I notice you didn't include his free speech efforts into that
The less said about that the better!
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
The less said about that the better!
Zuckerberg didn’t buy Instragram and WhatsApp, Facebook did. And Zuckerberg seems to be spending most of his money building a nuclear bunker in Hawaii that makes many of the local people homeless.
And of course I didn’t mean that Elon would literally have $100 billion in cash. I thought that would be obvious.
Soldato
Do you want to double check the costs and how much money he has
Do you want to double check the costs and how much money he has
It’s costing $100+ million and, according to Dowie, the likes of Zuckerberg don’t have any money as it’s all tied up in stock.
Zuckerberg has most of his wealth in Facebook/Meta and has retained complete control of it so it was ultimately his call, the costs o building a bunker are trivial in comparison. As for his bunker making most local people homeless? How?
Well it's not obvious what you do mean then - when should he have cashed in? The same argument still applies, people making arguments about multi-billionaires having "too much" money would have likely been making those arguments when they were centimillionaires or just single-figure billionaires. Is a few hundred million too much? 1 billion? 10 billion? When should they have stopped and why.
The point is that it's not like they're sitting on some Scrooge McDuck pile of gold, their wealth is the reflection of the successful business they own or part own and it's growth which in turn is creating jobs, adding to the economy... but instead they should have knocked that on the head way before it created such value because they could instead pay some medical bills for random people.
Soldato
No one is saying that. Take Tesla as an example. If Elon had sold half his stock, tesla wouldn't have sold as many cars? Not as many jobs simply because Elon didn't half twice as many stocks.
I think the original point was more that it wouldn't instantly mean you're having fun to be a billionaire, but then I was saying all the things you could do to help the world and bring joy.
Not to be taken too seriously
Land ownership is very complicated in Hawaii. Zuckerberg has been forcing indigenous people to sell their right to the land through the courts.
Would he have even carried on as CEO if he couldn't have agreed a comp structure in line with what he wanted? They set very ambitious targets for his comp and he hit them.
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the earlier claim about making most local people homeless, that's forcing the sale of some parcels of land that appear to be enclosed by his land.
usually their money is tied up in stocks btw, they avoid taxes by not selling stock, but getting loans against it.It’s costing $100+ million and, according to Dowie, the likes of Zuckerberg don’t have any money as it’s all tied up in stock.
usually these kinda people only sell stock when it's to pay for stock options they have or taxes
how come zuckerborg went for hawaii? everyone else has them in NZ?
Last edited:
It’s costing $100+ million and, according to Dowie, the likes of Zuckerberg don’t have any money as it’s all tied up in stock.
There rather a big difference between 100 million and 100 billion! Not having 100 billion in cash doesn't mean you can't access 100 million to buy stuff, especially if you have 100 billion+ in assets... there are also things called banks, they take deposits and make loans...
No, it’s so much more complicated than that. This is about indigenous people being forced to give up rights to their ancestral lands. Local people are having their island taken away from them through the courts.
Last edited:
Time to start pouring gasoline down the airvents
Soldato
Thing is you don't get to be a billionaire by being nice, you get to be a billionaire by being a ruthless ******* who will screw over anyone who stands in the way of you making $. So if you have that attitude you wouldn't have gotten to be a billionaire, a millionaire maybe but that isn't what it was 30 years ago.
I haven't read too deeply into this yet, but I take it their government isn't sympathetic enough to bother changing the law in favour of residents?
why didnt he just let them keep the rights to traverse his land? I bet hes never there anyway
Soldato
I can only guess because of the security risk. And also why would some stupidly rich billionaire want that if he can pay them over the top rates to just not use it.
No doubt he has security and CCTV etc. it's not that much different to people using public footpaths across farms etc.
Last edited:
Soldato
Except those farms don't house one of the richest families in the world
If he has forced them out, I hope he's paid them a ridiculous amount extra. Doubtful but you'd hope he'd worried about bad PR or something so paid stupidly high to avoid that.
They still have millions of pounds in farm equipment etc and no doubt his home wouldn't be close to where they would walk anyway.Except those farms don't house one of the richest families in the world
I could see why he wouldn't want that, but then he could have bought land somewhere else without that problem.
did he build them a reservation or something....
Can't have natives being native- Status