this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
767 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

58011 readers
2887 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Most of the world's biggest advertisers have stopped buying ads on Elon Musk's X, exclusive new data shows::Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino have recently stated that most of the company's top-spending advertisers from last year have returned.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As obscenely wealthy as he is, that wealth comes from bis assets not cash in hand. $20B of the $44B paid was cash, some of which was from selling some of his Tesla shares. Further to that, Tesla stock dropped so significantly it caused his net worth to drop by a further $30B.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So as a result he’s no longer so rich he could do it all again and still have more money than he could possibly spend in hundreds of lifetimes? No? Still super rich? Then it’s not really a meaningful distinction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. It's impossible to say for sure either way but it's plausible his personal wealth could be wiped out, could be forced to divest his stakes in his own companies, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which would still leave him insanely rich, so the answer you are looking for is "no, elon musk is not taking any actual personal risk here at all."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how being forced to divest in your own companies to meet debt obligations would leave you insanely rich so we'll just agree to disagree here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because divesting means selling, which means.that you get money in exchange for property. How do you not understand this?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Because divesting in order to meet debt obligations means that with that money you have to immediately use it to pay debts that you owe to others, therefore you no longer have the money nor the assets. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bank foreclosures on your house it means that your property is sold and the money from the sale goes to the bank to pay off the loan.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Again, none of that impacts him in any way apart from losing the ability to literally just do it again.