4 ms·
It’s been amusing to see the flip from people saying Musk can’t buy Twitter to Musk must buy Twitter. Buying Twitter the way Musk did right before the most tel
by cjbgkagh 4y ago
It’s been amusing to see the flip from people saying Musk can’t buy Twitter to Musk must buy Twitter.
Buying Twitter the way Musk did right before the most telegraphed recession in modern history was colossal stupidity. I have no insight to Musks liquidity, but if Twitter is able to force him to complete the sale in the middle of a raging recession then how much of his empire would be diminished by forced liquidations. And was this decision made so he could promote Shivon to CEO of Twitter? That could make it the most expensive (including the cascade of losses due to liquidation) gift to a mistress (?) in human history.
But Musk has a habit of escaping justice (see ‘pedo’ case which was egregious) and I have a feeling there would be little appetite to damage his empire due to the job losses it would cause, especially in a recession.
- diob 4y agoWhy would it cause job losses? Wouldn't others be able to hire due to the money transferring to them?
- cjbgkagh 4y agoTheoretically yes, but that’s not how courts view it.
- orlp 4y agoTrickle-down economics has consistently shown to be a failed hypothesis.
- diob 4y agoWhat does trickle down have to do with Musk losing money to others though? Right now, it's trickle down hoping he'll do something with it. Like you said, it's a failed hypothesis.
- dmix 4y agoIt’s a good thing that was invented by a comedian and not an economist (easier to refute it that way). > “’Trickle down’ has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.” But “no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.”
- p1necone 4y ago> Supply-side economics has consistently shown to be a failed hypothesis. There, fixed it for you. Happy now?
- dmix 4y agoYes, thanks
- Forgeties79 4y agoOne of the things I like most about HN is that, by and large, people tend to assume at least a fair or reasonable interpretation of others’ arguments. In your case, you’re trying to drill down on a semantics issue to discredit this guy. It is reasonable to assume most people on HN know that “trickle down” economics is “supply side” economics. Just like when people say “Obamacare” instead of “the ACA” and everyone knows what’s being said. In both cases yes, the moniker is generally seen as a critique on its own, but to act as if that person is incorrect or “using the wrong term” is disingenuous at best.
- dmix 4y agoI don't think anyone would care if they used "Reagonmics" instead, or something like Obamacare, those are more usefully descriptive than partisan. Regardless using a term that purposefully misrepresents the economics behind it is not a good way to start any online discussion or make a critique. And if it's not purposeful then is just demonstrates a poor grasp of the concept. Why else would people take issue with it so often? I've seen that term discredited on HN many times, I'm not the first.
- Forgeties79 4y ago>Obamacare, those are more usefully descriptive than partisan Obamacare is pretty partisan, but at the very least meant as a derogatory name. It’s definitely not primarily descriptive. It’s also a callback to “Hillarycare.”
- postmeta 4y agoWhat happened to the poison pill strategy to keep him from buying it?
- scoopertrooper 4y agoA moderate breeze came along and the Twitter board gave up on it after about an hour.
- nonameking2026 4y agoliterally literally laughing out loud :)
- Etheryte 4y agoThe point of a poison pill isn't to prevent a takeover, it's to prevent a _hostile_ takeover. It's standard practice and once you've ensured the takeover will be fair to all shareholders, as is your duty as the board, there's no more need for it.