I'm certain we'll see a pile of public funds handed over the xAI in the future.
That's Trump for you. Populism up front, oligarchy in the back.
Oligarchy is generally how people who don't deserve wealth can get it. As pointed out by you, that doesn't exactly apply to the world's (already) richest man.
And who exactly would you look for to help the federal government build "a better mechanism for managing costs and outlays", if not someone who has built multiple successful businesses (managing costs and outlays at impressive scale) in very different industries?
No that's just one of it's outcomes. The proper definition would be "a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution."
> that doesn't exactly apply to the world's (already) richest man.
Given the appropriate definition and his involvement in owning not only a social media company but also having a role in federal government policy and now apparently investigations I am completely baffled by your assertion.
> And who exactly would you look for to help the federal government build
I figured someone would summon this fallacy. He has acquired wealth. This does not demonstrate any skill in spending tax payer money efficiently in a regulated environment. This is particularly true if you're willing to assume that oligarchy played some part in his acquisition in the first place.
> if not someone who has built multiple successful businesses
He likes to call himself a founder. Of business that already existed and he purchases a controlling share in. It's amazing that people accept this distortion of reality.
> managing costs and outlays at impressive scale
Presumably he has people on the payroll who do this. I imagine that the entire financial success of these companies is not down to a single person. How does he find time to do anything in a day?
I imagine the federal government could, you know, just do the same thing. Hire qualified professionals to do the job?
> Not sure that tracks.
Outside of the reality distortion field that some people willingly occupy it most certainly does.
> It's amazing that people accept this distortion of reality.
Indeed
In 2021, the last full year before Musk's acquisition, Twitter generated $5.08 billion in revenue.
Under Musk's ownership, X's revenue has declined significantly. In 2024, X reported $2.7 billion in revenue, which is nearly half of its pre-acquisition level. For 2025, global ad revenue is projected to grow to $2.26 billion, marking its first annual increase since the acquisition.
So yes on paper, X is more profitable than Twitter was before the acquisition. Its 2024 adjusted EBITDA nearly doubled Twitter’s best year, despite a much smaller revenue base. But whether that profitability is sustainable or comes at too high a cost—strategically, reputationally, and culturally—remains an open question.