The value wasn't lost, it was consumed. You're looking at what it was consumed to achieve, in the election results.

I would actually agree with you on that in the case of Twitter, but in what sense is that comparable to the current situation? Unless you mean that Musk is succeeding by destroying a bunch of American assets (i.e. the agencies) and then being lauded for this destruction. I could see that value once again going to Musk (and Trump), but in what sense would that value not be lost by your average US citizen? It's not like Musk bought these agencies before destroying them, he's just destroying them. He's no longer burning his own house down for life insurance, he's burning your house down for life insurance.

Operationally, Twitter is performing better than it did when it had 5x the headcount.

According to reports, revenue is down, but that's more due to advertisers objecting to Musk content moderation decisions (plus politics no doubt).

They are objectively in a worse financial position.

I wasn't getting advertisements for female sex toys (I'm male) on Twitter before Musk took over. That's a long way to fall.

Neither of us really know Twitter's financial position, given it's now private.

The rumours I'm hearing are that EBITDA is now above pre-acquistion. The fact that debt is trading hands without a haircut suggests that's probably accurate.

There was a lot of waste at Twitter. Given that headcount was cut by 80%, and advertisers are returning, I'd suggest it's doing fine.

It's wild — people that look at employment of the citizens of this country as just data to feed into some kind of profit/waste equation that needs to maximize profit, discard any hint of waste.

It's not waste when those employed have paychecks to spend in the economy. What would Corporate think if half the population of the U.S. were unemployed and/or homeless?

I guess that's fine as long as profits have been maximized.

Right? I am astounded by these takes. If every corp and every job was this way, our country would be a high-stress, unemployed wasteland. Any org will drop thousands in a heartbeat. Your family would never be safe.

We work so hard already. We already have such high stress. I do not believe we need to eke out the last %s of profit to pass to shareholders and create crushing stress and work on those remaining.

> Neither of us really know Twitter's financial position, given it's now private.

> The rumours I'm hearing are ...

You are literally contradicting yourself in two phrases one after another.

Literally every valuation shows its worth <10b, at best a 25% of its paid for value what, two years ago? a little more?

After reading through your posts its like you live in an alternate reality where Musk's integrity is bulletproof, his decisions are awesome, and he's basically doing it for the rest of us.

I don't know how you can sustain this with everyone throwing reality in your face that he's a short sighted rich kid who lies through his teeth and throws money around until he gets what he wants.

It was, but advertisers are now returning which has driven it's earnings back up while it's operational costs remain significantly below pre-acquisition.

According to https://www.wsj.com/finance/banks-sell-5-5-billion-of-x-loan... earnings are now nearly twice pre-acquisition.

I'm not going to respond to the ad hominem.

Advertisers are returning because Elon Musk is the long arm of the president and literally threatening tech companies with reprisal. On Twitter. It's open corruption! They're not even bothering to hide it.

paywalled article so this link isn't really worth much. And given your credibility I don't trust your analysis. Especially when you also seem to be ignoring any reasonable responses and focusing on arguing instead.

> Neither of us really know Twitter's financial position, given it's now private.

Then why are you making any argument that it was a success?

> There was a lot of waste at Twitter. Given that headcount was cut by 80%, and advertisers are returning, I'd suggest it's doing fine.

Why would you suggest it's fine? Without knowing their exact costs, debts, revenues, etc. you know _nothing_. Why would you suggest it's doing fine when knowing nothing about it's financial position?

It's odd you admit you do not know and then make your own opinion anyway.

This is one of the few times to listen to Wall Street, since it's not public. https://www.ft.com/content/4f44c0c1-0113-4054-be0b-adc119557...

Revenue is down because they fired most of the salespeople and told their customers to f off. Hardly a wise management strategy.