As a former restructuring and bankruptcy advisor at Lazard, I can recognize the signs of a company in distress. And it’s a pretty obvious tell that there’s financial trouble brewing when a company stops paying its bills.
Kinda… depends on how things got him there. The thing Elon can’t lose without really going off the rails is his ability to play the markets. Once the SEC kicks him out you’ll see him legitimately calling for open revolt.
Removing his ability to play stocks at all is removing his ability to earn money. His investors will leave him and the interest on his loans will liquidate him. We’ve seen more than a few of his type flash up and fade away. Milken. Pickens. Belfort. And of course, Madoff. Just to name a few we know by a single name.
He would still be wealthier than 99.99% of people but then so are a lot of folks on the planet. That’s 80 million people left over in that .01%. That’s not all that powerful at all. It’s removing him from the .00001% thats the goal. And killing his stock market abilities would do that over-night. It’s why he bought Twitter, he had to because this was the alternative.
I don’t think I’m following. Your example of Michael Milken is odd since he’s estimated to have between $5 to $10 billion in net worth today. Which kind of goes to my point that Musk is less likely to be in financial distress than win the Powerball Jackpot
Milken’s worth is stagnant - he can’t play stocks. In the 80s Milken had what the wealthy always want, power. He doesn’t have it now. 6 billion is what he’s worth and that’s a long long way below the likes of Elon Musk. Had Milken never been convicted he would’ve kept growing like Elon did.
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying these guys are put into the same kind of financial distress the rest of us are when the car breaks down. They’re still the top 1%. And that’s fine with me, there’s always going to be a top 1%. It’s the “beyond” that concerns me, when they have enough money that it no longer matters when they lose. Milken, Madoff, they all had that much at one point and then they lost. They lost the thing they craved, the power. They might still be rich but they know better than anyone that wealth without power is just an appetizer. They want a seat at the table and getting removed from the SEC is paramount to being told they aren’t dressed well enough to eat in the restaurant.
Kinda… depends on how things got him there. The thing Elon can’t lose without really going off the rails is his ability to play the markets. Once the SEC kicks him out you’ll see him legitimately calling for open revolt.
That wouldn’t put him in financial distress. His ego would certainly be hurt but he’d still be wealthier than 99.99% of the world.
Removing his ability to play stocks at all is removing his ability to earn money. His investors will leave him and the interest on his loans will liquidate him. We’ve seen more than a few of his type flash up and fade away. Milken. Pickens. Belfort. And of course, Madoff. Just to name a few we know by a single name.
He would still be wealthier than 99.99% of people but then so are a lot of folks on the planet. That’s 80 million people left over in that .01%. That’s not all that powerful at all. It’s removing him from the .00001% thats the goal. And killing his stock market abilities would do that over-night. It’s why he bought Twitter, he had to because this was the alternative.
I don’t think I’m following. Your example of Michael Milken is odd since he’s estimated to have between $5 to $10 billion in net worth today. Which kind of goes to my point that Musk is less likely to be in financial distress than win the Powerball Jackpot
Milken’s worth is stagnant - he can’t play stocks. In the 80s Milken had what the wealthy always want, power. He doesn’t have it now. 6 billion is what he’s worth and that’s a long long way below the likes of Elon Musk. Had Milken never been convicted he would’ve kept growing like Elon did.
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying these guys are put into the same kind of financial distress the rest of us are when the car breaks down. They’re still the top 1%. And that’s fine with me, there’s always going to be a top 1%. It’s the “beyond” that concerns me, when they have enough money that it no longer matters when they lose. Milken, Madoff, they all had that much at one point and then they lost. They lost the thing they craved, the power. They might still be rich but they know better than anyone that wealth without power is just an appetizer. They want a seat at the table and getting removed from the SEC is paramount to being told they aren’t dressed well enough to eat in the restaurant.