> No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. Okay, I'll bite. And what if you "invest" $1 in Starlink, and Starlin

> No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. Okay, I'll bite. And what if you "invest" $1 in Starlink, and Starlink immediately "invests" that $1 in SpaceX, while also giving SpaceX starlink shares? I guess I don't get to make the "wait, isn't that Elon Musk paying Elon Musk" argument, despite it being true? I mean I even wish you were correct, but by my estimates the most optimistic view of SpaceX is that they're still about 400% too expensive to get global satellite internet working, when launching at cost. That's a remarkable achievement ... but not good enough. It's so close it really sucks. On the other hand, I hate AT&T as much as the next guy but I also don't want a global mobile internet monopoly replacing them. And if Starlink is going to have competitors the value drops by half easily. > They also pay other people peanuts ... Well my point is, of course, that SpaceX pays very little compared to Amazon and Walmart for roles that pay a lot at Amazon and Walmart. SpaceX pays only a little better than NASA, and NASA pays about double what you get in an academic position. Oh, and yes, double what you get in an academic position is pretty badly paid, especially considering what most NASA engineers are capable of.