4 ms·

I'll be honest, SpaceX is his as long as he respects the country he is at, and what he was allowed to do, he "joked" about decommisioning the dragon but I don't

I'll be honest, SpaceX is his as long as he respects the country he is at, and what he was allowed to do, he "joked" about decommisioning the dragon but I don't think a single person in government will allow him to sabotage the ISS like that. Actual room for criminal investigation and possibly expropiation. If he was in Canada or South Africa he wouldn't have access to the technical knowledge or talent that he has in the US, due to law, and said law exists to protect critical industries in America, it goes both ways, you are also not allowed as an individual to sabotage the nation.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> criminal investigation and possibly expropiation Criminal investigation into lying on clearance forms about drug use effectively sidelines him SpaceX’s chain of command without stealing his or anyone else’s shareholdings. That said, it would be an authoritarian shot across the bow for Silicon Valley from this White House.
georgemcbay 1y ago
Pretty sure his relatively quick walk back on that "joke" was due to the realization that if it was left open as a credible threat it is very likely the government would have just seized control of SpaceX immediately. There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him. And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > if they did, they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
  - georgemcbay 1y ago
    > What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy. Right here where I live, in the United States. I never suggested expropriation in general would be widely supported, but when you have the richest man in the world (who has spent the last year making enemies of virtually everyone other than a small cadre of twitter shitposters) manically making decisions while reportedly on a downward spiral drug bender and he suggests taking action that would lead to endangering the lives of astronauts and an overall weakening of America's national security, yeah the government would have had massive popular support for seizing SpaceX. If you don't think so I think you might be living in a libertarian bubble.
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the US is not the same place it was a decade ago. And this isn't just a random expropriation. While I may have to cry myself to sleep at the thought of our once great nation having devolved into a bitchy slap fest by a couple of narcissistic man babies, the fact is that SpaceX probably wouldn't exist today without the US government, so with Musk having a temper tantrum and saying "I'm taking my toys and going home", the US government would have at least somewhat valid national security reasons to take over SpaceX. Couple that with the fact that Musk is hated, extremely, by many folks out both sides of the political aisle, means that the rule of law concerns about a SpaceX expropriation would largely be ignored.
    - sircastor 1y ago
      Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO. Your rationalization of it is not unreasonable, but the market would panic in a bad way if the government showed it was willing to take extremes.
      - georgemcbay 1y ago
        > Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO. I don't agree with this. Like if it were merely a "tiff" between the administration and a CEO, then yes that would be destabilizing, but there is important context here that you are entirely glossing over. Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program. If he didn't walk back that threat I think it would have been very easy for large companies to see the outcome as entirely Elon's fault and maybe just double-check in on their own CEOs to make sure they make sane decisions. I'm personally convinced Elon realizing the likelihood of this outcome (probably because someone else reminded him of it) is exactly why he started walking the threat back. And as a side effect of this mess, Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function.
lostlogin 1y ago
> you are also not allowed as an individual to sabotage the nation. I’m not sure of this.
- KerrAvon 1y ago
  I wouldn’t have thought a south african script kiddie would be allowed to do it, but as long as it had the Oompa-Loompa president’s OK, apparently everyone is good with it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> criminal investigation and possibly expropiation Criminal investigation into lying on clearance forms about drug use effectively sidelines him SpaceX’s chain of command without stealing his or anyone else’s shareholdings. That said, it would be an authoritarian shot across the bow for Silicon Valley from this White House.

georgemcbay 1y ago

Pretty sure his relatively quick walk back on that "joke" was due to the realization that if it was left open as a credible threat it is very likely the government would have just seized control of SpaceX immediately. There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him. And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> if they did, they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
- georgemcbay 1y ago
  > What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy. Right here where I live, in the United States. I never suggested expropriation in general would be widely supported, but when you have the richest man in the world (who has spent the last year making enemies of virtually everyone other than a small cadre of twitter shitposters) manically making decisions while reportedly on a downward spiral drug bender and he suggests taking action that would lead to endangering the lives of astronauts and an overall weakening of America's national security, yeah the government would have had massive popular support for seizing SpaceX. If you don't think so I think you might be living in a libertarian bubble.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the US is not the same place it was a decade ago. And this isn't just a random expropriation. While I may have to cry myself to sleep at the thought of our once great nation having devolved into a bitchy slap fest by a couple of narcissistic man babies, the fact is that SpaceX probably wouldn't exist today without the US government, so with Musk having a temper tantrum and saying "I'm taking my toys and going home", the US government would have at least somewhat valid national security reasons to take over SpaceX. Couple that with the fact that Musk is hated, extremely, by many folks out both sides of the political aisle, means that the rule of law concerns about a SpaceX expropriation would largely be ignored.
  - sircastor 1y ago
    Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO. Your rationalization of it is not unreasonable, but the market would panic in a bad way if the government showed it was willing to take extremes.
    - georgemcbay 1y ago
      > Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO. I don't agree with this. Like if it were merely a "tiff" between the administration and a CEO, then yes that would be destabilizing, but there is important context here that you are entirely glossing over. Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program. If he didn't walk back that threat I think it would have been very easy for large companies to see the outcome as entirely Elon's fault and maybe just double-check in on their own CEOs to make sure they make sane decisions. I'm personally convinced Elon realizing the likelihood of this outcome (probably because someone else reminded him of it) is exactly why he started walking the threat back. And as a side effect of this mess, Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function.

lostlogin 1y ago

> you are also not allowed as an individual to sabotage the nation. I’m not sure of this.

KerrAvon 1y ago
I wouldn’t have thought a south african script kiddie would be allowed to do it, but as long as it had the Oompa-Loompa president’s OK, apparently everyone is good with it.