https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversat...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-envoy-says-russia...
If this were the Cold War, we'd have already seen USG freak out and move to nationalize.
I think the more reasonable crux here is why there was no clearance revocation. The guy inserted himself into geopolitics in a manner that ran counter to DoD and USG foreign policy while operating critical defense infrastructure, temporarily (with limited scope) revoking an allied nation's access[0], and being privy to secrets involving said infrastructure.
If in the future we're putting SDI-like capabilities onto satellite constellations his company operates, why let someone with undeclared back-channel comms with a foremost strategic adversary be cleared on the design and operational details of something critical to US strategic defense and national security? The very adversaries that such programs are designed to counter and deter.
That's before you even consider instability from doing every drug under the sun, which normally would be sufficient grounds alone.
I've no doubt he believes himself to be a patriot and probably hasn't violated his oath. It's just that holding a clearance has traditionally been based on risk. Regardless, not like there's anything anyone can do about it now.
To put this in perspective, Canada's wondering lately if the US is going to attempt to annex them. Should that happen, it definitely seems like a foreign policy objective of an adversary of the US, rather than one in the interests of the US.
I'd like to think any reasonable person views this entire situation as nutty, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-ai...
Oh, and you may want to look up eminent domain. The government regularly seizes private property and even does so effectively on behalf of other private entities. If you’re actually consistent on your framing then you’d have to admit you’ve lived your whole life under what you consider a fascist government regardless of political affiliation. For example, here’s [2] Trump using the government’s eminent domain power (before he was president) to take property from another private entity. And here he is doing the same thing [3] as president.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...
[2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain...
Eminent domain is a process where the private property is seized (with the government required to pay fair market value) in order to use that land for some public purpose that it is not currently being used for. This could potentially be done to property owned by Elon Musk, but not for the justification that he has too much power. And also it must be specifically land that is seized, not equity in a company.
If congress passed a law seizing his property, or the government initiated eminent domain against all of his company's properties, it would be obvious that it was Elon Musk being targeted and not any legitimate public need for a piece of land. This is a called a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.
You: how would you even value SpaceX?
Me: Some multiple of their last funding round
You: You’re irrational. They made money last year.
What?
Do you think earning a profit makes your company uncountably valuable? Or earning a profit and adding some promises on top? Neither is true!
These aren’t real problems in any scenario and certainly not in the scenario of “hello the United States of America is seizing your company, here’s a check we think is fair.”
> Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1)
The irrational part is that it could possibly be a fraction of their last round of funding. Do you agree it would have to be a multiple much greater than 1, since their last round of funding (750 million) was a small fraction of their profit last year, and they are on the path of exceeding their total accumulated funding for all rounds in another two years?
I've never seen a profiting company valued based on their last round of funding rather than current/future revenue/profits. Do you have any examples of this, in the real world?
Again, do you have an example of the current value of a company, with similar circumstances, being based on the last round of funding?
Musk can say he's going to colonize Mars or mine asteroids, but the markets are perfectly capable of deciding on how likely (or unlikely) it is that he'll succeed, and price accordingly.
Colonizing Mars is a money-loser. It could completely tank the company. What business model involves colonizing Mars and then making a profit off that?
Mining asteroids is something we're so far away from that it's not worth baking in at that point. With current technology, it's far, far, far cheaper just to mine on Earth, even for things that are relatively rare.
Of course, the question was about how to estimate the amount. It's a nonsensical answer that doesn't attempt to answer or help answer the question. If they were funded $1, their answer would still be correct: non zero multiple of a non-zero number (their last round of funding). It's an answer with unreasonable bounds, on both ends, especially the lower (fraction of last round of funding, even though current revenue is an order of magnitude more). It also has no precedence. The value of a company is never estimated based on rounds of funding from years ago (last was 2023 for SpaceX). It's based on both the present and projected performance.
It's not a rational answer, by definition, since it wasn't made with logic or reason.
It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted.
I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.
I'm not sure I understand this. SpaceX would potentially profit from any transport services provided. Why would others paying for the missions reduce the worth of SpaceX? Or are you suggesting SpaceX would be the one finding it all?
It seems to me that Musk may very well spend the next 4 years cutting everything he can from NASA, NOAA, the Post Office, and other federal agencies. Those capabilities will still be needed, and it is clear from the stated goals of those steering this administration [1] that they intend to steer as much as possible into private enterprises. Many of those enterprises are owned by Musk himself.
I don't know about you, but I see a major conflict of interest with one person both guiding the privatization process and profiting from it. If we do see a case where he steers federal funds from government agencies into a private company - at the cost of the ability of our government to execute critical functions without enriching Musk himself - then I have absolutely no issue with reclaiming those capabilities.
[1] https://qz.com/donald-trump-privatize-us-government-project-...
Some of the cuts will just be cuts, and those services will be gone, in case where Trump's and Musk's cronies don't think they can build a profitable business around them. Others will just get pushed into private hands, and then when progressive administrations come into power, any attempt to bring those functions back into the federal government will get lobbied out of existence.
If lobbyists can do comparatively low-stakes stuff like keep the IRS from sending people pre-filled tax returns, you better believe lobbyists can keep NASA, NOAA, USPS, etc. privatized once they're dismantled.
No, the answer is to ensure any profit from corruption is reclaimed. The idea of "just let the corrupt keep what they stole" has led us right here to this moment.
EDIT:
I do want to be clear on what my concern is here, too - I don't have a problem with commercial space flight. I wouldn't have a problem with NASA using commercial vendors for a major of their missions. I would have mild concern but not a great deal if NASA dropped most of their launch capabilities, retaining only ones needed for specialized missions and unique orbits. But I wouldn't oppose it like this.
But I have a major issue with that process being run by the one person most likely to directly profit from it. That completely destroys all faith that the process is being done in a responsible way that will put the well-being our nation above the wealth of a single individual.
We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things. US economy grew under democratic agenda, and Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base.
Because if you want to make the argument that this will tank the economy as free market capitalism is reigned in, that also doesn't fly considering the economy is being tanked right now. The difference is, under Dems, once things stabilize, everyone will be better off.
Here is the thing though - nobody can predict the future. Statistically, going by historical examples and knowledge, everything that Musk and Trump are doing is wrong in regards to economy, but there is a chance that they are actually right and everyone else has the "woke mind virus".
The thing you need to understand is that if you vote Republican, you aren't aligned with actual reality. The problem is that you see things as black and white - anything that has a sign of the woke mind virus has to be gutted and restructured. This kind of thinking is a case of the classic human bias where you chose to pay attention to the information that fits your narrative, while ignoring the information that does.
This in turn makes makes you less likely to predict the outcome of politics, much less prepare for it.
So if you want to place your bets on Republicans, just know that you can lose very hard, while people like me who are in tune with reality end up being better of.
Honestly, next election (if we even have one) Ill ironically be voting Republican as well, for the reason that I believe in accelerating US downfall. EU seems to be the better system going forward, and they need a nudge in the right direction to pick up the slack, and also institute more stringent society policing to prevent the same from happening to their countries.
If we had perfect knowledge of what goes on in US politics, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, we are forced to parse information from different sources, and figure out what the reality most likely is in our head.
If you are unable to be unbiased (and you, and every other Republican are clearly not), towards information, the chances of you being able to predict reality accurately go way down.
It could very well be that US economy tanks so hard that we enter a pretty harsh recession, with lots of job loss, lack of social services we rely on, and so on. Its a possibility. I don't know that it will happen, but you also don't know it won't. The difference between you and me though is that because I don't blindly believe in one side being right and other side being wrong, I have a much better chance of seeing signs and taking respective action, like selling my house and moving out of the country before it does.
The TLDR of this is that you vote Republican because you are an idealogue. I vote Democrat because of rational decisions. If you want to continue doing this, its not my problem. The least I can hope for is if you do some critical analysis of yourself and figure out whether the things you believe are actually true or do they just sound good.
> they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base
> US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had,
Too bad all you're gonna get is a botched and broken nation and years of misery, but that shouldn't matter as long as you get "something for my money".
And you're sure you're gonna get "something for my money" with people that make no attempts to even veil their corruption and lawlessness. Right? Say, are you, by any chance, "rich"? I mean, rich enough to be considered rich by the oligarchs, that is.
>US has shown the citizens no longer deserve the freedom that they had
>We do need a big powerful government full of Democrats to run things.
>Democrats have proven that they actually do give a fuck about the country, so they should have more power to unilaterally exact laws and legislation without trying to appeal to the Republican voter base.
And after that they say that it is the Trump who is the fascist.