I do, in fact, remember the 80s. And the point of asset stripping in that era was that the targets were generally companies with good fundamentals in parts, whi

I do, in fact, remember the 80s. And the point of asset stripping in that era was that the targets were generally companies with good fundamentals in parts, which had either merged or grown in ways that resulted in those good components propping up losing components, which was what allowed the asset strippers to make their money via the process described. The successful asset strippers also had generally done a lot of analysis before they made their aquisition. What detailed analysis did Musk do? A bunch of DMs with Jason Calcinis pulling numbers out of his arse? What's the core profitable business that Twitter has that is encumbered by unprofitable components? If I wanted to look at a case for an asset stripping target in social media, I'd probably look at something more like Facebook, where there's a case that unrolling their rats' nest of aquisitions like WhatsApp, Instagram, and Oculus could result in some valuable spin-offs: for example, if WhatsApp went back to a stripped-down standalone company with a small fee it would probably be quite profitable, as it had been before being Facebooked. But Twitter is twitter. That's it. The only thing I see with this is an echo of when this site's owners sacked Musk for fucking up PayPal with deranged, incoherent edicts. The difference is that no-one can sack Musk to save Twitter from him.