Musk actually buys Twitter.
- Thread starter LordsFire
- Start date
As @Cherico said, these people think they're invincible. They've never really had someone with just as much money, or more money in total, and influence than them not only survive their bullshit maneuvers but actively use it against them.
As an example, Disney's higher ups are in a panic right now that someone, a billionaire who is against their Leftist bullshit, is going to hostile takeover the company and do whatever he wants. Someone with that capability isn't on their side/under their influence, and it's terrifying to them.
Musk destroying one of their Lefty compatriots? It'll cause ripples.
The real problem for MM and the people in it is NOT Musk's lawsuit. If that works, they just declare bankruptcy and start again under a different name.
No, the real problem is the fraud investigations. Those will target MM AND individuals. Bankruptcy won't protect them from that.
No, the real problem is the fraud investigations. Those will target MM AND individuals. Bankruptcy won't protect them from that.
DarthOne
☦️
Not so sure about Disney. From what I hear I think it’s more diversion and smoke and mirrors.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
There's more to it. Chapek was still progressive, but more interested in making money, so he was meant as "controlled opposition", rolling back some of the crazier stuff and pleasing the investors (who do want actual profits). But even that was too much for the loonies to accept, so Chapek was sabotaged from within Disney. You have to understand, their entire managerial cadre is run by far-left psychos by now. There's very few sane people left. They literally consider The Message more important than having a profitable company.
But as soon as this became clear (that Chapek was going to be forced out), a group of shareholders tried to organise a boardroom coup / buy-out. Didn't work out, since they lacked a majority. So Chapek was canned, and Iger brought back.
Now, Disney's annual numbers have gone off a cliff. Since Iger (the erstwhile champion and sponsor of Kennedy and other "The Message!"-pushing loons) was brought back at the behest of the loonies, they can't really get rid of him like they did with Chapek. And Iger can be removed at the behest of upset shareholders. And there are by now plenty of upset shareholders. So Iger is actually now doing what Chapek was also doing: moderate roll-backs of the insanity.
To the leftists, those are temporary appeasements, and they'll go right back to the lunacy as soon as they can get away with it. But at that time, it'll just sink profits again.
And this process is happening across the media industry. Diversity officers (and often their entire departments) are getting fired left and right. There's something of a sea-change to be seen. I don't think we're there yet, and that it'll be a tug-of-war for a few more rounds, but we're edging closer and closer to the day when a group of upset big shareholders just forces a change at Disney. And not the kind of partial, temporary roll-back, but a really big sweep that kicks all the wokies to the curb in the name of restoring profits.
The reason they're looking with such trepidation at Musk is because he's ahead of the curve. He's the kind of mad lad doing this before it's fashionable. He's slipping through the first crack of the opening Overton Window, and they know he's a sign of things to come. He's showing others that the loonies and the wokies and crybullies can be fought. And that when you fight them, you can win.
(The basic trade-off is that going against 'The Message' gets you a lot of media -- and social media -- backlash, which the big corporations fear. They don't want controversy. But counter to this, going along with 'The Message' kills your profits. The upshot is that they go along with it for as long as profits are still substantial enough. We're now getting to the point that the cost of being 'woke' is higher than the cost of courting controversy by rejecting 'woke'. Musk is one of the first to get this, and he's willing to make the needed moves, because he's a hypergiant and they can't touch him.)
Last edited:
the crybullies and wookies havent even begun to suffer for all of the shit they have pulled.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Well, not the crybullies, but you have to admit-- the Wookiees had it pretty bad under Palpatine's rule.
And the crybullies won't.
You need to understand something: the crybullies will always exist. There's a personality type, let's call them the "Social Enforcer" who gloms onto what they see as the most popular moral system and proceed to attempt to enforce it upon others via social shaming and public moralizing. You used to see these as the "Church Ladies" who were constantly made fun of back in the 80s and 90s, and whom are often credited with "turning people off" from Christianity. Well... take a look at the demographics of those who are crybullies and engage in cancel culture. They're the exact same demographic who made up the "Church ladies" back in the day, only they've traded Christian morality for Social Justice, and because Social Justice has no redemption and no mercy, nor is it tempered by generations of analysis and now they are not longer limited to just their immediate social circle due to the internet.
But in the end, it's the same personality type and people, and if we start winning those types will merely switch sides to enforce the new public morality.
You need to understand something: the crybullies will always exist. There's a personality type, let's call them the "Social Enforcer" who gloms onto what they see as the most popular moral system and proceed to attempt to enforce it upon others via social shaming and public moralizing. You used to see these as the "Church Ladies" who were constantly made fun of back in the 80s and 90s, and whom are often credited with "turning people off" from Christianity. Well... take a look at the demographics of those who are crybullies and engage in cancel culture. They're the exact same demographic who made up the "Church ladies" back in the day, only they've traded Christian morality for Social Justice, and because Social Justice has no redemption and no mercy, nor is it tempered by generations of analysis and now they are not longer limited to just their immediate social circle due to the internet.
But in the end, it's the same personality type and people, and if we start winning those types will merely switch sides to enforce the new public morality.
Poe
Well-known member
These people are a good thing and a feature of human societies. They are the gatekeepers of culture and societal stability, the problem is I don't think we've ever seen a society be completely reshaped by total media control in a few generations so the otherwise stabilizers are themselves unstable in what they are enforcing.
Speaking of which, recent poll says among likely purchasers of EVs, 35% are more likely to purchase Tesla because of Musk's recent actions while only 27% are less likely.
Needless to say, this is despite likely purchasers of EVs not being evenly distributed among the political spectrum by any means. And this is despite the media's desperate pushing of any dirt they can find, as this leftist article's author disbelievingly notes. She does express the plaintive hope that just maybe reinstating Alex Jones will tip the balance . . .
Kinda explains the increasingly frantic attacks by a media fearing the loss of their influence over even their core audience.
Needless to say, this is despite likely purchasers of EVs not being evenly distributed among the political spectrum by any means. And this is despite the media's desperate pushing of any dirt they can find, as this leftist article's author disbelievingly notes. She does express the plaintive hope that just maybe reinstating Alex Jones will tip the balance . . .
Kinda explains the increasingly frantic attacks by a media fearing the loss of their influence over even their core audience.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Advertisers still leaving Twitter & Musk couldn't care less.
Poe
Well-known member
So basically his actions have been profitable for Tesla, but Teslas stock acted in the opposite way (for awhile at least.)
Tesla stock has been divorced from anything approaching reason for years. Musk has even said this at least once, and likely only kept from constantly saying it by fear of shareholder lawsuits. That Tesla is the financially healthiest car manufacturer in america doesn't matter when its market capitalization is several times what that can justify.
The only way to justify its peak price points was the irrational belief that Musk will pull something totally insane out of his ass. That might actually happen now given the progress with Tesla robotics, but that doesn't change the irrationality of all Tesla share price movements.
Well, not the crybullies, but you have to admit-- the Wookiees had it pretty bad under Palpatine's rule.
7 out of 10 better then average.
mrttao
Well-known member
Stock market is literally a ponzi scheme.
Tesla stock (like vast majority of stock) is NON VOTING. this means you are not buying part ownership of the company. You are only buying part of the income... on paper...
But... it has no guaranteed buyback value, and has never ever paid a single cent in dividends. (again, like most companies)
They are litreally pieces of paper that say "tesla stock" but they are not actually part ownership of Tesla Corp.
Vast majority of stock is like that. google,
It used to be that stocks were actual % shares of a company. Not anymore.
The stock market "values" those worthless pieces of paper at hundreds of times more money then exist in the entire world.
But all it is, is a ponzi scheme where new investors pay off old investors. and eventually everyone is gonna lose everything.
Stocks are a Fraud » Conduit Investment Advisors
The stock market has been on a roller coaster ride since February 24th, 2019. After each new low is achieved, investors want to know is this a good time to buy?
conduitadvisors.com
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
It is.
But then they realized they could legally scam people instead.
IIRC there were some law changes too that made it easier to defraud people with non voting non dividend "stocks"
According to this 2002 article from forbes
forbes.com/2002/04/03/0403dividends.html?sh=657440035dc1
With many companies in top fortune 500 never paid a single cent in dividends.
Oh, and then there is share dilution. where the company is free to, at any time, just print more "stocks". thus dividing the so called value of your stock.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
It's explicitly dividing the stock itself, so if they do it to double the amount of stock, you have two at half the price. Same value in-the-moment, lower minimum buy-in cost. It's rather essential to maintain trade volume when the valuation goes nuts.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, what you are describing is an "anti dilution clause".
most companies do not have those.
Even if they do use anti dilution clause, there are different methods to do so.
There are two methods here. The less common one is "full ratchet" which ONLY protects preferred stock and does NOT protect common stock.
Full ratchet works the way you described for preferred stock, while common stock gets diluted.
Preferred stock are basically bonds issued by a corporation.
https://time.com/personal-finance/article/common-stock-vs-preferred-stock/
The much more common ADC is weighted average... which... is a math formulate I do not understand because it is using a ton of jargon and is intentionally made as opaque as possible to confuse the victim.
As far as I can tell weighted average ALSO only protects preferred stock.
in both cases the protection comes at the expense of the common stock holder.
Also, very important to note.
https://learn.angellist.com/articles/anti-dilution-protection#toc_1_H2
So yea... even if there was anti dilution provisions when you bought the stock. they can just be negotiated away at any time by other people!
Last edited:
Doomsought
Well-known member
Its not a Panzi scheme, its gambling,