Society/Culture Elon Musk - Takeover of Twitter?

Remove this Banner Ad

Self-aggrandizing flog.

A humanist libertarian type who would get snotted by employees if they could.

A producer who's products have a long record of failure and whose value rests on 'future potential'.

A anti-government type who hoovered up as much public money as he could.

He's basically a dork who benefited from inherited wealth.

What's really funny is this bunch of right wing free speech sites have gone from worshipping this w***er, to realising he'll be their competition if he buys twitter.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

With SpaceX the contracts came after he invested tens of millions of dollars of his own money proving out the concepts.

And then nasa paid him to do something, that they couldn't at anywhere near that price. They didn't write him cheques for shits and giggles
They might not have written him cheques for shits and giggles, but when the government is your investor, benefactor and customer all in one, it takes some of the shine off your achievements as a self-made man. I don't really have a problem giving Elon credit where it is due for being a shrewd investor and an inspirational and resourceful CEO but let's at least be honest where his wealth has come from. Like, do you really think SpaceX would be what it is if NASA had not run the COTS program? Or that Tesla would be what it is if the government had not allowed it to make money by selling emissions credits to other manufacturers?
 
Like Trump he is a narcissist who understands marketing and uses both positive and negative attention to his advantage. Where Musk differs to most billionaires is that he makes his wealth from ventures that are extremely innovative and, IMO, mostly to the benefit of mankind. He's not an oil baron or an arms dealer or some BS... he brought EV tech forward about a decade, along with the battery tech to help grid infrastructure adapt to green power and EV adoption.
 
Self-aggrandizing flog.

A humanist libertarian type who would get snotted by employees if they could.

A producer who's products have a long record of failure and whose value rests on 'future potential'.

A anti-government type who hoovered up as much public money as he could.

He's basically a dork who benefited from inherited wealth.

What's really funny is this bunch of right wing free speech sites have gone from worshipping this w***er, to realising he'll be their competition if he buys twitter.

Like who? Shapiro is hugging his nuts for the move
 
Do board members have a duty to operate in the financial interests of their shareholders?

No.

Corporations Act...Directors have a duty to:
Act in good faith and for a proper purpose
Act with reasonable care and diligence
Prevent insolvent trading
Not improperly use their position
Not misuse information
Avoid conflicts of interest.
 
No.

Corporations Act...Directors have a duty to:
Act in good faith and for a proper purpose
Act with reasonable care and diligence
Prevent insolvent trading
Not improperly use their position
Not misuse information
Avoid conflicts of interest.

Can they operate in a fashion that not only denies the shareholders financial gain but actively causes them financial loss such as their suggestion here of creating new shares so that someone doesn't have enough majority?

I think companies here have an obligation to present options to their shareholders where those offers are legitimate.
 
Can they operate in a fashion that not only denies the shareholders financial gain but actively causes them financial loss such as their suggestion here of creating new shares so that someone doesn't have enough majority?

I think companies here have an obligation to present options to their shareholders where those offers are legitimate.

A company is governed by its constitution.
If the constitution allows the creation of new shares, then shareholders have to suck it up, or vote to change the constitution.

Musk's offer was non-binding and subject to financing.
As such, it can be rejected without taking it to shareholders.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How can I, a fake person who previously worried about power being centralised, justify one billionaire having a controlling interest in a social media platform?

It would take it out of the hands of a certain kingdom in the middle east that is well known for it's views on things people on twitter are fond of and this new billionaire isn't too interested in.
 
Musk has been getting crazier and crazier of late, and has gone down the 'freedom' anti-vaxx route.

He's seriously undervalued Twitter there though, so it's certainly just a trick to jack up the share price, in a company he recently bought 10 percent of.
he undervalued it? He offered well above the market rate. Thats overvaluing it.

the market price already captures expectations of future profit. Many tech stocks would be almost worthless if the price didnt capture expectations of future profit.

how exactly do you argue that he massively undervalued it?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture Elon Musk - Takeover of Twitter?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top