3 ms·

If only it were clearly legally futile. When you are a billionaire, NOTHING is legally futile. You get to help make the laws. I am still pessimistically thin

If only it were clearly legally futile. When you are a billionaire, NOTHING is legally futile. You get to help make the laws. I am still pessimistically thinking he will eventually find a way to have his way. With that being said, I'll never understand why people who have so much already would be so eager to have a little more at the expense of most of the public hating you.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> If only it were clearly legally futile. When you are a billionaire, NOTHING is legally futile. You get to help make the laws. In general, sure, wealth and political power do correlate pretty strongly. In this particular case of this particular wealthy person and this particular area of politics, well, there has been a law passed directly as a result of this controversy [0], and its one that Khosla tried to stop [1]. > With that being said, I'll never understand why people who have so much already would be so eager to have a little more at the expense of most of the public hating you. People who end up having so much often do so because they aren't the kind of person who ever is not seeking out every way to have more. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB968 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... [1] http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/2014/05/khosla-hires-lobbyists-to-kill-sb-968.html http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/2014/05/khosla-hires-lobbyi...
FireBeyond 12y ago
Mmhmm. They're threatening him with fines of $10K a day. Oh no. Khosla is worth $1.7B. Every year this goes by costs him almost 0.2% of his net worth. In five hundred years, they'll bankrupt him. He's earning that much a day in interest on investments alone. Why would he care?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  He probably doesn't, and any level of fine that would be reasonable to authorize in a general law would probably fail to deter him. Which is probably why a law passed last year empowers the State Land Commission to acquire a new access easement across the specific property at issue for public use, independent of whatever is already due to the public under state law, either by negotiation or condemnation if negotiation fails to secure an agreement by Jan. 1, 2016.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If only it were clearly legally futile. When you are a billionaire, NOTHING is legally futile. You get to help make the laws. In general, sure, wealth and political power do correlate pretty strongly. In this particular case of this particular wealthy person and this particular area of politics, well, there has been a law passed directly as a result of this controversy [0], and its one that Khosla tried to stop [1]. > With that being said, I'll never understand why people who have so much already would be so eager to have a little more at the expense of most of the public hating you. People who end up having so much often do so because they aren't the kind of person who ever is not seeking out every way to have more. [0] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB968 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... [1] http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/2014/05/khosla-hires-lobbyists-to-kill-sb-968.html http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/2014/05/khosla-hires-lobbyi...

FireBeyond 12y ago

Mmhmm. They're threatening him with fines of $10K a day. Oh no. Khosla is worth $1.7B. Every year this goes by costs him almost 0.2% of his net worth. In five hundred years, they'll bankrupt him. He's earning that much a day in interest on investments alone. Why would he care?

dragonwriter 12y ago
He probably doesn't, and any level of fine that would be reasonable to authorize in a general law would probably fail to deter him. Which is probably why a law passed last year empowers the State Land Commission to acquire a new access easement across the specific property at issue for public use, independent of whatever is already due to the public under state law, either by negotiation or condemnation if negotiation fails to secure an agreement by Jan. 1, 2016.