WOW. That’s interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn’t work in the US, unfortunately.
fine the fucker for 20% of his net “worth”, that should give him some pause
Not really billions is beyond being halved
(Was drinking when I wrote this, was saying billions is a so much money it’s difficult to conceptualize, seems like folks understood for the most part, but someone said musks money is in stocks etc which is a factor, anyways be well)
Hi I’m a mathematician.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
I think they’re just saying that if you’re a multi billionaire and get a 50% net worth fine, you’re still a billionaire once it’s done.
I’m a mathematician too. They’re probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.
While I disagree that “billions is beyond being halved”, there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn’t make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I’ll try to briefly explain.
Consider (10^10 + 2). That’s 10000000000+2. I think it’s fair to say that the +2 doesn’t make a lot of difference. It’s still approximately 10^10.
So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That’s a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But… writing it down we see this:
10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).
So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger… that just doesn’t really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like ‘infinity’. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn’t huge much of an impact either.
Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don’t think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn’t matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn’t matter.
[edit] (I’m struggling to get the nested powers to look right… So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)
A single billion, when put in terms of money, is enough that - simply invested in GICs and bonds, earning a very, very conservative 1% interest - it would earn you ten million dollars a year in interest alone.
I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year. By my back of the napkin math you could vacation every single day, living in hotels and eating at fancy restaurants, and still not make a dent in that.
Musk has an estimated net worth of $247 billion. You could fine him 99% of his current wealth, and he would still struggle to spend enough that he wouldn’t end up increasing his remaining wealth every year.
And this is why it is ludicrous to believe that ultra-rich people earn their fortune with hard work or good ideas. Being rich generates its own money. Being poor is expensive. There should be no billionaires, for any reason. Such concentrated wealth is very bad.
I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year.
I would fund multiple forms of art media and have them released for free every year while living on ramen in my leaky apartment
Hello to any billionaires looking for a worthy heir
Now imagine a world where, instead of there being billionaires, everyone had their basic needs met, so artists could afford to focus on creating their art instead of relying on handouts from a capricious god.
But I want to be a capricious god
now I like you, you see the good combinations immediately
Interesting concept, thank you!
Have you ever played idle champions of the forgotten realms? At some point you start to get this feeling.
They’re not talking about Maths. They’re talking about wealth.
division has no power here old man!
Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.
Less considering more doing
That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.
Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.
So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.
It’s also why I am skeptical that they’ll do it, or at least I’m skeptical they’ll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.
How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”
4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.
Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.
Start at 100% and work down from there?
It’s finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!
woohoo!
I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock
For twitter, he actually isn’t. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.
Not sure about boring company / neuralink.
DO IT!
It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?
Unironically, yes. You shouldn’t be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.
“Oh, guess we can’t fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they’ll get to continue breaking the law for cheap”
Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.
Sounds good in principle, but isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you’re the one they’re coming for. I hope you’re as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company’s affairs.
The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy… those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.
So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?
There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
He continues to do so because he’s proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he’s an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?
I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.
Do you think that there’s a way to systematically even the playing field?
I don’t know, and nobody else knows.
To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create “Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC” and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he’s sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create “Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC” and do whatever he wants?
At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can’t just hide behind “Oh that wasn’t me, that was the company” or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."
If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.
I don’t think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.
In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.
Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.
isn’t the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company’s finances?
It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.
I agree. They can try to change the laws, and if the majority of those with voting powers agree on a way to handle these cases while doing more good than harm, I’m sure few would complain.
Poor comprehension of the law. LLC in the vast majority of the western world means limited liability, not absolute immunity. Owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their companies, but their liability is limited when other members of the company act without their knowledge or in bad faith, or damages are unintentional. If the damage was intentional and the actions were sanctioned and approved by ownership or leadership they are absolutely liable for the legal repercussions. Liability is limited also for multiple owners, a hedge fund cannot be held responsible for the action of a company they only own 5% of and has an indirect influence on the actions of leadership. The really important element here is that Musk is being identified as acting as primary agent, not just Twitter, and using assets and resources from his other companies. Thus, it’s not Twitter acting, it’s Musk who is acting, and then fines can be on all of his capital holdings, not just Twitter. This nuance of law is exactly according to the laws in place in the EU.
But it can’t be retroactive. If you change the nature of legal protection, that should only impact actions going forward. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US, as they should be in any country where the rule of law is to be taken seriously.
LLCs shouldn’t exist in the first place.
A companys owner should always be liable for the laws its company breaks.
I strongly disagree. That said, I think liability protection should reduce the larger your organization gets. A mom-and-pop restaurant shouldn’t have their house get taken if their restaurant gets e-coli, but a CEO should go to jail for cutting safety spending to improve quarterly profits.
That said, if you have a legal agreement that certain assets are protected, you can’t just waive it away because you don’t like the trick they pulled. If the policy isn’t meeting the original goals, the policy should be changed, and anyone who got away with a loophole should be protected by that legal mistake, otherwise we have a system of feels instead of laws.
I guess that’s your opinion.
Give it up. Lemmy thinks “corporation” means “megacorp”, has no clue about financial dealings outside what they read in the headlines and can’t spell “LLC”.
“Capitalism BAD!”, is what you should be posting.
Allowing limited liability companies to exist without requiring them to be covered by liability insurance is institutionalised market failure.
Absolutely and without question yes
Yes. Next question.
Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?
deleted by creator
and this is why we dont fuck with the chinese wall
Do it if you’re bad
Is the EU just going to bet that none of its companies ever have to do business outside of the EU?
Eh?
Because retaliation on behalf of domestic businesses is something Europe freaking invented.
