10 ms·

Yeah these fantasies where musk would somehow go bankrupt by tanking Tesla and overpaying for Twitter were also wild He’s literally the richest person the eart

• LanceJones 2y ago
  He only holds ~15% of Tesla. His real money is in SpaceX... 50% ownership there. I wish people would think just a little before parroting the "hit Musk where it hurts" drivel.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    His 15% of Tesla is heavily borrowed against, and if Tesla's share price drops too far, he's gonna get margin calls. That will both destroy his wealth, and hurt Tesla's stock price even more.
  • 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    My quick search is showing Tesla is worth some $800B. 15% of that is real money.
    • kelnos 2y ago
      15% of that is paper money, heavily levered against. If he tries to sell even 2% of that in order to turn it into actual real money, the remaining 13% will be worth less, because a sell-off will lower the stock price.
      • panick21_ 2y ago
        Of course, just selling a single stock will lower the price of other stocks. But the dropoff is nowhere close to what you are implying. He has sold lots of stock over the years and somehow Tesla stock price didn't drop that much. I feel like you used 'worth less' to imply 'worthless'. But this is far from the case, 13% would still be a gigantic pile of 'money'.
  • sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    At the rate he's going, SpaceX is probably on its way to being nationalized within the next few elections. And that would make sense totally aside from punitive response: it is pretty dangerous to have such vital defense infrastructure controlled by such a mercurial personality.
    • fallingknife 2y ago
      Yes let's just have a fascist government that can seize private property because they declare it "dangerous." I see no way that could go bad.
      • vlovich123 2y ago
        Some research may be warranted on your part before you have a kneejerk reaction. The US has nationalized businesses in the past even when those business were solvent [1]. SpaceX would of course be a larger case and much more politically fraught, but I don’t think nationalizing SpaceX automatically makes it a fascist government. Oh, and you may want to look up eminent domain. The government regularly seizes private property and even does so effectively on behalf of other private entities. If you’re actually consistent on your framing then you’d have to admit you’ve lived your whole life under what you consider a fascist government regardless of political affiliation. For example, here’s [2] Trump using the government’s eminent domain power (before he was president) to take property from another private entity. And here he is doing the same thing [3] as president. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States#Federal-government-acquired_corporations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the... [2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-love-nearly-cost-widow-her-house https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain... [3] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/ https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/3/
        • fallingknife 2y ago
          Your source states that the nationalization was done either in the case where the government was owed a debt by the nationalized company or in the case of the railroads, where they were seized to ensure the continuation of a vital service where the company providing it was insolvent. Neither of these conditions apply to any of Elon Musk's companies. Eminent domain is a process where the private property is seized (with the government required to pay fair market value) in order to use that land for some public purpose that it is not currently being used for. This could potentially be done to property owned by Elon Musk, but not for the justification that he has too much power. And also it must be specifically land that is seized, not equity in a company. If congress passed a law seizing his property, or the government initiated eminent domain against all of his company's properties, it would be obvious that it was Elon Musk being targeted and not any legitimate public need for a piece of land. This is a called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
  • AppleAtCha 2y ago
    SpaceX is worth less than 10% of what Tesla is valued at, so 15% is still a larger holding and very much "where it hurts". You should consider pausing before calling the popular position drivel.
  • anigbrowl 2y ago
    This is correct, but there are plenty of Tesla dealerships to protest outside and cars for people to remember they don't like him. People could protest outside a SpaceX facility but it's unlikely they would garner any attention by doing so.
• zozbot234 2y ago
  That military apparatus is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not support the current president.
  • madeofpalk 2y ago
    This only matters if people care enough to act appropriately when that is broken.
    • krapp 2y ago
      I guess we'll see what matters when Trump orders the tanks to roll into Canada.
      • erkt 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • UltraSane 2y ago
          With Trump you can never be sure. His is very very stupid.
        • boredatoms 2y ago
          Im pretty sure Canada isn’t treating it like a joke
        • the_gastropod 2y ago
          Yes. For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them. And goal posts are moved, frogs are boiled, whatever analogy you prefer. Dude’s, right now, disappearing people against court orders to forced labor camps in other countries with no due process. He’s talking about taking over Canada and Greenland. What makes you think this is unrealistic? Why do you believe what you believe?
          • kelnos 2y ago
• J_Shelby_J 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure the owner of the monopoly board game company is the richest person ever.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• danpalmer 2y ago
  I don’t want to downplay your point, I basically agree, but in real terms I believe there have been several people richer than him, and it is hard to judge the relative wealth of people long ago.
  • bhouston 2y ago
    Elon was uniquely rich is US history but his wealthy fluctuates wildly: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rockefeller-rich-elon-musks-wealth-180019563.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rockefeller-rich-elon-musks-w...
    • ksec 2y ago
      I don't like this market cap against GDP measurement. The multiples in Market Cap in those era would be significantly lower. If we look at P/E of S&P 500 [1], what used to be peak PE of 20 a century ago are now considered normal. So adjusting for all that Rockefeller would still be richer than Elon. [1] https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio
• mandeepj 2y ago
  > Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cover will go away. Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).
  • nprateem 2y ago
    If you don't believe he'll find a way to get a third term like every other dictator, you're living in a fantasy.
    • crackrook 2y ago
      Do you truly believe this will happen? I know these are crazy times but the idea of a then-82 year old man realizing a third term for himself seems a little absurd to me. Or do you mean this in a less literal sense, e.g. in the sense that he'll get a figurative "third term" by handing the reigns over to someone in his club without a fair election?
      • nprateem 2y ago
        No I mean literally. Or he'll do what putin did and find a puppet to take the reigns for a term. He knows without presidential immunity he risks prison. And he has previous for trying to steal an election. I have no doubt he'll see to it that he never faces the risk of prison, and this is the most obvious way to go. That and he's clearly a power hungry megalomaniac. I think it'd be more informative to ask why he wouldn't try to get this.
    • nprateem 2y ago
      Downvoted but he even admits it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-term-president https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-third-...
  • zozbot234 2y ago
    > Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms). The midterms could have some meaningful effect a lot sooner than that if we start seeing across-the-board primary challenges of pro-Trump Republicans. Of course, all of this is assuming that the broad Republican constituency have to some extent gone anti-Trump, and I really don't know how much basis there is for that assumption.
• ben_w 2y ago
  > He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. He’s never going to suffer financially. He has countless levers of power he can pull. Just being rich doesn't mean he's got all the power to stop that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff Him being a Trump associate is a lever, but not a financial one… unless and until they have a falling-out. I'd be surprised if that's any less than 6 months away, or more than 3 years away. > The same fantasy applies to any past or current president ever spending a day in jail. He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen. Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him Depends if he dies in office (~10% all causes, he's old etc.), and if the dems regain congress in two years. Trump was already very close to getting one day in jail due to inability to behave himself in the trial where he got all those felony convictions, and he did get impeached twice.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    > unless and until they have a falling-out. I'd be surprised if that's any less than 6 months away, or more than 3 years away. That's the other thing: Trump's tastes and whims are super fickle. Trump and Musk have already clashed on a bunch of things, and there's no reason to believe that won't continue and/or get worse. And Trump's priorities could change, without a corresponding shift in Musk's.
• eightysixfour 2y ago
  > He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known This is arguable in real terms.
  • brians 2y ago
    Yeah. He’s not even the richest African emmigrant… because Mansa Musa tipped so heavily he broke intercontinental trade dynamics.
    • FabHK 2y ago
      Thanks for that factoid, interesting piece of history.
    • jijijijij 2y ago
      > Mansa Musa tipped so heavily he broke intercontinental trade dynamics Thank you for dropping this fun fact. Pretty telling of my "western" education, I have never been taught anything about this guy. Quite memorable years of reign too!
    • literalAardvark 2y ago
      350b USD buys 350kT of gold. I suspect that many zeros were unheard of in pre industrial times, making most hundred billionaires richer than Mansa Musa even in absolute terms.
      • eightysixfour 2y ago
        > 350b USD buys 350kT of gold No it doesn’t - that much gold hasn’t been mined in the history of humanity. Gold is not a good metric for comparing this across history.
        • literalAardvark 2y ago
          That's the whole point. 350b is an enormous amount of buying power
• croes 2y ago
  > He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. That’s disputable > He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen. That’s also disputable
  • echoangle 2y ago
    >> He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen. > That’s also disputable Why? Which military has ever existed that would have a chance against the current US military?
    • croes 2y ago
      Taliban. Conventional armies have a hard stand against partisans. The US in Vietnam and Russia and the US in Afghanistan.
      • echoangle 2y ago
        So the taliban or the Vietcong were more powerful than the US military? They won because they were defending their own country which gives them higher motivation and an advantage as defenders. If you look at the military itself, the US was always much more powerful.
        • croes 2y ago
          If you lose nobody cares about how powerful you are. The Russian army is more powerful than Ukraine‘s, still no win. Same with Russia in Afghanistan.
          • echoangle 2y ago
            Ok, but they still are more powerful. That’s what the discussion was about. Having a disadvantage and losing doesn’t mean it’s not the most powerful military that ever existed.
• bawolff 2y ago
  > He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. Rich people become poor people all the time. Its hardly unheard of.
• lz400 2y ago
  IMHO the US is turning into an oligarchy / autocracy like Russia. Musk is one of the oligarchs. We all know what happens to oligarchs when they get too close to eclipse the top dog and go near a window.
  • Alupis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • ActorNightly 2y ago
      I hope your realize that nobody is buying "dems are just as bad" stuff anymore.
      • achierius 2y ago
        I hope you realize no-one is buying "but our billionaires are the good ones!" anymore. Elon was blue until like five years ago. Remember when Bezos was too?
        • ActorNightly 2y ago
          The difference is, rational liberal people who vote Democrat (and don't confuse liberals with leftists) understand that bad actors in a system that is generally resulting in positive US economic growth due to investment in people doesn't mean that we have to tear everything down. Historical data is all there, its undeniable, and not just in the stock market. The whole reason Democrats are seen as weak is that there are plenty of criticisms of Democrats by other Democrats. Which is a sign of a well functioning party since it keeps is self in check. Of course the clueless idiots in US see this as weakness, but thats just how it is. Meanwhile Republicans fall unilaterally behind their daddies Trump and Musk, which is why people like you switch up the subject about billionaires instead of pointing out that a guy who does Nazi salutes is in charge of government spending cuts, and managed to accidentally leak national secrets, the same thing that was a major campaign issue when Trump was running against Hillary. Just to be ultra clear in case you wanna reply with some random talking point about Democrats being bad - there is absolutely nothing that you can say at this point that will ever make the democrats look as bad as Trump or Musk, which is impressive since its only been like 2 months. If you find yourself talking to people that are agreeing with you, just know that you are in an echo chamber, which is something that your side was making fun of people being in.
• nmisty920 2y ago
  I have no opinion about Musk or Trump. I just want to give counter-examples to your claims: Saddam Hussain, Mussoloni, Ceausescu. At the peak of their power, they all seemed untouchable. Would they even have thought, when they were ruling their countries, that one day their fortunes would turn? Quoting Gandhi: "There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Always."
  • kelnos 2y ago
    I think if we look around the world we can find plenty of counterexamples to Ganhi's quote. Sure, they always "fall" in the sense that they're not immortal and they'll eventually die, but it's often (usually?) the case that a family member or some sort of protege steps up to fill their shoes.
    • muragekibicho 2y ago
      The first counteraxample that comes to mid is Idi Amin, the Ugandan dictator. He murdered, pillaged and lived out the rest of his years (happily and luxuriously) in Saudi Arabia. He lived "in a villa rented for him by the government of Saudi Arabia in the posh Al Hamra district". https://www.dawn.com/news/135283/idi-amin-led-quiet-life-in-s-arabia https://www.dawn.com/news/135283/idi-amin-led-quiet-life-in-...
• bmitc 2y ago
  Is he really rich? He started a car company, one that is known to make shit cars. All of their big bets failed. So what was supposed to be "not just a car comoany", which is what all the insane valuations were based on, is now "just a car comoany" and a shit one at that. So why is this car comoany still valuated at such insane hype levels? Is his wealth not entirely tied to the hyper-valuation of this car company?
  • dreamcompiler 2y ago
    Except for the Cybertruck the cars are pretty good. The overvaluation is because Musk wants everybody to think Tesla is an AI company that makes self-driving cars, which by now everybody realizes is bullshit. Tesla makes pretty nice cars if you're willing to drive them yourself and you only occasionally use autopilot as a kind of smarter cruise control. Never use FSD unless you're willing to pay through the nose for a system that only works in select locations and otherwise tries to kill you every few minutes.
    • rogerrogerr 2y ago
      Just to populate the counterargument: my personal experience with FSD is that it works in all locations I’ve tried it and does not try to kill you every few minutes. Maybe every few months. Cue HN commentary about how that’s worse, but I’m only commenting here because this comment directly contradicts my lived experience.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    > He started a car company, one that is known to make shit cars. No he didn't. He was an early investor in a car company, eight month after it was founded, and later history-revised his way into a founder title. Not that this should be surprising, considering the childish ego on that man.
    • bmitc 2y ago
      You're right. This is always something I've pointed out myself. Just got sloppy with language here.
• hermitcrab 2y ago
  >He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. Putin might well be richer. Also it is hard to compare his wealth to historical figures, such as Mansa Musa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
• MoonGhost 2y ago
  We know how it ended for Rasputin.
• piyuv 2y ago
  South Korean president is jailed for trying to coup, no? So there’s precedent.
  • Ray20 2y ago
    I mean this is exactly the reason why they won't want to put Trump in jail - so that it doesn't turn out like in Korea. After all, where you can put one president in jail, you can put a next one in jail too.
    • piyuv 2y ago
      I mean, yes? Where you can put one president in jail (for trying to demolish democracy and establish oligarchy/autocracy), you can put a next one in jail too (if they try to do the same) This is called upholding the constitution and it’s fundamental for a democracy. If you say president is immune, you get current US.
      • Ray20 2y ago
        >If you say president is immune, you get current US And even most leftist woke socialist president between probability of a prison for himself and the current US will choose current US.
        • imtringued 2y ago
          This word soup means nothing.
  • 1cool 2y ago
    He’s been released.
• arp242 2y ago
  Past presidents don't hold command over any military. France sent a former president to jail just a few months ago. Brazil and South Korea are in the process of putting a former president on trial. El Chapo was billionaire and had a private army of murderers – he's currently in prison. The main reason Trump hasn't been impeached and (possibly) jailed is because the political system in the US is dysfunctional. Party because it's not a great system to start with, and partly because a critical section of people made the decision to intentionally break it for selfish gain. But there is nothing that says it needs to be like this.
• pqtyw 2y ago
  > He’s never going to suffer financially Well his wealth can decrease by 200x and no sane person could claim that he's "suffering" financially with what he has left. > somehow go bankrupt .. were also wild That depended entirely on how Tesla's stock performed. If he had to liquidate $20 billion of his stocks to pay back the Twitter loans his wealth would have decreased by much, much more than that.