶̣̯̬͑̈́H̷̘͛̇̚A̷̭͗̓͘P̶̭̠̔͒͝P̵̱̯̲̓͌͘E̵̡̪̣͇̕͝N̵͓͊̇̿̋Ì̷̭̯̠͗̈́͠N̴̬̹̲͔͑̈͝G̵͎̖̥͇̀
You don’t buy a company for their […] employees
You can do that, and companies like Google have been doing it for years. The difference is that those companies are small teams of engineers, working on niche applications, that the big company wants to incorporate into them.
He bought it to destroy it for his Saudi backers. Billionaires like Musk and the Saudis make more money with Republicans in charge. Twitter and Reddit were too good at educating voters that would keep Republicans out of power, and hold murderous Saudi princes accountable, so they had to be destroyed.
I don’t think that was his goal, but it was probably why the Saudis were so eager to loan him the funds to buy it. This reminds me of a time I was talking to a climate-denying friend who cited something about NY using “methane causes global warming” to push anti-small farm bills on the basis that they had cattle (or something, I can’t remember exactly). The point being, sometimes it’s not a grand orchestrated conspiracy (eg “global warming is fake”) but rather malicious, opportunistic actors taking whatever advantages they can get. Billionaires don’t cause recessions on purpose, but their wealth certainly does increase during them anyway because of how the system has evolved to optimize for wealth consolidation through the independent actions of the capitalist class, and they’re not hurting enough to want to change it for the better.
Twitter gets their iconic branding enshrined in the dictionary as a verb - one of the very few companies that have achieved the feat - and Elon chucks it all in the bin.
And not even as a genericized term. (Google and Xerox HATE that they’re used as verbs.)
“Tweet” is only ever used to describe posting to Twitter. It’s a very unique position that’s about as ideal as it gets for a company brand.
I got curious and did the math if $44B was denominated in $100 bills.
That’s 496.85 cubic kilometers of cash. Or a pile of money that covers half of the continental US, stacked 1/4 of the height of Low Earth Orbit.
I honestly don’t think one could physically burn that much cash since May 2022 in real life.
Edit: more mind bogglery!
The earth is ~40,000 km in circumference, so you could stack the bills almost 28m high around the equator (or circle the globe 256,482 times.)
I think you found an extra factor of a thousand somewhere along the way. I get 497 cubic meters: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=(0.0043+inches+*+2.61+inches+*+6.14+inches)+*+(44+billion+%2F+100)
Your wording needs some work there. If you’re trying to say that the “pile” would reach 1/4 low earth orbit and cover half the continental US, you’re absolutely incorrect. If you are saying it is a “pile of money” that “when laid out as a single layer can cover half of the continental US” or “when made into a single stack would reach 1/4 of the height of LEO”, that would be mostly accurate. For perspective, 44 billion would be 44k briefcases, or 440 pallets. That’s about 17 semi trailers (single high) or 9 trailers double-stacked. As a “pile” it could easily fit in a single Wal-mart parking lot and wouldn’t even be that high. Still a lot of money though.
Edit: Actually, I don’t even think the continental US number is accurate. A single bill is 16 in^2. Laid out as a single layer of single $1 bills, that covers ~7e11 in^2 which is about 175 square miles, not even 1/2 of Rhode Island.
That doesn’t sound right. I get a volume of about 1.13 cubic cm per 100 dollar bill. There are 440 million 100 dollar bills needed for 44 billion. That gives us a volume of about 500 cubic meters. That’s not even a large warehouse. Even for 1 dollar bills we would then only have roughly 50000 cubic meters, which is a far cry from 500 cubic kilometers, which would be about 5*10^11 cubic meters. A single stack of 44 billion 1 dollar bills would be about 4800km high.
I think you’re off on your calculations…
https://academeblog.org/2017/02/01/visualizing-a-billion-and-a-trillion-dollars/
This is the poster child for enshittification; RIP bluebird, we salute what you were.
It’s not even enshittification. If it were that at least would be understandable through a capitalistic lens, a natural part of an investor-owned process. It’s the actions and thinking of a man-child with all the brilliance of a 40 watt bulb. No logic is to be had here.
The only reasonable answer is that Musk is intentionally killing Twitter, which is conspiracy theory levels of dumb.
The only other solution is that the richest person in the world (officially) is this stupid. This is almost harder to believe than a conspiracy to destroy twitter.
I wouldn’t say stupid, just narcissistic control freak who can’t stop touching it. That way it doesn’t dismiss him outright. It’s a matter of essentializing language - “someone is stupid” isn’t so dangerous vs “someone does something stupid” lets you recognize the emperor has no clothes but can still be dangerous. Reality is more complex than “xyz is stupid/evil”, and falling into those patterns of thought does a disservice to yourself.
I think stupidity is more complex and contextual, one can both be smart and dumb AF at the same time, the duality of dumb.
I have a suspicion that all of the layers of “Elon management” at Tesla and SpaceX have given him the idea that he’s a brilliant innovator; he gives them all his outlandish ideas and they get filtered into (normally) reasonable plans, and they guide him down the path they want him to go down while he thinks the good idea is his. And those companies are both doing well, so clearly his style works, at least in his mind.
But then he bought twitter, which didn’t have anyone devoted to protecting the company from him, and it’s all going to shit.
Actually after thinking about it, the stuff he’s doing to the company is just batshit insane. It has to be intentional. He’s on a campaign to kill the company for the tax write-off and because he has some kind of personal beef with it. If he were to just fire everyone and shut down the servers he wouldn’t be able to take the write-off. The company has to die a slow death for it to look legit.
The only other solution is that the richest person in the world (officially) is this stupid. This is almost harder to believe than a conspiracy to destroy twitter.
Why is that hard to believe? The mega-rich are not notably more intelligent than anyone else, they just started decades ago with inherited wealth and got lucky early.
Oh this isn’t meant to imply that rich people are smarter than anyone else. More hard to believe in that I don’t want a man with such immense power and wealth to be absolutely stupid. The obvious best choice is no one having a billion dollars.
This is a stupid move. It’s like Google changing its name to something else. Now everyone says “you need to Google this” instead of “you need to search this on the internet”. Twitter has become a recognised brand and tweeting has become a verb in the dictionary. He’s destroying years of work. At this point, we can safely say that his behaviour is not rational.
