I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose.
If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his assets to compensate.
Is Levine seriously suggesting that US courts don't have the authority to impose financial penalties, find liability, and seize assets? This is such an absurd thing to say it's hard to find a way to charitably respond.
Having a court ordered judgement entered against you is cause and is a result of due process. It's an entirely different scenario.
We see this all the time already. For example, Medicaid won't pay for your extremely expensive end of life care if you have assets. So, people give away their assets (to a trust, to family) before applying for Medicaid to cover their nursing home. It becomes a game of cat and mouse. People will adjust where they can to avoid tax.
This also already happens with income tax. For example, executive compensation is primarily provided as capital gains rather than income because it's much more tax efficient. Everything is in the open.
The other issue here is one of cost. The IRS has to fund the cost of analyzing filings and deciding to audit. This is very different from a post-judgement scenario.
It's a very different thing.
1. A surprising departure from the rules and norms - I assume probably illegal.
2. Part of a campaign designed to ruin Russia.
You might have misunderstood the argument the anti-taxers (pro-property?) people are bringing up. There isn't a physical problem with taking wealth away from people, that part is very easy to execute. The problem is the 2nd order effects where it will turn into an unfair confiscation and do substantial damage to the ability of the host country to invest and prosper, bringing general ruin to us all. The fact that wealth confiscation is being deployed against Russians is no surprise from that perspective and not undermining the core argument.
However, if it makes you feel better, I do agree that given that the War on Terror was pointed inwards fairly quickly I expect the techniques used in the War on Russia's Economy will also move to US home soil in the next decade and there may well be large scale wealth confiscation in the US.
But this does not apply to us when we seize Russian assets? By your very logic if seizing wealth is so problematic, well we just seized a whole lot of wealth. I don't think this example actually works here.
It would be bad if we did this to ourselves. We do it to our enemies to hurt them.
But, I suspect the other guy was referring to trusting in economic stability. I don't think there's any reason why sanctions against bad actors like Russia might undermine trust in American investments.
If you want to make the argument that it is literal and raw might-makes-right on the high seas, ok. But that type of barbarian world is not one I encourage and it'd be a bit stunning to find someone who wants the world to work that way.
The US wouldn't do well in a world like that either, US citizens have more assets to seize than foreigners do.
As if that's not evidence of far more barbaric mechanisms at play in geopolitics...
There is a pretty good chance this is just making people feel bad and making it harder to normalise the situation. This is action is literally not helping, and is a breach of good norms against stealing. It means the Russian billionaires will be forced to spend more of their money in Russia and have a great reason to bear a grudge against the more Western powers.
Any Russian billionaires that don't realize that this is more of Putin's incompetence than western antagonism deserve a random punitive gesture.
In reality the majority of them will see this as a great reason to bear a grudge against Putin.
Maybe I've missed out on some life experiences, but I've never seen petty theft help defuse a tense situation. It is not going to be beneficial to achieving a sane outcome.
> In reality the majority of them will see this as a great reason to bear a grudge against Putin.
This is wishful thinking. All of the thievery was done by NATO - there is a very high chance that they will identify NATO as the threat to them.
And if they do blame Putin (which I think is unlikely, groups tend to close ranks when threatened) how is that supposed to help? What are the billionaires supposed to do that the Ukraine military or US State Department can't do? Billionaires aren't that big compared to a government military.
And you're vehemently argue against points that have been known for months, the oligarchs are deeply unhappy with Putin over what has happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/29/russia-oliga...
Putin may have them under his thumb, but that doesn't mean they should be left to their comfort rather than forced to face the direct consequences of Putin's actions.
2. What do you expect to happen here? How do you think these thefts have helped the situation? Even if you want to argue that these people now hate Putin, they are powerless. The west just stripped them of all their assets.
Wealth is actual ownership interest in valuable companies, which can be moved offshore or the person can renounce citizenship and relocate to a country with friendlier tax laws in the extreme case.
A wealth tax would also have the effect that people expecting to generate lots of wealth would just move somewhere else to do so, or not come to the US in the first place.
Whenever I've seen it brought up it's always that it would require a constitutional amendment (specifically in the US). The federal government isn't allowed to do taxes that way under the current system (Article 1 Clause 2 Section 3).
Hell, the feds weren't even allowed to do a straight income tax until the 16th amendment.
Yes, I mostly see people saying that laws don't matter because billionaires are beyond law at this point. Who knows, perhaps that's astroturfing by troll teams employed by billionaires to try and discourage the masses. As you said, they've already got plenty of lawyers to work on it from the constitutional end - including 6 of the lawyers on the Supreme Court.
Huh. Weird. Well, I don't see it brought up on HN all that often (once a month tops?), so we must hang out in different circles outside of here.
Anyways, you have a good one.
Musk is a special case because he has done things like threatening to ruin the careers of SEC lawyers who have come after him, and he has the power to make that happen.
Is this illegal? Probably. Does Musk get away with it? Yes.
There's no shortage of law firms willing to go up against billionaires. Hell, there's no shortage of firms willing to go up against criminal enterprises like drug cartels.
The idea that Musk is somehow more threatening than the types that the US court system regularly puts under their thumb is simply laughable.
This Musk will ruin careers stuff is way, way overblown. If they lose his business, he wasn't worth working with in the first place.
What Musk did was petty and questionable, but it didn't fundamentally change anything for Cooley.
It's not a big deal.
Does he? How can he do so?
He can talk big, he can bluster, but can he actually ruin a government lawyer's career? I kind of doubt it.
"“What are they going to do if there is a judgment and he says, ‘Well, I’m still not going to buy it’?” said Zohar Goshen, professor of transactional law at Columbia Law School. “They don’t really have tools to force him to go through with it. You don’t put people in jail because they don’t buy something.”"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-elon-musk-set-for-unpre...
Courts are entirely capable of seizing such assets.
1) The court would issue a judgement for Twitter, against Musk, for $44b.
2) Musk would either voluntarily pay it by selling his own assets, or he would refuse. If he refuses, then:
3) Twitter would go about seizing and selling Musk's assets, until they have raised funds to cover the $44b judgement.
Twitter could levy whatever brokerage or account Musk uses to hold his shares. Somewhere there is an account which records the shares. Twitter would serve the entity managing the account with a levy, and order the shares be liquidated.
(1) Would it be legal for him to own the brokerage?
(2) What if he moves all of his stock in offshore accounts?
Shares don't need to be held in a brokerage. There's always a process to identify and seize the property in question.
2) There's no such thing. TSLA is a US public company, traded on US exchanges. It's simply not possible for shares of the company to exist outside of US jurisdiction.
Tesla being a Delaware corporation, it would be within the power of the chancery court to order that very thing.
(1) Would it be legal for someone to own the legal entity owning their shares of publicly traded companies?
(2) What if he moves all of his stock in offshore accounts?
The legal entity which maintains the list of teslas owners is ultimately tesla, but that duty will be likely given to dtcc.
A stock is ultimately just an entry on a list maintained by the company, most offload the managing of the list to DTCC and usually the pointer isn’t to you but to your broker dealer.
There is no sense of being able to hide ownership overseas, we’re talking about an American company keeping a list that points to someone, that list can’t be offshored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_&_Clearing_...
For one commonly used transfer agent's take, see: https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-share...
For them, $44b is the crumb left behind after you've eaten the small potatoes.
He may just own the shares directly with the company (we’ve largely done away with paper share certificates). Or he may have transferred them to his broker (Morgan Stanley?) (who in turn might custody them with a custodian BNY Mellon?) who holds them on his behalf. If he then transferred those shares to say DBS in Singapore MS/BNY is going to inform computershare “fyi we just sent all those Elon musk shares to DBS in Singapore” and DBS is going to say (FYI we know have custody of all those Elon musk shares)..,and when you go looking for those shares all you have to do is go to computershare with a court order and say where are Elon’s shares, and they’ll be like, oh over at DBS in Singapore… and for all I know the registrar can probably just send a note to DBS in Singapore and be like (ahh we got a court order to transfer these shares to some other guys so we did, subtract $44b from his account)
All of this is a long winded way of saying that “shares” are just entries on a ledger maintained by the company or someone else on their behalf, which makes seizing them, typically pretty easy…
No they won't. This is Twitter, not Oracle.
BUT, if Elon fights back hard, Twitter will have to stop.
Civil court works on fiscal, property to mitigate damage. If he is found to breach contract, a court could order seizure of assets (cash or property).
There could be punitive damages assessed too, if his actions are seen as purposefully malign.
You can have criminal contempt in a civil case and criminal contempt in a civil case. The rules vary by state but in PA it’s civil contempt is used to force people to comply where criminal is punishment for disobedience.
What I mean is, the remedy for non-compliance with contracts, is fiscal, seizure, penalties of thus nature.
The goal of civil court is not the state punishing, but instead, laying out compensation, for damages, to the harmed.
There is no contempt of court for not paying these damages.
Then how does the civil court function? If nobody follows the courts order, the court is redundantly illegitimate.
No one is going to assault a cop, or have their bank shut down due to non compliance.
Where I am, what often happens is the damaged party has papers showing debt owed. It then becomes a colllection issue, sometimes, in some jurisdictions court takes an active role, in others, you have to do the work yourself.
Eg, you have to find their bank, hire a sheriff(the seizure kind), and go get what is now "your stuff".
That will certainly stop anyone from pulling this bullshit again!
Case studies are what has happened e.g. with Microsoft, other large businesses - long legal battles are fought, nothing happens while things are in limbo.
When the rubber finally hits the road, things happen fairly quickly, but until then it does look a bit like "nothing happens".
This is of course, a problem, perhaps one that needs innovating around.
There are remedies for people like you and me and most people who disobey court orders.
You can observe time and again that for those who are well connected and have some billions, the concept of law is far more malleable.
And by history, he may very well be right.
No. He’s suggesting that Musk’s wealth and power will make the people who work in US courts reluctant to impose financial penalties, find liability, and seize assets.
Still a strong #2, but he sure is trying his hardest for that top spot.
A court can compel "specific performance" if the contract's terms require it.
There isn't even one single court imposed fine which he hasn't paid.
That's what I thought. Musk just ignores the law and gets away with things on a regular basis.
If you would like to go see ways in which the government fails to penalize powerful entities, look no further than the financial crisis fines. What you were told were 10 figure fines ended up becoming a few million dollars in consumer relief headaches
If your interpretation of the post suggests that a highly qualified attorney is getting the basics of US law absurdly incorrect, you might want to reconsider whether you're understanding the intended meaning.
(Here, Levine is making a specific claim about the remedies that the Delaware chancellory court typically employs, not about the authority of US courts)
I'm open to that criticism; I'm typically pretty skeptical of appeals to authority myself.
But to be clear: the appeal to authority I'm making isn't "legal opinion of a lawyer" (I agree that's very weak) but rather "opinion on corporate law by a Wachtell attorney who practiced corporate law" (Wachtell is probably the best corporate law firm in the world, and clearly in the top handful)
How do you seize billions of dollars of stock without affecting share prices?
They could contact the broker holding his shares and restrain them, order them sold, and collect the proceeds.
They could seize and sell at auction the real property of any of his businesses. SpaceX rockets? Office chairs? Servers? Anything.
All of this enforcement costs money. Twitter would account for the money spent seizing assets and charge those expenses to Musk as well.
Assets seized in this way (including stock) are often sold for much less than they're ideally worth. It's Musk's problem. Twitter would be empowered to seize seize seize until they've raised enough cash to cover the judgement plus expenses.
They could not, because he does not own those businesses outright. Doing so would violate the other owners rights. They can seize his shares in SpaceX, but not SpaceX property.
But the end result is always the same. You can either voluntarily liquidate and pay your judgements or you can have someone else do it for you.
I have not done an analysis on exactly which of Musk's private companies are jointly owned, and how the ownership is structured. It's a comment on hn for crying out loud.
The only question is regarding which entity is liable. If a judgement were entered against SpaceX, for example, then absolutely rockets and real property owned by SpaceX can be directly seized.
Without looking, I'm certain there are at least a few companies owned by Musk which could have their assets taken directly.
Why should the court or Twitter care if they end up converting 10x more of Elon's stock to cash?
I guess some day traders would get rich (and people that had to sell for the day or so when the stock tanked would take a bath), but that's the biggest problem I can come up with.
You’re acting like the asset value at all matters to the courts.
Elon and Twitter have a contract. Elon wants out; Twitter doesn't want to let him out; the contract only has limited conditions to allow Elon out. The court is simply deciding which of two options is the case:
1. Elon's reasons are valid; he gets out of the contract for a $1B payment.
2. Elon's reasons are not valid; he has to satisfy the contract and pay $54.20/share for Twitter.
If the judge decides in favor of #2, it is Elon's responsibility to come up with the money. (If he doesn't do so willingly, someone court-appointed will step in and do it for him.) If that tanks Tesla, that has nothing to do with the court.
Now, Tesla shareholders can sue Elon for getting the company into this pile of stank....
Trying to argue, in court, that you are entitled to have your investment insulated from loss due the primary owner selling it?
We were talking about the courts seizing the assets though, it's not being voluntarily sold.
Why should that be a concern?
The drop in share prices as you do this is not your concern.
Imagine I go to mcodnalds and offer $10 for a big-mac unconditionally, lol. I'm going to get a half eaten shit sandwich and a broad grin.
But hey, we've got beanbags and a playstation.
What he doesn't have is the inclination.
Anyway, I'm no expert on Musk, and I have almost zero interest in Tesla, or Twitter, or any of this clown show. So maybe my ballpark guesstimations of all the relevant numbers are way off. So take it all with a huge pinch of salt. I am just some uninformed spectator watching two lizards fight in the dust and speculating who will win or whatever :)
Edit: leveraged -> unleveraged, woops
This is pure speculation on my part, but I don’t think it’s insane.
A Delaware court doesn’t have as much reach as you might think if most of Musk’s assets are not there.
Not to mention, how many corporations which Musk has shares in, are Delaware companies?
All of this, how to assess and collect damages, goes back to Roman law.
That’s not how the court works, except in extreme circumstances which don’t apply to this twitter acquisition attempt.
Also, Musk asserts that upto 50% of twitter users are bots, which is totally believable. So the chances Musk will have to pay anything is actually remote, since twitter would have to produce evidence that would reveal trade secrets.
Here’s my prediction: Musk will pay nothing because Twitter has allowed itself to be infiltrated with bots and revealing this will be far more damaging than losing out on a billion. Musk will walk away.
That is precisely what the merger agreement is: a contract forcing Musk to buy Twitter.
And tangential to that kind of behavior, Apple recently was paying a weekly 5 million Euro fine in the Netherlands rather than comply with an order from regulators.
When the consequences of a law violation are trivial, it’s no longer serving as a deterrent. So I think we need to find a way to deter everyone, kind of on a sliding scale or something?
Likewise, there needs to be real consequences for corporations which take advantage of paying fines as a cost of doing business. One violation can be a mistake, but it sure as heck better give you a solid reason to never do it again.
This should have been obvious by now. Cash rules everything around me.
Serious question: Are you in the US? Any Western European country?
There's a tendency for people in corrupt areas to assume the whole world works like that.
There’s a tendency for sheltered and privileged people to be aloof to the corruption all around them.
In high school, everyone knew exactly who to call if you got a DUI. 10k was the going price to get a certain lawyer who gets the case in front of a certain judge and however that worked, the charge was dropped to a moving violation. Kinda sick how the system works.
Yep, it's kinda sick but also kinda true.
We all know monarchy is tyranny, but in that category there is quite a difference between a cult ruler with a bag of shrunken heads who is getting his orders from God vs. a stable, well managed, system in which the institutions basically function, including to some extent for the poor, and yet in which which the ruling class still basically dominate and exploit everything and everyone in order to enrich themselves and maintain their power.
The latter is a social malady, the former is completely chaotic. I think people are concerned that the US is resembling the latter less and less, and resembling the former more and more.
The United States of America
> There's a tendency for people in corrupt areas to assume the whole world works like that.
Exactly. I live in a corrupt area and start with the assumption that most of the world is corrupt.
They will set their lawyers at it and come to a settlement. The super rich know better than to be at each others throats, that sort of behavior is for the poor...
I mean, if a street sweeper thinks he is King, you might convince or compel him to get treated when he comes in to contact with the system. But when the King thinks he is King... that is a much more difficult problem to deal with.. usually the kingdom joins in with his madness so as to keep him happy.
I'm overall a fan of Musk, but this is too far. There simply must be rule of law for the United States to remain a dynamic society.
Martha Stewart went to jail for 5 months for a meager case of insider trading. Musk manipulated Tesla stock in front of, literally, the whole world and got a slap in the wrist (i.e. a fine that comes to about 0.1% of its net worth). A citizen would to go jail forever for a similar thing.
I believe she went to prison for lying to investigators. The insider trading they couldn’t make stick. So in the end, maybe the cases aren’t so different?
And doing it publicly...that pretty well nerfs the old "give us the secrets, or we'll reveal the fact that you smoked week" spy gambit.
Does he? I don't remember any resolution to that, but I thought they "temporarily" suspended it pending an investigation and then never completed the investigation.
that's the theme of this entire thread : rich person has a slap on the wrist announced publicly but then the punishment is never successfully fulfilled.
MS antitrust style.
I might be wrong that they suspended his clearance or that the investigation wasn't done, but that would be a different point tag. What you're making.
I have no idea what will happen here. Musk is clearly in the wrong both legally and ethically, but I suspect he will weasel out of resbonsibility for the damage he's caused. That alone will be bad enough, but the much larger risk is that it opens the floodgates for slightly less powerful scumbags to flout the law.
US law and democracy are shakier than I've seen in my lifetime, and Musk is actively taking a sledgehammer to a piece of that foundation for his own greed and whim.
The Delaware court isn't some magical place run by elves. It's a court in the US. You know what's a lot cheaper than $34 billion dollars, or heck even $1 billion dollars? $200k for 3-4 judges.
The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the richest billionare is going to be subject to any serious consequences? It's absurd to even entertain this.
This stuff goes both ways. Yes Elon has a lot of money. But twitter is worth XX billions of dollars.
Twitter is willing to spend a lot of those billions of dollars, in order to get Elon to pay the agreed upon price that he committed too.
This is not the case of a nobody vs a billionaire. This is instead multiple billion dollar entities fighting each other.
You know who has the authority to overturn that decision? Our democratically elected legislature.
> executive position who has preposterously lost the popular vote
What does the popular vote have to do with the presidency? Neither party strategizes to win the popular vote because the popular vote is meaningless. Therefore, the outcome if the popular vote has no value in determining who would win a popular vote should that be the metric by which the president is elected.
Lots of powerful people spent a lot of time on the lolita express.
If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
The problem here isn't that wealth is power, it will always be power. The issue is that a single person has been allowed to accumulate too much.
There are lots of successful examples - constitutions, voting, term limits, separate judiciary, non-political commuters, etc
The big problem I see in the design of egalitarian systems, is explicitly addressing the need for continuous response to new forms of centralization. I don’t know of any significant systems that were designed with any explicit statement of prioritizing that (vs. just general support for fixes, amendments, etc.)
For instance, the centralization of US political power into only two parties, where (temporary) single party rule of three branches is actually a practical possibility should have triggered some major reforms before it spun out of control.
A simple requirement that no coordinated individual or organization have sway over more than 25% of political seats, and political organizations at the federal and state levels must be separated, would do wonders for decentralization and better representation.
But the constitution is silent on any guidance or requirement on addressing new power centralization problems.
It is the hard root problem of power, but not systemizing progress on it is to accept inevitable dystopia
The federal constitution says that voting is left up to the states, so arguably the centralization problem is ~50 different experiments which have all gone wrong in the exact same way.
You could say that the federal constitution should have put some guidance in place to stop exactly this correlated failure, but ironically that would introduce more centralization as there would be one rule forced on all the individual states.
Whether that's a good idea or not I think depends on how good the rule is in practice. Unfortunately the rule you suggest highlights just how difficult it is to write a good one. For example, how do you define "coordinated organization"?
If both major parties split into 50 different organizations that all happened to endorse the same candidate for president (but for nominally different state-specific reasons), should the SCOTUS have the power to ban those political organizations (and perhaps ban one and not the other)?
Fortunately we can look to other countries that have managed to avoid political duopoly by using voting systems which don't penalize people for voting for new parties. Even better, some US states have already implemented such a system[0], and, going back to your point about constitutions, the people of Maine managed to introduce RCV not because of a constitutional requirement, but despite a narrow (state) constitutional prohibition.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...
> Fortunately we can look to other countries that have managed to avoid political duopoly by using voting systems which don't penalize people for voting for new parties. Even better, some US states have already implemented such a system[0], and, going back to your point about constitutions, the people of Maine managed to introduce RCV not because of a constitutional requirement, but despite a narrow (state) constitutional prohibition.[1]
I think you are right, voting systems are the best place to start.
That and prohibitions on justices and congressfolk from weighing in on matters they have a personal or political interest in, such as receiving political funds or assistance.
Imagine if donating to a politician whose influence you want will make it more likely they cannot help you. That leaves donations reflecting people's assessment of who will better run the country in a more general sense. Those donations look more like "free speech" than the rampant influence purchasing that overwhelms the system today.
If the constitution forbid parties from operating across state lines, or operating in more than 20 states, or holding more than 20% of seats in either Federal legislative body, … there would never be single party rule at the Federal level which is where it would matter most.
> If both major parties split into 50 different organizations that all happened to endorse the same candidate for president (but for nominally different state-specific reasons), should the SCOTUS have the power to ban those political organizations (and perhaps ban one and not the other)?
While collusion (meaning surreptitious coordination, in this case) between 50 state level parties would certainly be possible, it would be substantially more difficult than coordinating 50 state offices of a single political party as it is today.
Today, all senate campaigns are basically running for one shared constituency: big money from anywhere in the US, and political support from the same party, across the US.
The tight link that should exist between a politicians power base and the politicians electorate has been broken, for state level elections of Federal positions.
A fundamental problem, that we are all burdened to solve, is how do we get from an ideological government to a scientific one. Until we do that, we're all just plugging holes in a sinking ship.
Such a reductive view, on any group, isn't productive.
and would be undemocratic
Of course first-past the post voting systems won't work here, but that doesn't make it undemocratic.
His wealth today comes largely because Tesla (under his leadership as CEO) has become a company that investors now believe is incredibly valuable, and they've driven up the stock price. At what point in this process did Musk "accumulate" this ownership of Tesla, and exactly what do you propose should have happened to stop him?
Tesla has been successful in many of its lines of business and succeeded when many thought they couldn’t, that is undebatable. The failure of our system is that its stock price is completely out of line with the reality that reflects that success.
You can buy shares in other car manufacturers. Why would Tesla disproportionately benefit from inflated asset prices?
Elon Musk knows this and is a master at harnessing this power, which is why he’s shamelessly pumped DogeCoin and Shiba. He continually pushes his company to be the most popular brands by promising impossible futuristic products that cannot exist, but build excitement. Countless examples of these, but a few are Full Self Driving, a flying Roadster, the Tesla semi, solving transportation issues with tunnels, the Tesla bot, $25k model 3, solar roof that costs less than a normal roof, robotaxi, etc etc etc. It’s all calculated.
I think NFTs are stupid, but I don't think they're "a problem".
People spend lots of money on stuff I find stupid. I would never buy a Gucci handbag, they have about as much value as an NFT. But if someone else wants to, it doesn't hurt me, so, so what?
Generally, anyone who puts money into a 401k, will likely have some of it going to Tesla and disproportionately over other auto companies - simply because how funds are typically weighted.
What should have happened is wider distribution of profits among Tesla employees, who are the ones actually doing the work. It’s fine if the CEO is considered an extremely valuable employee and gets a larger share, within limits. Pretty sure he could live a great life with a few million dollars, which would both limit his undeserved power and benefit everyone doing the work.
Tax schemes and how they affect wealth, inequality, consumption, etc. is an interesting line of thought, and a necessary one, if you accept that the current one has allowed some individuals to get so rich that the rule of law breaks down in their presence.
Every unit of time (year or month) you have to declare what stocks you own and you get taxed based on how much they're worth.
Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.
However it might be interesting to explore an option that required people who own a stake in a company that has grown beyond a certain size to be required to siphon off some of those shares to employees over time in a way where it was not conducted on the open market and would not affect share price.
I also question whether corporate entities should be allowed to own shares and what the benefits are of that. Should private investment firms be allowed to accumulate massive stakes in public companies?
Local governments are starved for money, and almost all of their funding comes from local property taxes, that is, normal people. So, these mega-rich are allowed to get unboundedly wealthy, while normal people have to pay to keep society running as a minimal level. The mega-rich's money, as well as corporations', needs to flow back through the system. It does no good to let it concentrate so heavily and ultimately do nothing while it sits there.
But I disagree in that I think we absolutely should avoid it because a larger federal government has been heavily correlated with less local funding (so much so that the SALT deduction was once a thing). It's given rise to globalization and large multi-national conglomerates. It creates a situation where power & money is too concentrated.
Once you start looking into the ideologies of people like the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and his family, Peter Thiel, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Sheldon Adelson, Ronald Cameron, Steve Wynn, and others, you start seeing very weird and strange beliefs that are incompatible with a functional society. The primary thread is that these people do not care about others. Just look at the Koch brothers' political donations and the businesses they run. Is it then any surprise why the Republicans might not care so much about climate change and policies to mitigate it?
We have one extremist political party, and then the other, somewhat incompetent, party spends all their energy fighting back against the extremism of the other.
A certain Republican sect literally tried to overturn the presidential election, threatening to hang the vice president, killed a capital cop, ransacked the capital, and only one Republican had the guts to vote against the president. Then that same party will decry people marching for human rights and supports violence against those groups. The Republicans are the same party that supposedly stand for small government but are hell bent on telling people what they can do with their own bodies and forcing religion to be taught in public schools. Republicans' reaction to mass shootings is more guns, while they are the ones that block any investigation into why these are happening or preventing people that should not be buying guns from buying guns. I happened to drive across the country during COVID. You could tell the Republican states from the amount of masks being warn. The Republicans blocked a third supreme court nomination by a two-term president in Obama that was 10 months ahead of the presidential election, meanwhile they rushed a third supreme court appointee by a one-term president just two months before an election, throwing out every reason they used to block Obama's nomination. These are all extreme positions that don't have analogs in the Democratic party.
> have no interest in discussing real solutions
Mind pointing that out? In fact, I've elaborated quite a decent amount. I'm not sure what you've brought to the discussion other than just stating disagreement and making bad faith statements. You are free to contribute or elaborate on what you mean by the Republican party not being extreme.
The solutions I believe that could help things are: increasing tax on the wealthy, limiting the amount of political donations including to interest groups and think tanks (i.e., get private money out of politics and government), abiding by separation of church and state, and increasing primary and secondary education.
- womens rights have been thrown back 50 years
- a legitimately won election was almost overturned by a violent mob incited by Trump at the time
Have the Democrats ever incited a mob to violently overturn an election?
The fact that people like Trump, Greene, Boebert and others with extremist and narcissistic values can rise to power / influence points to major systemic failures, which eventually destroys democracy if not stopped.
How do you avoid those destructive people rise to power?
I agree with that, but they could just, you know, lower taxes on the lower and middle class to balance it out.
I’m a US tax payer since less than a decade. My experience is that I pay a significant portion of my incomes to taxes that only marginally benefit me or folks around me.
Recent uptick of direct distribution is nice.
But a leadership in the stewarding of the land would be tasteful and send the right message IMO.
It’s fascinating to see the Western European countries I’m familiar with being blinded by the economic might of the US but not realizing how little the average citizen benefit from it.
With that said, the parent commenter subscribes to what political philsophies and/or ethics? ...
If you tax them 100% they'll just stop working or bail to another country, and then you collect zero tax revenue from them. At 70% most of them will just suck it up and pay.
(I realize France is a counterpoint here, but I'd argue it was a half-assed attempt, and they have neighboring French-speaking tax havens that have no real U.S. equivalent.)
The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the curve of revenue vs. tax rate looks like other than at those two end points, which makes the entire concept completely useless.
Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.
>I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc
Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.
What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned.
Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/vladimir-putin-net-worth-2022...
During communism dignitaries didn’t have much money-wealth, or even true material wealth. But they were powerful nevertheless.
if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough.
Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.
Is that the normal punishment?
Mullosk's behavior is vastly more damaging to society compared to the quintessential enforcement example that is Martha Stewart.
On a practical level, every large financial institution with dollar assets (I mean this literally) has a far greater vested interest in maintaining a productive relationship with the Chancery than they do with Musk.
On a political level, could easily see the Delaware governor getting a kick out of sending the state police to arrest Musk for contempt, impound his assets.
Then again, Musk is a pretty good gambler.
If they don’t make an example of Musk (if he so deserves it), the same thing will happen and Delaware will become less useful for corporations.
This is completely wrong, right? The evidence might not be terrific but it's definitely more than a whisper.
The purchase price of 54.20 per share would net a lot more than a billion given the current share price.
So he's using the 'bot' issue to find an excuse for a deal he wants out of.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/elon-musk-twitter-1.6432315
> Musk and Twitter agreed to a so-called reverse termination fee of $1 billion when the two sides reached a deal last month. Still, the breakup fee isn’t an option payment that allows Musk to bail without consequence.
> A reverse breakup fee paid from a buyer to a target applies when there is an outside reason a deal can’t close, such as regulatory intermediation or third-party financing concerns. A buyer can also walk if there’s fraud, assuming the discovery of incorrect information has a so-called “material adverse effect.” A market dip, like the current sell-off that has caused Twitter to lose more than $9 billion in market cap, wouldn’t count as a valid reason for Musk to cut loose — breakup fee or no breakup fee — according to a senior M&A lawyer familiar with the matter.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
Yes, I get that if there are 'material issues' maybe he can walk (even though he apparently waved a lot of that).
He can't just walk away for 'no reason' and not pay the fine.
The crashing price is probably not a legit reason.
He can't just walk away and _pay_ the fine.
He is obligated to close the deal and Twitter can force him to do so. If some external force stops the deal from happening - or if he can show that Twitter egregiously violated the agreement - he can get away with not buying Twitter, but he still has to pay them $1B.
How could Musk possibly have done this, which must have been against the advice of his Bankers?
"I'm sending men to mars, ergo, I know more about M&A than i-bankers?
This is the kind of hubris that takes people down.
That's presumably what he told people and not "hey I'm just joking around, make sure to write the terms so the deal never actually completes"
And it's doubtful Musk was so dumb he'd enter into this contract 'just for fun' knowing the terms.
I suggested he did want to buy it, got bad advice or didn't listen to his bankers, and then the market crashed, and now he's in a bind.
I think OP may have intended to say “one of the two parties”
Of all the funny things I have read this week this takes the cake, Biden will not allow him to get away with it, not a joke.
The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predictable law and binding contracts, and Musk’s antics undermine that. On the other hand it might intimidate a Delaware chancellor: What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? They’re not gonna put him in Chancery jail. The guy is pretty contemptuous of legal authority; he thinks he is above the law and he might be right. A showdown between Musk and a judge might undermine Delaware corporate law more than letting him weasel out of the deal would.