Hacker News Reader

Comment by saaaaaam | Hacker News Reader

So he just sold himself a company he already owns for a valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it, and he paid entirely using “money” that has a made up value and which he issues himself?

Wild.

View on HN

This also lets all of his co-investors in X, who were likely pissed that their shares tanked, exchange their shares at an inflated value (but one that still sees them losing 25% of their original investment) for shares in a trendy yet likely overvalued AI company that they consider to have more upside.

The other part of this is that if TSLA stock drops to $100-ish he'll be at risk of being margin called on the loans he took against his holdings to buy X. I wouldn't be surprised if this deal involves some X shares being sold for cash (that was raised from VCs) to pay down those loans, and/or the lenders agreeing to take xAI stock in lieu of cash.

This whole thing seems like a big pyramid scheme. I don't think this is the last time we've seen this type of move: he'll keep starting companies that are at the forefront of whatever the current hype cycle is, then leverage the extremely inflated valuations to benefit himself.

The outside investors in X made a profit on paper; Twitter was bought for $44B but the deal was financed with like $31B in equity and $13B in debt. It’s not a big profit (in fact it’s worse than you would have done in T-bills), and of course they’re swapping one illiquid and hard-to-value asset for another, but Elon isn’t giving them a 25% haircut at all.

Isn't Twitter's stock price higher than it was at acquisition?

Twitter doesn't have a stock price. It got taken private in the acquisition.

Also I think Fidelity open puts out statements on the value of Twitter since they are a shareholder. The only recent info I can find on this was an article from last October:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musk...

Where it states that Twitter is now worth 1/5 of its $44billion price. I highly doubt it re-made up the equivalent value in the span of 6 months. If anything they likely lost more money as advertising sales have plummeted.

As the sibling pointed out, private companies don't have stock prices. But I've read estimates that Twitter is worth less $10B now, so less than a quarter what Musk paid for it.

The banks just recently did a debt sale of a lot of that debt close to list price, so 44 billion dollar valuation is probably reasonable. Apparently the company is profitable now, sans the debt, so as long as it doesn't go out of business and can grow on other fronts then it's probably not a problem.

> profitable now, sans the debt

So, not profitable.

What، acompany needs to cover the costs of how it was acquired, now? If it's valued at the price it was purchased and making a positive revenue stream then it is profitable.

They need to cover their debts. If someone uses private equity raider tactics to load the company up with debt, it’s likely to be bad for the company but it still counts on their books just as taking payday loans is ill-advised but legal.

Yes, this seems to be common practice.

1. Borrow lots of cash

2. Buy a victim company with the cash

3. Carry out weird financial/legal alchemy to make the victim company solely responsible for paying off the loan

4. If the victim company can’t handle the debt and goes bankrupt, then you don’t own the company any more. That’s sad. Especially for the people who lose their jobs. But the people you borrowed the cash from can’t chase you for it, so no harm done, eh?

5. If the victim company pays off all the debt, then congratulations: you bought a successful profitable company for free!

I don’t understand step 3 or why it’s legal.

With the debt it's break even.

So, not profitable.

The company is profitable. The debt is unrelated to assets acquired or previous deficits.

a.k.a the worst kind of financial engineering. The company is not profitable if it doesn't make a profit when all things are considered.

And we're not even talking about the missed opportunity costs of the ~ $27bn cash used to purchase Twitter. Most of that value is completely gone.

If you were an investor in X and put up some of that $27 billion dollars you now own shares in xAI, so it's not not gone.

You can dress it up in "financial alchemy" like any hedge fund, but it doesn't disguise the fact that the last person to carry that can is going to lose a lot of very real money.

That doesn't even make any sense.

So much financial sophistry going on here, can almost see the sequel to the CDS infused trauma of 20 years ago coming down the line

This is part of the reason that the term EBITDA exists.

Can you list this sale you claim valued X at 44B?

Fidelty, which still owns a decent chunk of X, and is required by law to do due diligence on the value of that holding, and also has deeper insight into the value of X since they are also required to see X financials (since they own a big chunk of the private value), puts X value at 20% of the original 44B.

So please demonstrate your claims.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musk...

A few weeks ago in February:

https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/musks-x-sec...

> Banks have completed the sale of $5.5 billion in debt for Elon Musk's X, according a Wednesday report by the Wall Street Journal. The debt offering was increased following a strong response from investors. Ultimately, the loans were sold at 97 cents on the dollar.

This is not the same, as no ownership was traded, but it signaled surprising confidence that the debt could be sold with only a small discount.

That does not value X at $44B as the poster claimed. It also states “ These floating-rate debts have an interest rate of around 11%, making the borrowing costs several percentage points higher than even the riskiest loans on Wall Street.” which is a spectacular admission the markets put X on incredibly shaky ground.

X being forced to sell off debt at such extraordinarily bad terms means X is likely about to implode.

I agree that the interest rate is astonishingly high.

This makes no sense. The debt payments are larger than the company's entire revenue! The Twitter purchase was a financial boondoggle that Elon is attempting to hide with this latest deal.

If I borrow $4 million to buy a house worth $1 million I could technically say that sans the debt I'm a millionaire, but that's hardly a useful or positive claim.

Rhis raises it back to the original level (although entirely based off the absurdly overinflated value of Grok at $80 billion. VCs…)

Even if he made the Twitter investors whole, I wonder how the investors in xAI feel.

They're mostly the same investors.

They just wait for the next round of this. Maybe SpaceX will require more AI? Or Tesla?

They feel great, because he just magically turned a ~50% loss in Twitter into a ~50% return in xAI and a ~0% loss in Twitter.

Of course, you can't buy $20B worth of mangoes for $40B worth of Mango Holding Company stock and then suddenly make your mango-holding business worth twice as much money.

But you can pretend!

Private valuations, especially VC-funded companies, have been nonsense for decades. Elon is just exploiting that egregiously.

Feeling mighty 2008/subprime in here

He didn't leverage Tesla stock to buy X.

These Reddit level takes with zero research are making threads like this really annoying to read. All emotions, zero facts.

You haven’t added any facts either, it’s just one more statement from a random Interneter like those Reddit posts. I’m intrigued to hear some fact on this point though?

How did he get the tens of billions in cash he personally put in if not leveraging Tesla. Yes he had minority investors and put some debt on the acquisition itself, but he put up a lot of money.

He sold Tesla shares.

This is all public, I don't understand the weird speculation...

He also sold a ton of shares. But not enough to cover all the money he needed to put into Twitter.

He had to sell some Tesla shares because he reached the max borrowing limit against his Tesla shares that was allowed. Once he was forced to sell shares he had to pay a lot in taxes. This shows the mega wealthy can pay taxes and not become poor. We should learn from this lesson and tax the .01% of society.

He hit his max borrowing limit? Can we just discuss the facts rather than making stuff up to talk about our favorite narratives?

Yeah, let's continue talking about how no one person in the entire human race should have more than $50 million dollars.

I agree with the other poster.

And who are you to decide that?

In the French revolution it was decided by the ones with Guillotines :)

Lets see how Google ai in search handles it.

AI Overview

Elon Musk is limited to borrowing against pledged Tesla shares, with the total loan amount capped at the lesser of $3.5 billion or 25% of the value of the pledged shares. Musk's current holdings of about 411 million shares and 238.4 million pledged shares as of April 6, 2023.

Here's a breakdown:

25% Loan-to-Value Limit: Tesla's policy caps the loan amount Musk can take out based on a percentage of the value of his pledged Tesla shares.

$3.5 Billion Dollar Cap: Musk's borrowing is also limited to a total of $3.5 billion.

Pledged Shares: Musk currently has 238.4 million shares pledged as collateral for his loans.

Overall:

Musk is borrowing against a portion of his Tesla stock holding, subject to the limits set by the company policy.

For more info:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-06/tesla-alt...

Speaking of threads with zero facts, can you cite your research? Here’s mine showing $12.5B secured by TSLA shares:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

That wasn’t the only funding, of course, but it’s a big chunk:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220422035052/https://www.bloom...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/25/technology/musk-twitter-s...

Again, you're just citing three things from the same date, and I don't believe it's in good faith.

Elsewhere I suggested people to just Google it, because it gives you an honest answer. So does chatGPT. So does the Wiki page on the deal, with sources.

Here is one said source -

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/25/23141940/elon-musk-tesla-...

Thanks for the source. Google might have given you the later update because you’d already searched for it, but that was not true for me.

I don't think he's going to be able to spin up hype on anything after this. He's burned a lot of bridges.

When you Godwin your own thread, you are by definition done.

He's simply moving Twitter losses to xAI investors - because he's the largest Twitter loser - and would prefer those losses go to other patsies instead.

> This whole thing seems like a big pyramid scheme.

That's because his scam of charging $8k over the price of a Tesla for "self driving" was complete vaporware. It never worked and it never was going to work. I am disappointed I fell for it.

There should be a class action lawsuit against TESLA for everyone that purchased the $8k self driving "feature". We were all told it was "being rolled out". It was a total lie.

You must not have tried FSD 13.x with AI4 hardware. I commute to work every day from the suburbs to the city with a ~25 min one-way commute with zero disengagements.

Edit: Elon mentioned in the last earnings call that if you are on AI3 hardware and bought FSD that they will have to upgrade you free of charge to AI4.

Edit 2: To clarify, FSD 13.x is only available with AI4 hardware.

They started selling FSD back in like 2017 and it was supposed to be self-driving ALL THE TIME by 2019. It’s 8 years later now and the best you’ve got is “upgrade the hardware to version 4 and you can make a 25 mile commute without disengagement” when Tesla was promising cross-continent summoning so you could fly somewhere and your car would drive there to meet you, charging along the way. That’s L5 autonomy. The delta between promised and delivered is so far apart it’s ridiculous. Mercedes’ autonomous system is the only L3 even, Tesla’s is L2. They by my definition did not deliver whatsoever on their promises.

Another thing is a lot of people don’t even keep cars longer than 8 years (and people who are buying new, $100k electric cars are more likely going to upgrade sooner than someone who’s buying a $30k civic.) they paid for FSD thinking it would be ready soon.

I was intent on keeping my low-vin release day Model 3 until they made good on their FSD promise, come hell or high water. Then The Salute and The Infomercial happened, and I gave up and ditched the car like a psycho girlfriend. They got my money and I was fooled by a con. I'll never let that happen again.

You sold it though or did you literally ditch it?

You ask for a friend, to „just look at it“?

Sold it to Carvana. Picked up a newer used Audi for the same price.

I was replying to the "never was going to work" part

> It never worked and it never was going to work.

That is evidently false. If I had a longer commute it would work fine too. I have done ~2 hour road trips with it already.

You are bringing up a different point, which is that FSD arrived later than promised or at least implied (I don't know exactly how this was sold in 2017). That is self-evident at this point.

It hasn't arrived at all.

> Edit: Elon mentioned in the last earnings call that if you are on AI3 hardware and bought FSD that they will have to upgrade you free of charge to AI4.

Unfortunately, that's because they were sued in court and lost when they tried to force people to buy the upgraded hardware in the past. Not because they stand behind their products.

I would not be comfortable using any self-driving system on US roads that only utilizes computer vision.

The reality is we don't actually know how reliable these systems are, and Tesla has a long history of spreading misinformation about their own technology and obfuscating the facts. We don't even know how many cars crash while in FSD mode. We don't know how they crash, or why. None of this data is made publicly available, and of the data that is shared it is carefully curated, and we have no guarantee the data is not fudged. For example, are we certain that FSD does not disengage itself in dangerous circumstances to skew statistics in it's favor?

Trusting Tesla marketing on the topic of Tesla products is like trusting any kind of marketing. They have an incentive to sell the car, so they will lie, and they will cheat.

I am equally uncomfortable that other people are out there beta testing FSD.

> I am equally uncomfortable that other people are out there beta testing FSD.

That is probably because you are unaware how far it has gotten. Irrespective of that, a driver still needs to be there and pay attention. As soon as you take your eyes of the road for a few seconds it will warn you very prominently.

I'm going on the record here to say that FSD will be a better driver than 99% of humans in the next 2 years. I may be wrong, but I don't think I will be.

In this economy?

>Edit: Elon mentioned in the last earnings call that if you are on AI3 hardware and bought FSD that they will have to upgrade you free of charge to AI4.

AFAIK a retrofit from AI3 to AI4 isn't possible.

Yeah these fantasies where musk would somehow go bankrupt by tanking Tesla and overpaying for Twitter were also wild

He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. He’s never going to suffer financially. He has countless levers of power he can pull.

The same fantasy applies to any past or current president ever spending a day in jail. He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen. Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him

He only holds ~15% of Tesla. His real money is in SpaceX... 50% ownership there. I wish people would think just a little before parroting the "hit Musk where it hurts" drivel.

My quick search is showing Tesla is worth some $800B. 15% of that is real money.

15% of that is paper money, heavily levered against. If he tries to sell even 2% of that in order to turn it into actual real money, the remaining 13% will be worth less, because a sell-off will lower the stock price.

Of course, just selling a single stock will lower the price of other stocks. But the dropoff is nowhere close to what you are implying. He has sold lots of stock over the years and somehow Tesla stock price didn't drop that much.

I feel like you used 'worth less' to imply 'worthless'. But this is far from the case, 13% would still be a gigantic pile of 'money'.

At the rate he's going, SpaceX is probably on its way to being nationalized within the next few elections.

And that would make sense totally aside from punitive response: it is pretty dangerous to have such vital defense infrastructure controlled by such a mercurial personality.

Yes let's just have a fascist government that can seize private property because they declare it "dangerous." I see no way that could go bad.

Some research may be warranted on your part before you have a kneejerk reaction. The US has nationalized businesses in the past even when those business were solvent [1]. SpaceX would of course be a larger case and much more politically fraught, but I don’t think nationalizing SpaceX automatically makes it a fascist government.

Oh, and you may want to look up eminent domain. The government regularly seizes private property and even does so effectively on behalf of other private entities. If you’re actually consistent on your framing then you’d have to admit you’ve lived your whole life under what you consider a fascist government regardless of political affiliation. For example, here’s [2] Trump using the government’s eminent domain power (before he was president) to take property from another private entity. And here he is doing the same thing [3] as president.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...

[2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain...

[3] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/

Your source states that the nationalization was done either in the case where the government was owed a debt by the nationalized company or in the case of the railroads, where they were seized to ensure the continuation of a vital service where the company providing it was insolvent. Neither of these conditions apply to any of Elon Musk's companies.

Eminent domain is a process where the private property is seized (with the government required to pay fair market value) in order to use that land for some public purpose that it is not currently being used for. This could potentially be done to property owned by Elon Musk, but not for the justification that he has too much power. And also it must be specifically land that is seized, not equity in a company.

If congress passed a law seizing his property, or the government initiated eminent domain against all of his company's properties, it would be obvious that it was Elon Musk being targeted and not any legitimate public need for a piece of land. This is a called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Massive conflicts of interest exist between him and foreign adversaries of the US:

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversat...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia...

If this were the Cold War, we'd have already seen USG freak out and move to nationalize.

The US government's behavior when freaking out during the cold war reads like a list of things that governments shouldn't do.

You're not wrong, and I get the aversion to any [modern] precedent that nationalization sets. It's not one I'd like to see set either.

I think the more reasonable crux here is why there was no clearance revocation. The guy inserted himself into geopolitics in a manner that ran counter to DoD and USG foreign policy while operating critical defense infrastructure, temporarily (with limited scope) revoking an allied nation's access[0], and being privy to secrets involving said infrastructure.

If in the future we're putting SDI-like capabilities onto satellite constellations his company operates, why let someone with undeclared back-channel comms with a foremost strategic adversary be cleared on the design and operational details of something critical to US strategic defense and national security? The very adversaries that such programs are designed to counter and deter.

That's before you even consider instability from doing every drug under the sun, which normally would be sufficient grounds alone.

I've no doubt he believes himself to be a patriot and probably hasn't violated his oath. It's just that holding a clearance has traditionally been based on risk. Regardless, not like there's anything anyone can do about it now.

To put this in perspective, Canada's wondering lately if the US is going to attempt to annex them. Should that happen, it definitely seems like a foreign policy objective of an adversary of the US, rather than one in the interests of the US.

I'd like to think any reasonable person views this entire situation as nutty, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-ai...

Musk can be fairly compensated and US national security preserved via nationalization.

How much is SpaceX worth? How do you even calculate that, knowing that a long term plan includes Mars colonization, astroid mining, etc, with it having a near monopoly on space transport, at the moment?

Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) would be perfectly sufficient.

Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.

You're irrational. They had $13B revenue in 2024, and profit > $4B, with the profit of the previous two years covering ~60% of their total accumulated funding to date.

Let’s replay this.

You: how would you even value SpaceX?

Me: Some multiple of their last funding round

You: You’re irrational. They made money last year.

What?

Do you think earning a profit makes your company uncountably valuable? Or earning a profit and adding some promises on top? Neither is true!

These aren’t real problems in any scenario and certainly not in the scenario of “hello the United States of America is seizing your company, here’s a check we think is fair.”

I responded to what you actually wrote in your previous comment:

> Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1)

The irrational part is that it could possibly be a fraction of their last round of funding. Do you agree it would have to be a multiple much greater than 1, since their last round of funding (750 million) was a small fraction of their profit last year, and they are on the path of exceeding their total accumulated funding for all rounds in another two years?

I've never seen a profiting company valued based on their last round of funding rather than current/future revenue/profits. Do you have any examples of this, in the real world?

No, it wouldn’t have to be. Perhaps it would be, perhaps it wouldn’t be, as I said.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43520384

Again, do you have an example of the current value of a company, with similar circumstances, being based on the last round of funding?

Well now you're just quibbling about the amount; it seems you do agree that SpaceX can be valued. You just don't agree with the <1 multiple the GP suggested. So ok, how about a 4x multiple? 8x? Whatever! Private companies can be valued; it's done every day. SpaceX is not an exception here.

Musk can say he's going to colonize Mars or mine asteroids, but the markets are perfectly capable of deciding on how likely (or unlikely) it is that he'll succeed, and price accordingly.

Colonizing Mars is a money-loser. It could completely tank the company. What business model involves colonizing Mars and then making a profit off that?

Mining asteroids is something we're so far away from that it's not worth baking in at that point. With current technology, it's far, far, far cheaper just to mine on Earth, even for things that are relatively rare.

> Well now you're just quibbling about the amount;

Of course, the question was about how to estimate the amount. It's a nonsensical answer that doesn't attempt to answer or help answer the question. If they were funded $1, their answer would still be correct: non zero multiple of a non-zero number (their last round of funding). It's an answer with unreasonable bounds, on both ends, especially the lower (fraction of last round of funding, even though current revenue is an order of magnitude more). It also has no precedence. The value of a company is never estimated based on rounds of funding from years ago (last was 2023 for SpaceX). It's based on both the present and projected performance.

It's not a rational answer, by definition, since it wasn't made with logic or reason.

I know that they claim their long term plan is Mars colonization and asteroid mining, but frankly I think those are lies.

It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted.

I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.

The Mars colonization thing is worth so little that it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars, if he ever really puts them all in on it. It’s pure fantasy. Mars sucks. It sucks very, very, very much. It sucks more than a nuclear-holocausted Earth that’s also had a decent size (but not crust-liquefying) impact and an insanely bad climate disaster, at once. It’s an awful place.

> it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars

I'm not sure I understand this. SpaceX would potentially profit from any transport services provided. Why would others paying for the missions reduce the worth of SpaceX? Or are you suggesting SpaceX would be the one funding it all?

I would be much more sympathetic to this argument if we hadn't seen Musk and the other oligarchs get away with anything and everything over the past two decades. Especially now that Musk holds a position of very considerable power in the administration, and without the approval of congress.

It seems to me that Musk may very well spend the next 4 years cutting everything he can from NASA, NOAA, the Post Office, and other federal agencies. Those capabilities will still be needed, and it is clear from the stated goals of those steering this administration [1] that they intend to steer as much as possible into private enterprises. Many of those enterprises are owned by Musk himself.

I don't know about you, but I see a major conflict of interest with one person both guiding the privatization process and profiting from it. If we do see a case where he steers federal funds from government agencies into a private company - at the cost of the ability of our government to execute critical functions without enriching Musk himself - then I have absolutely no issue with reclaiming those capabilities.

[1] https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-...

Yup, I agree that this is the playbook here.

Some of the cuts will just be cuts, and those services will be gone, in case where Trump's and Musk's cronies don't think they can build a profitable business around them. Others will just get pushed into private hands, and then when progressive administrations come into power, any attempt to bring those functions back into the federal government will get lobbied out of existence.

If lobbyists can do comparatively low-stakes stuff like keep the IRS from sending people pre-filled tax returns, you better believe lobbyists can keep NASA, NOAA, USPS, etc. privatized once they're dismantled.

I agree on the conflict of interest part, but that conflict can be removed by winning elections and not some authoritarian seizure of private property. If Democrats controlled the government to the point that they can seize private property, he wouldn't be in government in the first place and there would be no conflict.

After the conflict of interest is resolved, what next? The capabilities are still lost. He has still gained wealth from malfeasance. What's the next step? Pay him more money to fill the gaps created by corruption?

No, the answer is to ensure any profit from corruption is reclaimed. The idea of "just let the corrupt keep what they stole" has led us right here to this moment.

EDIT:

I do want to be clear on what my concern is here, too - I don't have a problem with commercial space flight. I wouldn't have a problem with NASA using commercial vendors for a major of their missions. I would have mild concern but not a great deal if NASA dropped most of their launch capabilities, retaining only ones needed for specialized missions and unique orbits. But I wouldn't oppose it like this.

But I have a major issue with that process being run by the one person most likely to directly profit from it. That completely destroys all faith that the process is being done in a responsible way that will put the well-being our nation above the wealth of a single individual.

This whole narrative of "big government with lots of power = bad" doesn't really apply anymore. US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had, because we can't be responsible with it.

We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things. US economy grew under democratic agenda, and Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base.

Because if you want to make the argument that this will tank the economy as free market capitalism is reigned in, that also doesn't fly considering the economy is being tanked right now. The difference is, under Dems, once things stabilize, everyone will be better off.

You are why I vote Republican

Ah yes, the classic "your rhetoric annoys me so I'll instead vote to burn everything down and I don't care who gets hurt in the process". Good reasoning, there.

Annoyance has nothing to do with it. It is the authoritarian morally superior attitude expressed by this statement that is so prevalent among Democrats.

> they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base

> US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had,

As opposed to the morally superior actions of ... the other party so gleefully dismantling your country for a fire sale to the oligarchs.

Better the oligarchs than the lawyers and bureaucrats. At least I get something for my money with them

So, morality isn't a concern as long as you get something out of it, got it.

Too bad all you're gonna get is a botched and broken nation and years of misery, but that shouldn't matter as long as you get "something for my money".

And you're sure you're gonna get "something for my money" with people that make no attempts to even veil their corruption and lawlessness. Right? Say, are you, by any chance, "rich"? I mean, rich enough to be considered rich by the oligarchs, that is.

Im glad you do.

Here is the thing though - nobody can predict the future. Statistically, going by historical examples and knowledge, everything that Musk and Trump are doing is wrong in regards to economy, but there is a chance that they are actually right and everyone else has the "woke mind virus".

The thing you need to understand is that if you vote Republican, you aren't aligned with actual reality. The problem is that you see things as black and white - anything that has a sign of the woke mind virus has to be gutted and restructured. This kind of thinking is a case of the classic human bias where you chose to pay attention to the information that fits your narrative, while ignoring the information that does.

This in turn makes makes you less likely to predict the outcome of politics, much less prepare for it.

So if you want to place your bets on Republicans, just know that you can lose very hard, while people like me who are in tune with reality end up being better of.

Honestly, next election (if we even have one) Ill ironically be voting Republican as well, for the reason that I believe in accelerating US downfall. EU seems to be the better system going forward, and they need a nudge in the right direction to pick up the slack, and also institute more stringent society policing to prevent the same from happening to their countries.

Judging by the result of the 2024 election it is the Democrats who are much less in touch with reality and less able to predict the outcome of politics or prepare for it. Let's face it. You guys were completely blindsided by Trump twice, and the second time you had 8 years to prepare.

I don't think you fully comprehend what Im saying (or maybe you do and you are just being purposefully obtuse and/or trying to troll)

If we had perfect knowledge of what goes on in US politics, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, we are forced to parse information from different sources, and figure out what the reality most likely is in our head.

If you are unable to be unbiased (and you, and every other Republican are clearly not), towards information, the chances of you being able to predict reality accurately go way down.

It could very well be that US economy tanks so hard that we enter a pretty harsh recession, with lots of job loss, lack of social services we rely on, and so on. Its a possibility. I don't know that it will happen, but you also don't know it won't. The difference between you and me though is that because I don't blindly believe in one side being right and other side being wrong, I have a much better chance of seeing signs and taking respective action, like selling my house and moving out of the country before it does.

The TLDR of this is that you vote Republican because you are an idealogue. I vote Democrat because of rational decisions. If you want to continue doing this, its not my problem. The least I can hope for is if you do some critical analysis of yourself and figure out whether the things you believe are actually true or do they just sound good.

>This whole narrative of "big government with lots of power = bad" doesn't really apply anymore.

>US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had

>We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things.

>Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base.

And after that they say that it is the Trump who is the fascist.

Is it a "fascist government seizing private property" if Congress votes to nationalize a company, as is laid out in law, and the president signs the resulting bill into law?

I mean yeas, that is a typical fascist strategy.

Also a typical strategy in every other form of government, oddly enough.

According to existing Supreme Court precedent[1], nationalization of companies requires approval by Congress, not just the President, so that would make it more difficult.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...

Precedent, with this Supreme Court, is meaningless.

According to existing Supreme Court precedent, the president isn't able to impound funds which had been allotted by Congress (line item veto) [1], or fire the head of an independent agency for reasons other than allowed by Congress [2], it doesn't really seem like precedent has much weight amongst those in power today.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._Unite...

The current administration has shared favorable views on "public-private partnership", which suggests that outright nationalization isn't the goal; I'd imagine the more likely scenario is that national assets will be dismantled and their functions will instead be contracted out to private operations with horrendously corrupt deals.

"within a few elections" = not this administration

> And that would make sense totally aside from punitive response

So the government has spend the last nearly 50 years completely failing in building rockets or sats the way SpaceX did. SpaceX with little money did it in less then 20 years.

And now you think its smart to have have the government taking over again? Do you want the government to run the global Starlink network, dealing with costumer complains?

What part of NASA or any part of the government in the last 20 years convinced you that they could operate SpaceX?

DoD tried to make space good and literally created ULA and after 10 years they often paid 300+ million for a launch?

And just FYI, Starshield is Starlink for the government and the government already controls those themselves.

The US government could buy out Musk, keep the company public while owning a majority of the shares and do nothing with them unless the company does something incredibly stupid.

That's how China does it.

That's also how Europe does it and its even worse then the US. And China rockets aren't all that impressive.

Also, the US has little history of this and the history it does have is utterly terrible. Go look up the performance of US own weapons factories threw history, basically just a long list of failure that lead to real issues in wars.

The US does not need to own the company to be able to prevent them doing something they don't want.

SpaceX is worth less than 10% of what Tesla is valued at, so 15% is still a larger holding and very much "where it hurts". You should consider pausing before calling the popular position drivel.

This is correct, but there are plenty of Tesla dealerships to protest outside and cars for people to remember they don't like him. People could protest outside a SpaceX facility but it's unlikely they would garner any attention by doing so.

His 15% of Tesla is heavily borrowed against, and if Tesla's share price drops too far, he's gonna get margin calls. That will both destroy his wealth, and hurt Tesla's stock price even more.

That military apparatus is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not support the current president.

This only matters if people care enough to act appropriately when that is broken.

I guess we'll see what matters when Trump orders the tanks to roll into Canada.

This wouldn’t happen today. Today there is talk about Canada becoming 51st state; there is relatively little opposition to that - on the contrary, the perception of Canada as a US ally drops in the US[1]. Four more years of this and I could see people similarly accepting tanks. And if you want to prevent this, the time to act is now.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-poll-allies-enemies-friends...

Surely no one currently in power wants Canadians to vote in U.S. Federal elections? So it has to be a setup like Puerto Rico (U.S. citizenship without representation in Washington) or even American Samoa (no U.S. citizenship). The 51st state thing does not make sense at all.

90% oppose the idea. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-eh-who-are-the-canadians-...

From what I have been told (specific to the US army):

- Enlisted swear oaths to the constitution and President

- Officers swear an oath to the constitution

I’ve only been told this, I don’t claim to know.

They swear that they will obey lawful orders from their commanders, all the way up to the President.

Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

A soldier comes to their own assessment then a court martial decides later on if they agree. Just like every other form of action: do what you believe is within bounds, then find out later if the courts agree

There are military lawyers for this. I seem to recall that Trump fired them last month.

You don't have lawyer in the trenches. You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

> You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

Uhhhh... not in the US (or any western) military you won't.

But if you're a soldier of the Klingon Empire, you might.

Real life is not like the movies. You aren't executed for disobeying or refusing an order in the US military.

Lawyers provide legal advice but are not judges.

By lawyer, I meant that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Cor... . They also serve as judges, as far as I understand.

If the order is wrong, it's your fault for failing to know that.

If the order is valid, it's your fault for questioning it.

You‘re supposed to evaluate it in order to determine whether it’s wrong or not.

I believe that's exactly what the GP was saying.

> Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

The individual. If your boss orders you to do something illegal, it’s up to you to be sceptical and do your research. That’s the only way it can work without converting a part of the population to drones.

So why post it?

You can just google the oaths that people take.

- enlisted: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

- officers: https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

> I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)

Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president

What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.

It’s explicit about following orders according to the UCMJ, and the UCMJ clearly defines what constitutes a lawful order that must be followed.

So, it’s transitive, but the enlisted oath is limited to lawful orders.

Take a look at the Oath Keepers or the 3%ers and let me know if you think they are going to do the right thing here.

They took an oath to protect their interests. That’s it and that’s all.

I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.

Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed.

The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate.

And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.

Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news?

Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-a...

But it won't be their family members, in most cases. It will be some despicable "cultural Marxists" or even more abstract "terrorists". And the rapes? Fake news.

The Constitution isn't worth much right now, and it's up for sale, no less.

I wonder if Elon will acquire it with shares.

I mean, he did pay people directly for voting in the last round of primaries and he's doing it again for that judge election in Wisconsin, and all his money is Tesla shares so.. yes, he's already doing it.

Even though the world is turning upside down, the fact that this is possible without facing immediate arrest is still surprising. I don't think this is possible in any other democracy.

He didn't pay them to vote. He paid them for signing a pledge. He had no way to determine who they voted for.

The commenter also included past presidents, which is silly. Once a president is a past president, he no longer controls that military apparatus.

The U.S. will never allow any former president to get prosecuted because the precedent is too severe.

By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Trump should have been prosecuted the moment he left office for a spectrum of crimes. There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.

But power protects power, and the moment that seal is broken all hell breaks loose amongst the ruling class.

How many people were held accountable for the 2008 crash? Zero. That would mean everyone else has to stop their criming too.

Who knows, maybe Trump is stupid and petty enough to take revenge on his enemies. If he does, no doubt his entire administration is the next against the wall as soon as the winds change.

Nixon certainly would've been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.

> There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.

I don't think this is very strong at all. There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki. Suggesting that he did, and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes, puts him in the same moral category as those who ordered actual torture on enemy combatants and launched wars on fabricated evidence. It's preposterous.

War crimes are a very broad category, so no, it's not preposterous to claim that different people are both guilty of them even if the scope varies significantly.

Obama pardoned all the torturers and their instigators. He is in the same category.

I strongly disagree with that equivalency. Obama should have pursued accountability instead of pardoning them like he did, but I do not agree that it puts him in the same moral category. Your framing shifts the argument from "Obama maybe deserves some scrutiny here" to "Obama belongs in the same cells with the torturers."

You're collapsing several degrees of responsibility with this lazy equivalence, and minimizing the heinousness of the people who actually designed and executed torture programs.

The world has no shortage of evil bastards. The only thing that restrains them is the knowledge that they may be held to account. Obama undermined that.

"Don't worry, we've got your back. If your country asks you to do evil, we won't hold you to account. So go right ahead."

Who is worse? The criminal or the corrupt judge?

> There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki.

So... there is evidence he intentionally targeted a civilian?

Sorry, I actually meant to write that al-Awlaki was a citizen, as in an American citizen. Obama didn't intentionally target civilians, and he didn't intentionally target "citizens" as OP stated outside of al-Awlaki who was an American citizen turned insurgent.

But trump was prosecuted. He was found guilty.

It's just that in the meantime the rule of law in the US died and he was elected again.

If there are elections in 2028 and MAGA loses he's toast. Big if.

You'll get him this time! After 9 years of failing.

Dammit, all we need is just one more chance!

The American justice system deserves to cease existing if 4 years isn’t enough to process people for possibly capital crimes (J6 coup attempt). No state can afford that.

Even if MAGA loses in 2028, I have very low confidence that Trump will see any consequences for his crimes. There's also the fun self-pardon-by-proxy trick: on the morning of the last day of his administration, he resigns. Vance is sworn in, pardons Trump for anything he's done, and then passes the presidency on to the next one.

Regardless, Trump is old. Even if he's convicted of something in 2030 or whenever, he probably won't go to prison. He may even be dead by then; he'll be nearly 85, and no matter what his doctors have been told to say publicly, it's hard to believe the man is in super great health.

I think the “big if” in the parent comment was about whether there would be elections in 2028, not whether Trump might lose them…

Trump was prosecuted.

They meant criminally prosecuted, which he was not.

Sure he was. He is a convicted felon, with 34 guilty counts under his belt[0]. You can't get convicted of felonies in a civil case. That was a criminal prosecution.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-te...

Trump was criminally prosecuted on both state (New York and Georgia) and federal charges, and convicted on New York state charges, before being re-elected. Because prosecution is an executive power exercised by the President, his re-election made it so that he would be President and thus unprosecutable by the time of trial on the federal charges for which there were still active prosecutions, resulting in them being dismissed without prejudice. (Technically, they could be refiled after he leaves office again.)

Concerns about Constitutional issues with state penalties interfering with federal duties also led the judge in the New York state case, where he was convicted of 34 felony charges, to sentence him to "unconditional discharge" -- essentially, he remains a convict, but faced no penalty beyond the fact of officially being a felony convict.

Issues relating to prosecutorial behavior have stalled Trump's prosecution on state criminal charges in Georgia, but those charges remain active (whether the prosecutor's office that was handling the case can continue to do so is an issue currently subject to appeal, and may not be decided for several months.)

You're right. I'm honestly not sure what I thinking.

… How did you miss the last year or so? I’m jealous.

> By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes.

According to the rules we put in place at Nuremburg, EVERY US President since World War 2 has committed war crimes.

When there's no alternative nexus of power to rally around, they'll have no choice but to do whatever illegal thing they are told.

Let's be realistic: Congress has given away its power for decades. It is nowadays a Congress permanently divided and pretty much non-functional.

Congress has never had the power to command the military, that's not one of the powers granted to it in the constitution.

Congress has the power to declare a war, which was supposed to prevent the Executive from taking any military action that was not purely defensive, without their approval. There was even a requirement about how long the President had to give an accounting to Congress about any action they did take. So yes, Congress was supposed to have the ability to "command" the military insomuch as they could choose whether the Executive could utilize them or not. Saying "no, you're not going to do that" is an authoritative command.

Hamilton, Washington, and Madison all separately wrote that Section 8's War Declaration clause was intended to be a substantial limit on the President's power. Even the small, mini-conflicts in the 1800s required Congressional approval to initiate, it wasn't until the 1950s that the Executive branch destroyed that check on Executive power.

By command I meant that Congress cannot tell the military "go arrest the president" or "go quell the unrest in that state." I agree that Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive in regard to declaration of war/military action in foreign countries after 9/11 though.

Trump may be Commander in Chief, but he cannot start a war without Congress' approval.

Unfortunately, they've essentially given more or less blanket approval for various wars and war-like actions since before 9/11, and that approval keeps getting renewed every year.

He can't start a war, but what about special military operations?

The advent of nuclear weapons arguably negated Congress's power to withhold approval for war. Garry Wills writes about this in his book Bomb Power.

No, this is a rationalization.

Funny.

I really wish for this theory to be tested TBH. Martial law in US would be a great thing. US economy tanks, rest of the world like Europe is forced to pick up the slack, the world gets a refresh on what conservative "small government" brainrot does to countries.

Got some good examples from the past?

WWII?

It won't be like that. You'll slide further towards Putin/Erdogan state management and oligarchy. Hints of it already in how AP and The Atlantic are being treated, and the hints about what a future judicial system might look like.

That only works until Trump finishes purging the upper ranks of the military, and then gets the Senate to promote Trump loyalists to take their place.

What is a "loyalist"? What president has not put in place people that are loyal to him?

A loyalist privileges their leader over their principles. A patriot is a leader that subordinates themselves to the principles shared with their followers.

In the context of this conversation, a loyalist is obviously someone who will disregard the law and the constitution if Trump orders them to do so.

That's a fantasy military leaders like to tell troops.

Let's hope we won't how that plays out against against the reality of having bills to pay and family members to take care of after enough layers of leadership has been replaced.

I’m pretty sure the owner of the monopoly board game company is the richest person ever.

I don’t want to downplay your point, I basically agree, but in real terms I believe there have been several people richer than him, and it is hard to judge the relative wealth of people long ago.

Elon was uniquely rich is US history but his wealthy fluctuates wildly:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rockefeller-rich-elon-musks-w...

I don't like this market cap against GDP measurement. The multiples in Market Cap in those era would be significantly lower. If we look at P/E of S&P 500 [1], what used to be peak PE of 20 a century ago are now considered normal.

So adjusting for all that Rockefeller would still be richer than Elon.

[1] https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio

> Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him

After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cover will go away. Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).

> Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).

The midterms could have some meaningful effect a lot sooner than that if we start seeing across-the-board primary challenges of pro-Trump Republicans. Of course, all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.

More likely is that competitive districts flip blue. Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset. They’re getting what they wanted. It’s independents/undecideds that flip flop every election that could sway back against the GOP after getting tired of democrats in 2024

> all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.

> Republican primary voters don’t seem to be upset.

Replying to both of you. It has started -> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5214236-democrat-james...

So you're saying there's a chance that democracy can hold?

democracy has been holding. The democratically elected president is in charge.

I don't think it's really pushing things to say that President Trump is taking actions to destroy democracy in America. Basically he's step by step attacking the institutions that might be able to stand against him or resist him. He attacks judges that rule against him, he attacks congressman on the Republican side if they look like they might go against him. That's anti-democratic

True, but I don't think you're really arguing against what GP and above said. Sure, he's taking those actions, but it's far from clear whether or not he'll succeed. Those judges are so far standing up to him. Even Chief Justice Roberts publicly pushed back, something highly unusual.

The attacks members of Congress are troubling, but in a way don't matter too much: the deciders for control of the Senate or House are swing voters in swing states and districts. Whether or not the Republicans in Congress are MAGA adherents or older-school reasonable Republicans matters less than you'd think (and less than I'd like).

The one wrinkle in that is the Senate filibuster: if Democrats regain control there, depending on their margin, they could need up to 10 reasonable Republicans in order to make progress on most things. 60 Democratic Senators is unlikely.

The filibuster is a Senate rule, which can be changed with a simple majority.

Trump was elected by the whole US population. Why does a judge, who was not elected by the entire US population, is able to block the democratically elected president? To me, it sounds like the judges are the ones "destroying democracy" as they are blocking the will of the people.

What has Trump done to take away votes from people? Every election is still happening. US citizens are still able to vote.

What you are describing is not a constitutional democracy. It is a kind of mob rule.

Our balance of powers works that way, it's not a novel concept that was just invented. The president does not have some special power because he won the electoral college election, majority of voters, plurality or whatever. He still has to follow the rule of law, he still has to obey court orders. If the president does some action that a federal judge rules was illegal, then they can stop it. This is completely ordinary and every president faces this, Biden, Trump 1, Bush2, Reagan etc.

> all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.

Seems to be absolutely no basis for that assumption. His approval ratings are in the mid 40s, and the people that vote in primaries aren't exactly the waverers and independents that just wanted a change from Biden.

It could change when he properly tanks the economy, but association with Trump isn't likely to be a problem in primaries when you've got more than half a party's membership so immune to reality they'll insist that not only was Trump doing a good job of running the country in 2020, but he also won that election...

If Trump is on a path to tank the economy, the asset markets will react immediately to that prediction and everyone will know it. This may well be the most tightly binding constraint on Trump and Musk's actual behavior right now. Right now markets are doing worse than was predicted after the election but they're not that terrible. This seems to predict that Trump will muddle through somehow, as the most likely outcome.

On what basis do you think 2028 elections will be free and fair? Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. Dems aren't going to gain control of congress in the upcoming special elections. We're totally fucked economically and otherwise unless Democrats in congress -- mainly the Senate -- can get a fucking grip, pay attention to what's happening, and be the opposition party we need.

> Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I assume they are talking about the SAVE act:

https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/

> An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name, according to the liberal Center for American Progress.

Isn't an ID, like a driving license/passport, enough to vote?

Driving license, no, because non citizens can get one. Passport, yes. But plenty of Americans don’t have a passport.

The OP would say these people are being deliberately disenfranchised. Personally I’ve long since given up judging these things based on what I think may or may not be in the hearts of those writing it. We don’t know so it just becomes an endless back and forth. Instead I look to the facts: the SAVE act would make it more difficult for many people to vote, with an aim of stopping those who are unauthorized to vote from doing so. There’s never really been any solid evidence of the latter happening in notable numbers so to me the trade off doesn’t feel worth it.

IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote. But it doesn’t, it just says that states would manage it. Given that some states used “literacy tests” to disenfranchise black people not so long ago I personally don’t trust they would all approach ID access in a fair and equal way.

Slight correction: there's a thing called "enhanced driver license" that some states issue that complies with the relevant federal standards and can serve as proof of citizenship (they are only issued to citizens). It is, in effect, a passport card combined with a driver license on a single card.

According to https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs

> Yes. All states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories are REAL ID compliant and issuing REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses and IDs.

I have a DL in US and I'm not a citizen. It says on the license that it's only for driving and not for employment or voter registration.

> IMO something like the SAVE Act needs to also legislate the process by which a citizen can easily get an ID in order to vote

That sounds like real id to me?

It depends on the state as far as I understand it.

You need to be registered as a voter, which requires that you be a citizen. How that is enforced varies.

There are also ID requirements at the poll site. Again, those vary.

In every state I've lived in voting was in some way (optionally) tied to your driver's license. But the body issuing the license has always known whether or not I was a US citizen so it boils down to the same thing.

Not to worry! Per the "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" executive order, birth certificates are not valid proof of citizenship for the purposes of voting in a federal election anyway.

I believe they are talking about the SAVE act, which would apparently introduce new requirements for voter registration, supposedly making it so that identification and legal birth names would need to match in order to register to vote which could impact married women. I am not taking a position on the correct interpretation of the act, just stating initial search results.

I looked at the act and I don't see anything claiming that ID and legal birth names have to match. Birth certificate only has to be provided if you have no ID showing you were born in US

… what ID shows you were born in the US? I was born here, am a citizen, have a passport, but don’t have such a thing. Aside from my birth certificate. What else is there?

I don't know about your passport, but my passport has a field for country of birth.

My passport says I was born in New Jersey. I suspect yours lists your state of birth as well.

Yeah, you and the sibling are probably right and I’m just unobservant (if I could remember where the hell it is at the moment I’d verify, but probably it’s in there)

Your passport does.

According to https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs "Yes. All states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories are REAL ID compliant and issuing REAL ID compliant driver’s licenses and IDs."

So from my understanding all DLs would qualify too (Except maybe older ones that were issued before real id?)

Last I checked, we’re just a little over 50% with real id. That’s why they’ve kept pushing back the requirement to have one to fly (they might finally do it this time?)

I’ve tried to get one twice since they started doing them, in two different states, and failed to have one thing or another on the bills and paystubs and such that I took in, so don’t have one. My wife’s got it even worse, they need an original of our marriage certificate (due to the name change) and that’s gone missing. She hasn’t bothered to screw with it, because she’s got a passport anyway (which, as you note, will do after all, I was wrong)

That example is poor justification.

Let me give you a better one.

Trump can arrest the electoral college members from the blue districts under the guise of election fraud. And if that doesn't work, Vance can just pick his own set of electors. Remember, the Supreme court made it legal for Trump to literally drone strike US citizens without legal recourse.

Of course this will cause a bunch of Tumroil, which is good for Trump, because he can just holdon to power.

If you think that has no chance in happening, I envy your optimism.

There are many scenarios that are possible, but this one wouldn’t work for the 2026 midterms.

The midterms are Congressional elections. There is no Electoral College. The Electoral College only functions when electing a President.

Well see, but at this point crazy is full on the table and has a definite chance of happening. I legit would not put it past Trump to institute martial law during any elections.

> Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms.

That's only if the SAVE Act passes, or whatever else they dream up passes. The House can pass whatever MAGA wants, but the Senate needs votes from Democrats to clear the filibuster.

Unless of course the GOP yet again does what they say they'll never do, and drop the filibuster.

The filibuster is a simple rule, and can be removed by a simple majority vote.

I actually expect Republicans to do so soon enough now that their control of the Senate is virtually guaranteed for the foreseeable future, and they are reaping all of the disadvantages of the filibuster without the benefits.

The elections are already being taken over .. in newspeak of course.

PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS

~ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...

  The sweeping 12-page order contains a number of provisions, including a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections as well as a requirement that all ballots be received by Election Day – both of which fall outside of the executive branch’s authority to mandate. 

  But, there’s also a section, buried deeper in the order, that, if implemented, would give Trump’s Justice Department the authority to pick and choose what states get federal funding for election administration. It would require states to loop the DOJ in on supposed violations of election law that it encounters. But it also mandates that basic information about voter roll maintenance be shared with the DOJ as well.   

  If states are unwilling to enter into what is referred to as an “information-sharing agreement” with the Attorney General regarding “suspected violations of state and federal elections laws,” the Attorney General is allowed to withhold grants and other funds from those states, the executive order says.

source~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-order-includes-prov...

There are several commentaries at length going into the hidden traps and pitfalls of this latest executive order kicking about, so far it looks loaded.

He already said if he won you would never have to vote again but for some reason people didn't take him seriously.

Is that true/source?

>Trump said: "Christians, get out and vote, just this time. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians."

>He added: "I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote," Trump said.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...

In the video, trump urges people to go out and vote, in which case telling them "just this time" and "you won't have to do it anymore, 4 more years, it will be fixed, it will be fine"

When I watched the video, I saw no malice.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7xoHJkgvE&pp=ygUqdHJ1bXAgc2F...

Coincidentally, you omitted the spicy addendum transcribing your own source, making his statement sound ambiguous. Here is what he said after your oddly selective excerpt:

"In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you'll not gonna have to vote."

https://youtu.be/gE7xoHJkgvE?t=40

Telling people that it will be "fixed" so they "won't need to vote" was enough for me

Unlike with Musk's "heart goes to you", if there is some context that can turn this into a benign remark it would have to be truly radical. Any takers?

Fortunately that EO is completely illegal and unenforceable, as the president has essentially zero say on how state elections are conducted.

It doesn't have to be enforceable at the point where voting actually occurs. It's just a prepared excuse to disqualify electors. Let's say Republicans in Congress circle the wagons around Trump and refuse to admit any new members from states that ignore the EO, like, physically. What then?

Re: 2026, it's possible Democrats could take back the House, and then be able to impeach the President. But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely.

And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadership of the executive branch. You'd need the House comfortably controlled by Democrats, with the Senate controlled by a supermajority of Democrats. I think that you'd need both the President and Vice President impeached, convicted, and removed from office, while preventing the current/acting President from having a new VP nominated and confirmed, so that the Speaker of the House became acting President. This seems even less likely.

> But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely.

Your numbers are on point. But, there's another Math that could take us on that path leading to the same goal: A lot of republican lawmakers aren't happy currently. Although it's a long shot, some of them could join Democrats in impeaching those two clowns.

It happened over Nixon, whose crimes were much less serious… relatively trivial, even.

The next test of this will be the WI Supreme Court election - if the Musk-backed candidate loses (after Musk spends millions of dollars on the campaign, possibly illegally), it might start to break the hold Musk+Trump have over Republican elected officials.

Wasn't Trump impeached twice already last term without any consequences?

Impeachments without a two thirds majority are largely exercises in political playing around. You can use them to expose information that people are keeping hidden through subpoenas, but you can't convict in an impeachment without a two-thirds majority, which is definitely not happening.

Which is precisely why there won't be 2026 and 2028 elections. I dunno why people are pretending this is just 4 years of Trump. He tried to overthrow the results before, and this time around, he has support of all 3 branches and players like Elon Musk.

US is going to do the same thing Russia did with Putin.

If we end up having elections, its actually gonna be worse of long term, because despite tanking economy, most people aren't going to suffer that much, which means the pattern of Dems inheriting a shit economy, everything getting blamed on them again like with Biden, and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.

The main difference between the US and Russia in this regard is that the US federal government has very little say or control over what are state-run elections.

Solidly red states don't need election interference; they're going to vote red. Solidly blue states aren't going to tolerate interference. The handful or so of swing states will be watched incredibly closely by everyone else for even a hint of interference.

> and then a smarter Republican comes along and its a repeat again in 2032.

I mean, this is just how American politics works now, and has worked since extreme political polarization took root. That's what happens when you have FPTP voting and a two-party system, where members of each party show complete disdain (justified or not) of members of the other party.

Ok and what are states gonna do when Trump arrests the electors? Secede?

Look at what Dems are doing now. AoC and Bernie are hosting rallies - i.e being worthless.

States will roll over, because day to day business is gotta continue.

> Trump arrests the electors?

These types of speculative remarks insinuating trump is a dictatorial nazi is very lazy. If you disagree with his policies, debate the policies.

It's completely reasonable to think and plan ahead, especially when we are dealing with someone who is refusing to acknowledged a democratic loss. This is not theoretical, we know how he reacts when he looses a election.

>reasonable to think and plan ahead, especially when we are dealing with someone who is refusing to acknowledged a democratic loss.

>This is not theoretical, we know how he reacts when he looses a election.

It sounds like from your perspective, the sequence of actions should be pretty obvious: create a market on polymarket or something for Trump to not acknowledged a loss, put up some money on it, and at the expense of people who perceive this question as theoretical you should easily get your x20-x30 insurance if something like that happening and can go to live in Europe in your own mansion (or even castle, there are many of them in Europe).

I guess it's telling that faced with the prospect of the fall of American democracy, the obvious thing is to start gambling on it.

I don't know how much I would gamle in such a case. There are many outcomes compatible with his previous actions. Maybe he gets a heartattack. Maybe there is no election. Maybe the election process is manipulated so he wins. Maybe he actually wins, fairly or 'fairly'. Maybe they find a way for him to run, maybe it's Vance. Maybe someone else.

The important thing is that we should prepare that shitt will happen, and democracy don't survive automatically. We literally have him on tape, pressuring Georgia secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes" and overturn the state's election results. And it is not 'lazy' to prepare (intellectualy and physically), and when it happens it's too late to 'discuss the politics'.

Speculative?

You are probably not aware of this, but these are the events on and leading up to Jan 6.

* Trump calls fraud on elections with no real evidence. Lawsuits are filed. Every single one of them gets dismissed except like one, which ends up turning more votes for Democrats anyways

* Some adviser puts in an idea in Trumps head that Pence can reject the results and send them back to the states

* Trump basically gathers a crowd together, tells them to march to the capital to save our country. As the protesters are breaking in, there are records of him just calling different senators and asking "are you sure you don't want to delay the certification of the vote", all while being told that protesters are breaking in and getting hurt.

* Trump sends a fake set of electors from key states, calling on Pence to "do the right thing". Those fake electors were of course arrested and prosecuted.

None of this is disputable, undeniable, as it was brought up in a republican controlled supreme court hearing, which you can read for yourself. Supreme court decided that President is basically immune from legal punishment as long as he is acting within official capacity.

So saying he is gonna do more shit this time around, granted that he has legal immunity to do so is about as speculative as saying the guy who does 2 Nazi salutes probably believes that the Nazis were right in a lot of things.

FWIW, the first thing Putin did after he got elected wasn't to mess with the elections; rather, he methodically strangled all remaining free press in the country above a certain threshold. Basically no opposition TV at all, only a couple of radio stations and newspapers. Massive electoral fraud orchestrated from Kremlin only really began post-2008.

>Which is precisely why there won't be 2026 and 2028 elections.

Care to place a wager on it? I precisely bet you will ignore this offer though.

If we have an election in 2026 and 2028, will you reassess your convictions? Or just carry them forward without re-evaluation?

If you don't believe he'll find a way to get a third term like every other dictator, you're living in a fantasy.

Do you truly believe this will happen? I know these are crazy times but the idea of a then-82 year old man realizing a third term for himself seems a little absurd to me. Or do you mean this in a less literal sense, e.g. in the sense that he'll get a figurative "third term" by handing the reigns over to someone in his club without a fair election?

No I mean literally. Or he'll do what putin did and find a puppet to take the reigns for a term.

He knows without presidential immunity he risks prison. And he has previous for trying to steal an election.

I have no doubt he'll see to it that he never faces the risk of prison, and this is the most obvious way to go. That and he's clearly a power hungry megalomaniac.

I think it'd be more informative to ask why he wouldn't try to get this.

Downvoted but he even admits it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-...

> He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. He’s never going to suffer financially. He has countless levers of power he can pull.

Just being rich doesn't mean he's got all the power to stop that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff

Him being a Trump associate is a lever, but not a financial one… unless and until they have a falling-out. I'd be surprised if that's any less than 6 months away, or more than 3 years away.

> The same fantasy applies to any past or current president ever spending a day in jail. He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen. Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him

Depends if he dies in office (~10% all causes, he's old etc.), and if the dems regain congress in two years.

Trump was already very close to getting one day in jail due to inability to behave himself in the trial where he got all those felony convictions, and he did get impeached twice.

> unless and until they have a falling-out. I'd be surprised if that's any less than 6 months away, or more than 3 years away.

That's the other thing: Trump's tastes and whims are super fickle. Trump and Musk have already clashed on a bunch of things, and there's no reason to believe that won't continue and/or get worse. And Trump's priorities could change, without a corresponding shift in Musk's.

> He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known

This is arguable in real terms.

Yeah. He’s not even the richest African emmigrant… because Mansa Musa tipped so heavily he broke intercontinental trade dynamics.

Thanks for that factoid, interesting piece of history.

> Mansa Musa tipped so heavily he broke intercontinental trade dynamics

Thank you for dropping this fun fact. Pretty telling of my "western" education, I have never been taught anything about this guy. Quite memorable years of reign too!

350b USD buys 350kT of gold.

I suspect that many zeros were unheard of in pre industrial times, making most hundred billionaires richer than Mansa Musa even in absolute terms.

> 350b USD buys 350kT of gold

No it doesn’t - that much gold hasn’t been mined in the history of humanity. Gold is not a good metric for comparing this across history.

That's the whole point. 350b is an enormous amount of buying power

Mechanically it doesn't work for two reasons: Elon's wealth is not liquid and him buying into the market would raise the price of gold far before he got anywhere near all of it.

But going further, I think you're misunderstanding my point - gold is a terrible measurement of wealth on the "human-history" time scale. At that scale, you have to consider monetary wealth as it relates to "the power to get things done" in general.

In that framing you can look at:

1. Power/wealth relative to the next most powerful people (like the Mansa Musa story). For pure wealth we often look at this in relation to country/global GDP.

2. Absolute ability to get "work" done, including technological changes.

3. Relative ability to get "work" done, adjusting for technological changes.

He's probably not close to top 10 in #1, because his relative power compared to the next most wealthy or powerful people is not that disparate, he just wields it more blatantly than we are used to in the modern era. For example, Augustus is believed to have personally controlled 6% of the world's wealth, not accounting for his power over the Roman Empire.

Elon is probably in the top 10 or so of #2, behind all modern US presidents, Putin, Xi, and maybe a few other world leaders. There's no doubting that his wealth could be converted into far more kW of work than at any other time in history as a result of technological leverage.

Much like #1, this is probably not close. The Ming Dynasty leaders, Augustus Caesar, Ghengis Khan, etc.

> He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known.

That’s disputable

> He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen.

That’s also disputable

>> He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen.

> That’s also disputable

Why? Which military has ever existed that would have a chance against the current US military?

Taliban.

Conventional armies have a hard stand against partisans.

The US in Vietnam and Russia and the US in Afghanistan.

So the taliban or the Vietcong were more powerful than the US military? They won because they were defending their own country which gives them higher motivation and an advantage as defenders. If you look at the military itself, the US was always much more powerful.

If you lose nobody cares about how powerful you are.

The Russian army is more powerful than Ukraine‘s, still no win. Same with Russia in Afghanistan.

Ok, but they still are more powerful. That’s what the discussion was about. Having a disadvantage and losing doesn’t mean it’s not the most powerful military that ever existed.

But it a useless measure if the results aren’t as expected.

That’s like saying I have the most expensive car in Formula 1.

Powerful is associated with winning that’s the whole point of pointing it out.

No, it's like doing a drag race with a formula 1 car against a mini but the mini is on a street and the formula 1 car is on a dirt strip. If you want to compare military power, you would have to look at "Who would win in equal situations", not "Who won a 1 vs 1 with different starting situations".

If you had to perform a military action and had to pick either the taliban or the US military to be your military to use, would you ever pick the taliban?

The only reason they had a chance was because of external factors, not the power of the military itself.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but anybody who measures military power doesn't actually looks at things like ability to do something. Talbian and co simply survive and don't give up. But they are totally incapable of anything else beyond that.

> Conventional armies have a hard stand against partisans.

No they don't. Its just not worth doing in the long run.

And whatever you may think of the US military forces, they have the ability to do lots of things.

Anybody who cares looks at the results.

Result beats potential.

And most of the US military except the special forces need time of from work and visit the army shop.

Anybody who actually cares, you know actual professionals, looks at things beyond a very limited set of real world results in very restrictive circumstance.

That's like saying, this NBA team after a 5d journey, and no sleep played a basketball game against a local team, with the whole crowd hostile, a complete broke court and a totally different ball.

And even then they would win for 20 years straight and the other team is only annoying to deal with. Until the owner decide there is no point in it.

And from this you conclude that that NBA team is bad at basketball because 'real-world results'.

guy forgot what he was told to never forget

So the Taliban have ten aircraft carriers and the ability to bomb any target on Earth without losing the plane?

You are delusional, if you think the USAF can bomb any target in any airspace without losing the plane. If losing the plane is allowed, you have to admit, the Taliban have been exceptionally successful, too.

> You are delusional, if you think the USAF can bomb any target in any airspace without losing the plane.

You're delusional if you don't think that. You could just launch a few dozen cruise missiles at the target and at least one will make it through.

Depending on the target your cruise missiles are out of range and your fancy aircraft will have to face air defense systems. (Especially, since you moved your fat ass carrier close-by...)

So, does your magical aircraft carry those dozens of cruise missiles, immune to every modern anti-air missile it will encounter? You know, instead of spending all that money on aircraft carriers, some countries have spent their money on air defense instead. Try to fly an F35 to Moscow.

Sorry, but this is laughable. If what you said was true, geopolitics would look very different. The US would break the whole nuclear deterrence game, since you could eliminate all nuclear launch sites, conventionally, before a strike. Why even have nukes then?!

> Depending on the target your cruise missiles are out of range and your fancy aircraft will have to face air defense systems. (Especially, since you moved your fat ass carrier close-by...)

Right, but the scenario was unspecified enough that I assumes peace time and the planes can retreat before the enemy notices the attack and shoots them down.

> Try to fly an F35 to Moscow.

I won't fly my F-35 to Moscow, I will drop some AGM-158 JASSM-ER over eastern poland and the pilots will probably be back on the ground before the russian air defense has even tracked the missiles.

> Sorry, but this is laughable. If what you said was true, geopolitics would look very different. The US would break the whole nuclear deterrence game, since you could eliminate all nuclear launch sites, conventionally, before a strike. Why even have nukes then?!

No, I don't get why people think that. That's the exact reason why countries have Nuclear missile subs. So they can retaliate, even after a first strike.

But even if they hadn't, what you said wouldn't follow. Because having the ability to strike whatever you want doesn't mean you can prevent a second strike. If you launch cruise missiles, the target can detect them and send a retaliatory nuclear strike before the cruise missiles arrive and destroy the silos.

> The US would break the whole nuclear deterrence game, since you could eliminate all nuclear launch sites, conventionally, before a strike.

I didn't say the US could hit all points on Earth simultaneously. Russia has a bunch of nuclear silos and submarines. Brighter Russians than you have designed their nuclear arsenal to survive this US capability.

IMHO the US is turning into an oligarchy / autocracy like Russia. Musk is one of the oligarchs. We all know what happens to oligarchs when they get too close to eclipse the top dog and go near a window.

> He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known.

Rich people become poor people all the time. Its hardly unheard of.

I have no opinion about Musk or Trump. I just want to give counter-examples to your claims: Saddam Hussain, Mussoloni, Ceausescu. At the peak of their power, they all seemed untouchable. Would they even have thought, when they were ruling their countries, that one day their fortunes would turn?

Quoting Gandhi: "There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Always."

I think if we look around the world we can find plenty of counterexamples to Ganhi's quote.

Sure, they always "fall" in the sense that they're not immortal and they'll eventually die, but it's often (usually?) the case that a family member or some sort of protege steps up to fill their shoes.

The first counteraxample that comes to mid is Idi Amin, the Ugandan dictator. He murdered, pillaged and lived out the rest of his years (happily and luxuriously) in Saudi Arabia.

He lived "in a villa rented for him by the government of Saudi Arabia in the posh Al Hamra district". https://www.dawn.com/news/135283/idi-amin-led-quiet-life-in-...

Is he really rich? He started a car company, one that is known to make shit cars. All of their big bets failed. So what was supposed to be "not just a car comoany", which is what all the insane valuations were based on, is now "just a car comoany" and a shit one at that. So why is this car comoany still valuated at such insane hype levels? Is his wealth not entirely tied to the hyper-valuation of this car company?

Except for the Cybertruck the cars are pretty good. The overvaluation is because Musk wants everybody to think Tesla is an AI company that makes self-driving cars, which by now everybody realizes is bullshit.

Tesla makes pretty nice cars if you're willing to drive them yourself and you only occasionally use autopilot as a kind of smarter cruise control. Never use FSD unless you're willing to pay through the nose for a system that only works in select locations and otherwise tries to kill you every few minutes.

Just to populate the counterargument: my personal experience with FSD is that it works in all locations I’ve tried it and does not try to kill you every few minutes. Maybe every few months.

Cue HN commentary about how that’s worse, but I’m only commenting here because this comment directly contradicts my lived experience.

> He started a car company, one that is known to make shit cars.

No he didn't. He was an early investor in a car company, eight month after it was founded, and later history-revised his way into a founder title.

Not that this should be surprising, considering the childish ego on that man.

You're right. This is always something I've pointed out myself. Just got sloppy with language here.

Is spelling "company" really that hard?

It's probably just a typo, O is next to P on keyboards, mistakes happen.

>He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known.

Putin might well be richer.

Also it is hard to compare his wealth to historical figures, such as Mansa Musa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa

We know how it ended for Rasputin.

South Korean president is jailed for trying to coup, no? So there’s precedent.

I mean this is exactly the reason why they won't want to put Trump in jail - so that it doesn't turn out like in Korea. After all, where you can put one president in jail, you can put a next one in jail too.

I mean, yes? Where you can put one president in jail (for trying to demolish democracy and establish oligarchy/autocracy), you can put a next one in jail too (if they try to do the same)

This is called upholding the constitution and it’s fundamental for a democracy. If you say president is immune, you get current US.

>If you say president is immune, you get current US

And even most leftist woke socialist president between probability of a prison for himself and the current US will choose current US.

This word soup means nothing.

He’s been released.

Past presidents don't hold command over any military. France sent a former president to jail just a few months ago. Brazil and South Korea are in the process of putting a former president on trial. El Chapo was billionaire and had a private army of murderers – he's currently in prison.

The main reason Trump hasn't been impeached and (possibly) jailed is because the political system in the US is dysfunctional. Party because it's not a great system to start with, and partly because a critical section of people made the decision to intentionally break it for selfish gain. But there is nothing that says it needs to be like this.

> He’s never going to suffer financially

Well his wealth can decrease by 200x and no sane person could claim that he's "suffering" financially with what he has left.

> somehow go bankrupt .. were also wild

That depended entirely on how Tesla's stock performed. If he had to liquidate $20 billion of his stocks to pay back the Twitter loans his wealth would have decreased by much, much more than that.

I just borrowed a hundred trillion dollars from myself, then paid it back instantly. This means the majority of 2025 US GDP is now my financial activity, right? Seems newsworthy.

Trivia: Simple interest on $100T borrowed at 6% for 10 seconds is $1,900,000.

All money is made up. The banks literally "lend" money into existence without having it backed by anything, the banks don't need to have the money in the first place, the bank reserve requirement has been dropped to 0% in 2020.

It’s true that all money is made up, but not in the same sense OP means.

Like I could give you 20 dollars and it’s made up in a sense, it’s just a piece of paper, but also you can go to the store and buy things with it.

Whereas if you’re an investor in a company and the CEO does some self dealing which nominally values your shares at 20 million, you can’t go spend that. It’s even more made up

Or, an (over)simplified way to put it:

"All money is made up, but some are more made up than others."

This is inaccurate. Reserve requirements are not the only cost that banks have to pay for the money they create. If bank A lends $20B, and the borrower spends it to buy something from someone with an account at bank B, bank B isn't going to accept $20B of "made-up" bank A money, it'll want $20B of central bank money from bank A. If bank A doesn't have that that $20B of central bank money, it'll have to borrow it from the central bank, at the cost of the reserve interest rate. Being able to transfer central bank money to bank B is essentially what backs the money that bank A created.

(in reality some of that $20B would probably make it back to bank A as money circulates, so the actual amount of reserve money that banks have to borrow depends on more complicated factors. This also doesn't talk about what happens if the borrower defaults. But the fundamental principle remains the same, and is what ultimately limits how much money a bank can lend).

The value of Twitter was set when the bonds used to finance the purchase were sold recently for 97cents on the dollar.

Musk threw in xAI ownership to sell those bonds, which themselves have an 11% rate. Musk basically backstopped the bonds by giving a heads up of this.

No, that was absolute fantasy numbers, and in no universe did it verify any value of Twitter.

Musk really, really knows how to play people. He deserves that credit.

And I mean, bond discounts or not have nothing to do with the value of a company. The discount on a bond is based upon the likelihood they'll ever be paid off, and after it was clear that Musk would save the failure of X by using one of his other companies and AI hype to do so (as others have said, just like SolarCity), the bond lost its discount. X's value could be $1, but if the bonds are going to be repaid they'll sell at no discount.

When debt is worth near par that only means that equity is very likely positive (not null). Doesn't tell you anything about how positive.

Small correction.

When xAI was founded, the X investors got 25% of xAI.

So he didn’t sell for less than he paid for it.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/investors-who-backed...

But all the armchair business experts assured me that the value of Twitter had completely tanked since Elon bought it because he’s such a stupid fool who ruins everything, so shouldn’t it be worth less? Just a few months ago everyone was confident it was only worth $8 billion.

He valued it at the same price minus debt.

He bought it with stock from another company that has no clear value and is a meaningless hype monster. What is xai going to do that 10 other AI companies aren't going to build, anthropic, openai, etc.

Theoretically the synergy with Twitter could be fantastic in terms of potential value added, if I’m trying to be down to earth. The others have no real foothold in the real world beyond their own services, and users may flock away as AI integrated into their favorite apps etc. become good enough.

What synergy exactly? Selling Twitter bots?

You can’t think of a single synergistic thing? Seriously?

Automating some administrative tasks? Gauging sentiment across swathes of the population on a given topic? Providing stuff like the “reader context” but attempt to pre-empt it so better info is shared to begin with? And yeah, probably lots of Twitter bots for different things. Provide automated customer support for companies on there, or help people find products relevant to what they’re discussing/browsing etc.

There are literally a million options; I find it hard to believe you couldn’t think of one

Sir or madam, if you are defending the value of xai then I think it's incumbent on you to suggest the synergistic or other value creating aspects of xai, when other people are doubting it. Many other of these types of systems are doing these same things like creating software to do administrative tasks, summarizing the gist of an article or a series of comments. Those are the most basic things that all of the other systems are doing also.

It’s not my job to think for you, it’s your job to do that. He asked a really low-quality question. It’s like when the fresh-grad dev tells you he can’t figure out his ticket.

…okay? Did you read it? Was there enough info? Where did you get confused? I’m happy to provide clarification, but if he stopped so quickly he couldn’t think of a single way that a social media platform could leverage in-house AI (or vice-versa) and the power that would come from (still, somehow) being one of the foremost social media sites on the planet, then it’s not the time to ask questions, it’s the time to think a bit more.

> automating some administrative tasks?

on x? like... for marketers? do we really need ai to schedule tweets or auto-reply with “thanks for the follow”? feels like we’ve had that stuff for a decade already. just because it’s ai now doesn’t make it new or useful.

> gauging sentiment across swathes of the population on a given topic?

you mean gauging sentiment from a user base that’s gotten increasingly loud, extreme, and way less representative of the general public? that’s not insight, that’s just noise with extra steps.

> providing stuff like the “reader context” but attempt to pre-empt it so better info is shared to begin with?

in theory, sure. but that’s assuming the platform actually cares about curating good info and not just maximizing engagement. reader context is cool when it works, but it’s super inconsistent and often buried. ai preemptively “fixing” info sounds nice until you remember who’s training it and what incentives are driving it.

> twitter bots for different things / automated customer support / product recommendations etc.

yeah i mean, bots have been a thing on twitter forever—some useful, most annoying. ai-powered ones could be better, but the platform’s current vibe isn’t exactly welcoming for brands trying to do legit support or sales. good luck pitching your socks in a thread full of people arguing about conspiracy theories.

The sibling examples where good as well, but I think missing a major one: Consumer access. xAI can just merge their chat bot into the X/Twitter app, and suddenly they have a couple hundred million users on this thing. In a commoditised market, distribution is everything.

Also seems to fit with Musk's vision of turning Twitter into some kind of US WeChat, an app people do a bunch of stuff in. Using LLMs to do a bunch of stuff seems to be the way the hype is going right now.

I don't know if I see long term value here, but I can't say I don't see the story.

You might want to read about a little company called Meta, who possess the same advantage, but larger.

What are OpenAI, anthropic, going to do that xAI isn’t? By that logic if there is more than one company in any field they’re all worthless.

How much of these evaluation is based on Musk‘s influence on Trump?

I've got a water bottle, I'm going to sell it to myself for $1 billion dollars.

I now own a $1 billion dollar water bottle

The value of something only matters if there's a market for it, and people can bid on it. Musk just made up a number he liked and said it out loud.

He valued it as the price he made another company value it.

Do you understand where money comes from, cause Elon and you seem to not understand.

Newspeak phrase of the day: Conglomerate Discount.

Some inverters believe they suffer from "conglomerate discount" [1]: that their whole conglomerate can be worth less than the sum of its parts. Who decides what the parts are worth? The investors, of course. Buying shares of their own company is a pretty standard way to fix the "discount".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conglomerate_discount

Buying your own assets is a well-known get-even-richer scheme of the rich.

I think it's the same move Adam Newman invented. Great minds think alike, I guess.

you might want to check who owns majority of FAANG stocks. once you identified those, check how much they own of each others. Musk is just doing what everyone else does

I'll do you one better. The Market Makers are Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street which are majority shareholders of 80% of the SP500. They control the price using swarms of HFT bots, most likely running Blackrock's Aladdin algo which they license. The largest shareholder of Blackrock, is Vanguard.

It’s actually more, right? Because it’s $33b+$12b of debt, which means he’s saying it’s worth $45b.

go go gadget FIAT dollars

Welcome to the real world of finance. Hollywood accounting is taking over the globe, and they need to control the government to do so.

Musky, tell me 5 things you did today at school.

Well, I invented a new name, sold it to myself and now people say I’m worth more money.

Anything productive, Musky?

No. Nothing else.

You're fired Musky!

> Wild

It's not wild, it's - if there is malfeasance - unprosecutable.

And then will leverage against that valuation for loans, acquisitions, etc.

Self dealing. Nobody cares anymore.

Good luck trying to get a bank to underwrite that loan, smells a bit risky.

"Nice bank you've got there. Would be a shame if ________" (Insert any number of orders that Musk can have his friends in the executive branch issue to make life miserable for the bank principals.)

It's good to be the king. Even better to own him.

Case in point: https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firm-mueller-fc64fcda09...

> A prominent international law firm reached a deal with President Donald Trump on Friday to dedicate at least $100 million in free legal services and to review its hiring practices, averting a punishing executive order like the ones directed at nearly a half-dozen other major legal institutions in recent weeks.

This isn't theoretical. It's happening.

Wow, I thought the sum was $40 million, but that's what the other law firm paid that showed a lack of principles and caved...

And another law firm is being blackmailed because it used to employ someone who worked for Robert Mueller (of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation)... Geez Trump's team is actually busy, but busy settling old scores.

They’re busy making sure the firms with the money and bench to try to fight the authoritarian take-over in court are all sidelined.

Exactly, that was the case I had in mind.

That makes me think of Jakob Fugger. He was so rich the pope borrowed money from him to build St. Peter's Basilica. And they got so desperate to pay it back they started selling indulgences, pissing off one Martin Luther and creating Protestantism: https://theconversation.com/the-man-who-gave-us-the-reformat...

And that makes me think of the Knights Templar. They were so rich that everybody borrowed money from them. The one day, the King of France decided he didn't want to repay the loan. The story doesn't end well for the Templars.

Then he buys the bank. DOGE is in the SEC now. Elon Musk is the regulator. If he decides that a bank is doing “fraud” and wants to shut it down, is there anyone to stop him? Serious question.

You realize the current administration is shutting down law firms that criticize Trump, right? They'll have zero problems going "do this deal if you know what's good for you".

Trump pardoned Trevor Milton today, who scammed investors out of millions doing things like his now infamous "rolling a truck down a hill to make it looks functional" demo.

Milton donated $1.8M to Trump, and Miltons lawyer's sister is Pam Bondi, the Attorney General.

This is nakedly corrupt and a strong signal that you can get away with all manner of financial fuckery if you are on Trumps "good list".

Every democratic country deserves the government they get.

At least we don't have to worry about trans kids swimming on the girls swim team.

>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

Comments like these are wildly off the original topic and practically invite the dead replies. As a rule of thumb, if you're about to put "/s" at the bottom of a post on an even remotely political topic, please reconsider. Especially if your sarcasm is already quite obvious, and obviously being used to bash a political outgroup.

Good and hard.

Is it corruption if it's done publicly and no one gives a fuck? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Absolutely..and people care.

"But that guy George Soros surely is up to no good!"

It's probably being spoken by some podcast that helped get Trump elected.

When they have an actual conspiracy, with actual billionaires paying the president and getting full access to the government, while getting public contracts... all of this being live streamed... they're still stuck in George Soros and the Deep State lizard people fantasy.

And now there's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509169

Musk gets away with a lot because he does deliver sometimes - the cars and the rockets have done well. The investors and lenders are not totally dumb.

Would anyone say the same about Cathie Wood? Also, Starship "done well?"

It's all private capital. The only people who are exposed to this deal are the banks who make loans to Musk and Twitter, and the investors who put capital in to take Twitter private or to invest in xAI. If one of those entities is mad they will sue, and the legal system works pretty well for fights between different capital holders. Doesn't really matter what the general public's opinion is.

It's the new normal

https://apnews.com/article/nikola-trevor-milton-fraud-trump-...

What an absolute scammer lol.

Welcome to very-late-stage capitalism.

And if you can get the right people to believe in the arbitrarily large numbers you invented out of thin air you can get away with just about anything because the wealthy don't have any real consequences.

> very-late-stage

The cope is alive and well.

"aaaany time now it will all fall apart"

Capitalism will fall in 2 more weeks comrade, trust the plan

> So he just sold himself a company he already owns for a valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it, and he paid entirely using “money” that has a made up value and which he issues himself?

And that is for sure either illegal or immoral. /s

> valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it

It’s more than he paid. There’s 12 billion of debt you’re not accounting for.

Its almost like modern life is riddled with lies, liars, and their collective bullshit.

I don’t think this is a change in the human condition; we’re extremely greedy hairless apes. But guys like Elon really show how low we can go.

I argue that he's literally showing us how high we can go with SpaceX.

With SpaceX? Or Ketamine??

I think you’re showing us how low someone can go alright.

I'm sorry, but calling out someone visible and public substance abuse problem isn't low. As someone who has dealt with addiction and its fallout since I was a very small child, I can emphatically say the man needs help first and foremost.

But, as the wealthiest man on the planet he's more likely to just be given what he wants: more self-indulgence. When you surround yourself with yes-men and sycophants, actual help isn't likely.

Further, it's entirely right to call this out when his actions impact the rest of the world greatly and the man has obvious problems. To then try and turn it around on me as if I'd done something wrong by pointing out the Emperor has no clothes? Well, I could offer you some choice words, but I'll hold my tongue. However, in my estimation, you could do with some self-reflection and probably a bit less "taste of boot on your tongue".

In what way though? I’ve yet to see anything that rivals any accomplishments by NASA. Or were you being punny?

No, you're right. NASA has already shown that we can go past our solar system, so... His company has done some really awesome stuff with the ships/rockets, though.

Did you not watch them land the starship? That's easily the biggest space-faring accomplishment since Apollo, and certainly not something NASA could replicate in the foreseeable future.

Speaking of the moon, NASA's SLS is projected to cost several orders of magnitude more than a super heavy launch, and is only aiming for the moon as opposed to Mars.

If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA. Of course, that would be the conflict of interest par excellence, and face a bunch of opposition from red-state congressmen with huge contracts in their constituencies. Objectively speaking, though, it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.

> If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA.

At 0.3% of the federal budget - if NASA was 100% waste, fixing it wouldn’t make a dent.

NASA/DoD did lay some of the groundwork. DC-X was a vertical landing rocket meant for reuse nearly 35 years ago. Granted SpaceX has done amazing things that are more difficult (DC-X was suborbital), but I tend to think if NASA continued they would have got there. From my perspective, SpaceX’s major benefit is they don’t have to follow the same rules as NASA so they can do things quicker and/or cheaper.

The “waste” is really just a different risk tolerance. You could make many of the NASA requirements go away, but nobody wants to be the one who signs up for that when the next disaster happens.

The waste does not at all stem only from different risk tolerances. SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards. Pork barrel projects like SLS is the real reason why everything NASA does is so expensive and late.

The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding.

>SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards

Sorry, this is false. When NASA engineers have raised the question of non-adherence to NASA standards by CCP contractors, they were told it wasn’t their role to dictate those kinds of requirements. You can see this in a number of mishaps, like when a strut failure resulted in a lost rocket because they didn’t want to follow well-established and codified aerospace supply chain quality standards. NASA is buying a service with CCP, not a product. This says nothing of the political requirements NASA must work through that contractors do not.

>The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding.

NASA does, but that NASA VTOL rocket program was cancelled in 1996. My point was that the tech was feasible for NASA, but not a priority.

Does Falcon 9 fail more often than other rockets?

NASA spending 35 years pursuing pork projects instead of useful technologies like VTOL sounds like the very definition of waste to me.

I agree Falcon 9 is showing itself to be reliable and low cost. We probably agree about the pork piece too

You’re missing the point (which seems to be a common thread on this) so before I spend too much time constantly reiterating: 1) What do you think is the goal of NASA and 2) What do you think is fundamentally different about CCP?

Isn't the point actually "SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, has accomplished some amazing feats in the aerospace industry?"

No, the point was about the differences in risk that facilitate that work. I agree that SpaceX has done wonderful things, but disagree about the overly simplified explanation.

For example, the commenter uses the word “waste”, probably because they lack a nuanced understanding. NASA operates under different risk constraints than SpaceX. For example, they have to manage political risk which is why centers are spread across politically important states; that prevents funding from drying up. When a project is managed across different geographic locations, it creates funding stability at the cost of inefficiency. SpaceX doesn’t have the same problem, so they can skirt many risk reduction requirements, as well as consolidate operations to maximize efficiency. From that standpoint, both sides of the public/private partnership have unique roles. But people tend to want to color such things in oversimplified terms because it hits well on social media.

There are other differences in risk, but I’m already tired of typing.

Like most things, when people have an overly simple or dichotomous take of a complex issue, it usually belies an incomplete understanding. The OP started off with a claim that showed they don’t understand how the CCP works, and just kept digging.

speak for yourself. I have plenty of hair!

but what I really wanted to say (because I'm a special interests person)

is that hair is a mammal trait. all mammals have hair!!! how cool is that?

TIL dolphins are born with hair

Reply on news.ycombinator.com