5 ms·
Sure it might not stay at 94x. But as long as SpaceX trades above 20x revenue, Google makes money from this deal. And the bigger play is this deal pushes Space
by tristanj 5mo ago
Sure it might not stay at 94x. But as long as SpaceX trades above 20x revenue, Google makes money from this deal.
And the bigger play is this deal pushes SpaceX over the finish line for S&P 500 inclusion. That's worth tens of billions for everyone involved.
- chrisandchris 5mo agoI rreally dislike how big corp figured out that the can sell stuff to each other without actually moving some good. Looking at you, Nvidia... I have a feeling that the ordinary people will again pay for that.
- fooqux 5mo agoThis sounds exactly like the kind of thing that will be outlawed in thirty years after tracing back the root cause of the second great depression.
- dgellow 5mo agoThat would require regulators to actually pay attention, something they haven’t done actively since a long, long time
- dawnerd 5mo agoFirst step would be to prevent the regulators from profiting to begin with.
- WarOnPrivacy 5mo agoIn my experience, if we don't (meaningfully) root out corruption and ineptitude, we will continue to be governed+leveraged by one/both.
- boppo1 5mo agoCan't root it out, it's part of the system. Sortition is the best we can hope for now.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- dyauspitr 5mo agoOutlaw what? Prevent companies from selling goods and services to each other?
- snypher 5mo agoI think SpaceX should be valued on rockets n space n stuff, not how many magical calculator dollars they bring in. Surely Google can "make compute go" for $1b/month. Nice way to avoid holding the bag, maybe?
- trollbridge 5mo agoThe market seems to value both rockets and magical calculators.
- dyauspitr 5mo agoI mean, we all understand that this is some sort of circular financial play, but at the end of the day Google is paying SpaceX $1 billion for compute. This is no different from AWS or Azure.
- mihaic 5mo agoYes, if it's done with an intent to defraud the general population, which could be the case here. Effects and intent really matter when deciding actions.
- spwa4 5mo agoExcept the regulators first outlawed what is generally considered to have caused the great depression (savings banks allowed to invest, which translates to very, very rich people being allowed to take massive risks with poor people's money) ... then re-legalized it. So not only are the regulators not going to allow things that cause another great depression, they're allowing the things that caused the first great depression too. They must want a rerun. (Because if you don't allow this you're effectively demanding the extremely rich make good investments to stay rich ... and not even France, otherwise pretty socialist, dares to go that far)
- 5mo ago
- anukin 5mo agoWhy was it not outlawed post dotcom crash? This was exactly the thing that led to the dotcom crash.
- MrGilbert 5mo agoMaybe there wasn't enough damage, either economical, financial or societal?
- ikiris 5mo agoIt all was many years ago after the great depression, and similar. Then people kept voting in republicans who's life mission is to gut the SEC and all related regulation keeping them from doing things like this.
- elcritch 5mo agoPerhaps but the AI drone based WW3 might put nvidia in the black before that.