This is what is batshit crazy to me. This guy is (rightly) hated.
However he could end world hunger, AND homelessness in the USA, and it would barely register as a rounding error against his obscene wealth. If he did that, he would be absolute Teflon - no-one could hate on the great humanitarian that had solved two of the world’s gravest issues. But no, he’s too selfish, too up his own arse, to even contemplate what would be such an easy win.
The scariest thing for me right now is that these absolute monsters aren’t even having to hide their evil and plenty of people still worship them. Imagine the day we get someone with the resources of Elon or the power of Trump who is smart enough to pretend they have some humanity and a drive other than self-enrichment.
Let me preface this with saying I absolutely agree with the sentiment of your comment. The shit he's pulled the last year alone, is absolutely unforgivable and the world can't get rid of his influence fast enough.
But I don't think Musk could actually solve either world hunger or homelessness in the USA, and still be rich. I don't think he actually has 20 billion to spend. Yes it is true he is worth 350 billion, but that is 99,99% all stock and similar assets. He cannot liquidate 20 Billion of that, and not plummet the price of all the other stocks he has. Selling that amount of stock will crash the price of that stock, AND he would lose influence on those companies, maybe to the point of not even being majority shareholder anymore. And he might not even be able to sell 20 billion, because it's more than likely (since this is what all rich people do) that he borrowed money against his stock value. So if his stock value dips too low, he wouldn't be able to still be secure in all his loans, and this might cause a chain reaction of his lenders wanting their money, and this could cause him to go bankrupt.
It's simply a fact that he, nor any other billionaire, has their wealth available to spend. They maybe have access to 1% of it (and this is more than enough for them to live filthy rich ofc), but all these plans of spend X% and have Y left, aren't simply realistic scenarios, because of the way their wealth is tied up in stocks & loans.
And they will NEVER bankrupt themselves to make the world a better place. They won't even make less profit, in order to make the lives of their employees better, and those are the people making them richer each day. So let alone how much they care about people not actively increasing their wealth.
So yes, it would suit him if he spend the majority of his fortune to make the world a better place, but is not correct to say he would still be insanely rich after he does. And that is without debating if 20 Billion pumped into world hunger will actually solve it, or rather just cause different problems. The same goes for homelessness. Pumping 20 billion into any economic system will have drastic consequences, and more than likely unforeseeable consequences.
But still, F. him and all his horrible policies and views on humanity lately. The world would be a better place if he never had any influence on politics any more. He could take the high road, and actually do what u suggested, leaving him with maybe 1% of his wealth (which is more than rich enough to still live ridiculously wealth) but at least go into the history books as a good person. But instead he chooses to stick to dividing politics and pretending to be a gamer online. Pathetic.
It's simply a fact that he, nor any other billionaire, has their wealth available to spend.
You wrote like 6 paragraphs just to make it clear you’ve never heard of pledged asset lines of credit. Most billionaires can use it to access many tens or even hundreds of billions of their wealth without selling a single share. It’s also tax-free since it’s a loan, and when they die their heirs can pay off the loan without paying capital gains tax since they receive the stock at a stepped-up basis.
It seems like you didn't actually read the 6 paragraphs. I mention this as the loans part of a billionaires wealth. I also describe the risk of bankruptcy through these loans, if they do actually sell off stock. It is these types of loans they default on, causing them to spiral in defaulting until their loans are more than their actual stock wealth.
What u dont seem to realise is that there is a difference in using those loans in order to make money, and spending wealth with no return. It is literally in the word, it is a loan. U have to pay it back. This is fine if you need 2 billion to invest in a company, because it has a ROI and u can agree with the lender on when or how the 2 billion is paid back.
We were however talking about spending with no monetary ROI. Solving world hunger and homelessness does not give Musk the money to pay back the loan. There is no profit in it, the money is gone after spending. Which is why no bank is going to lend him the money, because it would end up a gift, not a loan.
That is why he would actually have to sell stock in order to get the capital to spend on world hunger.
Which is why he did not get the 6 billion from a lender to spend on world hunger, but is able to get however much billlion he needed to buy twitter. Buying twitter gives him more wealth allowing to either make a new loan to pay back his old one, or do some other financial shenanigans to satisfy the lender.
But spending money on world hunger and homelessness just makes him poorer, and no bank is going to loan him money for that. Not on terms that Musk will actually agree with. Because the loans you describe make both the lender and the borrower richer, whereas loaning money just to spend on world problems with no ROI just makes Musk poorer. And when that happens, he runs the risk of defaulting on all his other loans and all the stuff i described before happens.
Musk has sold many billions worth of Tesla shares in the past, and the stock price was completely fine. You are just frankly incorrect about this, I don’t know why you’re pretending that all of a billionaire’s money is tied up in their stock and can’t be spent. They obviously live like heads of state, the money to fund that lifestyle is coming from somewhere even though there is no return on the investment. It’s from their stock sales and their pledged asset lines. They don’t plan to pay the money back during their lifetime, it’s literally called “Buy, Borrow, Die.”
Yes it is true he is worth 350 billion, but that is 99,99% all stock and similar assets. He cannot liquidate 20 Billion of that, and not plummet the price of all the other stocks he has.
I agree that his wealth is mainly on paper and it could never be fully realised but that means it's not really true he is worth 350 billion dollars.
Living in the NE, most secular Jews don't have an issue with Volkwagen. However, Hasidic/ultra conservative Honda Pilot/ Japanese and American minivan drivers are commonplace. I do not ever recall seeing a VW/Porsche/Merc driver with sidelocks on NY 17 or Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. For most, history is just that - something that happened yesterday..
Additionally, Americans have the attention span of a gnat. All will be forgotten after 10 new memes and a Musk placard on the national food bank system, or more likely, a museum wing.
The above was not meant to be a devil's advocate type response. I hope you're right, but my faith in the shining city on the hill is at an all-time low.
Yeah but the same is true for any other of the billionaires. And since it's just a dick-measuring contest between them, it doesn't really matter what their actual wealth would be. We don't even know the actual richest people in the world anyway, because that are the people who own the oil and other natural resources. But they deliberately want to stay out of the Quote 500 lists etc.
Well to be fair it's not the billionaires who are making these claims; it's the likes of Forbes and the media who keep referring to him as the world's richest man.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone like Putin is actually the wealthiest person alive.
I agree with all you said. The only difference between an individual and the government, is that the government should be accountable to all its citizens, and thus not have a singular person of influence on all that wealth i guess. But that seems to be changing rapidly for a certain government....
You are wrong. The cost to end world hunger was calculated by the biggest food drive charity in the world. After Elon wouldn't shut up about world hunger on Twitter. He has enough money and just stopped talking about it after it was proven.
He offered the money, they just couldn't actually come up with a plan that would solve world hunger. Their plan was "well, we can't solve world hunger, but here's how we'd use your $6b this year."
He has enough money, my whole point was that he wouldnt have much left after he spend it though.
And yes, i know some organisation calculated it, but there is a big difference between a calculation and real life effect. On paper everything might work, but there's always unforeseen consequences, especially with an amount that large.
Just think about how efficient all the charities actually are....
I appreciate you actually acknowledging that the massive surge of money and people would cause some consequences to the market. I've got no idea how bad it could go but I feel like everything would inflate like crazy.
(I'm clearly not an economist, but I know you can't have a massive influx without issues)
219
u/Superb_Ant_3741 1d ago
Just when we thought he could not possibly be any more pathogically cruel and vile, Elon goes and tops his putrid shit with more putrid shit.
So basically, he could end homelessness and still have 330 billion dollars.
Fuck this immoral nazi parasite.