- cross-posted to:
- enoughmuskspam
- cross-posted to:
- enoughmuskspam
You must log in or register to comment.
If a penalty is “worth it”, it’s a business decision, not a penalty. Add a zero or two if you want it to work as intended.
Some countries make their penalties a percentage of income. Makes the sting equal for everyone.
Maybe makes the big guys sting some, but the same percentage for someone that is counting every penny for their food is still going to be more painful for them.
Make it a percentage of disposable income, calculated as income plus 4% of net worth minus average living expenses for your city.
To avoid letting low-income people commit certain crimes without any penalty, maybe have a minimum fine but allow anyone who would be eligible to pay less than the minimum to make up the difference with community service (i.e., if the minimum fine is $200 and the calculated percentage of their disposable income would only be $100, they can pay $100 and then work 10 hours of community service).
True. And we can’t legislate our way out of this. Any legislation we proffer and make happen will be weaponized against the poor.
If he can even get a 1% gain in net worth from market manipulation, it would be a worth it even with 2 more zeros. 1 billion dollars is barely anything for him. 20mil is like a $80 fine for millionaire.
Crazy of you think about it. Kind of sad actually.
“A comprehensive overhaul of these agencies is sorely needed, along with a commission to take punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gains,” Musk said in a post on X.
He just can’t stop being Trumply. “I’ll sue the judge and district attorney!”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Elon Musk is under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over his $44bn takeover of social media giant Twitter, it was revealed on Thursday.
The investigation concerns whether Musk broke federal securities laws in 2022 when he bought stock in Twitter, which he later renamed X, as well as statements and SEC filings he made about the deal.
Musk also refused to SEC proposals to conduct the deposition in Texas, where he legally resides, in October or November.
After announcing plans to buy the company in late April, he tried to get out of the deal, alleging Twitter was not disclosing the full extent of bot activity on its platform.
The SEC fined him $20m for misleading investors and forced him to step down as chairman of the company, a penalty he said in later tweets was “worth it”.
“A comprehensive overhaul of these agencies is sorely needed, along with a commission to take punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gains,” Musk said in a post on X.
The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Who cares, he bought it and he ran it into the ground.
Blue bought it paying twice the worth and then made that worth 30% of what it was in about a year.
Ladies and gentlemen, the “smartest man on the planet” at work here!
he can’t win this, can’t he?
“i want to buy this.”
“NOOO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT!”
“ok, i won’t buy it.”
“NOOO, NOW YOU HAVE TO!”
“ok, i bought it.”
“WE WILL NOW INVESTIGATE YOU!”one does not have to like him to see the pattern behind this, just like the farce with investigating spacex for “discrimination” for not hiring migrants and foreigners even tho the law explicitly forbids the company to do so because of national security concerns.
deleted by creator
I can see how it might look like that if you simply ignore literally all the details. But thats only something an idiot would do. You’re not an idiot, are you?
Yes, sadly for Musk, he has to follow security laws. Everyone else does also.
You only like to read the headlines of anything posted don’t you…
I know it takes a bit of extra time but why don’t you give reading the whole thing a try. Could help make or break your point
I don’t think anyone told him he couldn’t buy it.
The board of Twitter is who sued to force the sale, since musk had kicked himself in.
That doesn’t mean his offer and subsequent behavior with the company isn’t market manipulation to be investigated, which is being done by the government.
Both things can be true. He stupidly kicked himself into a deal he was forced to complete, and his behavior since has indicated that he’s just gaming the market since he had to complete the deal.
Removed by mod
Bootlicker
I thought I was crazy at first when I read this then I realized you’re totally simping
Oh wow. Yikes.
I don’t like the guy either, but they literally had to force his hand to get him to buy Twitter. Now they want to investigate him for it? Sheesh.
Why the fuck there isn’t an investigation into his Ukraine meddling though? If anything, that’s of far greater concern.
Did you intentionally avoid reading the article? Or just shit posting? Do you have an ulterior motive for spreading misinformation?
They are investigating him for purchasing 9.2% of the stock without disclosing it appropriately. The article has good details, you might try reading it.
They are investigating him for purchasing 9.2% of the stock without disclosing it appropriately. The article has good details, you might try reading it.
Specifically the 9.2% that made him majority shareholder. And Twitter tried to sue over the late filing but that lawsuit got dismissed.
He was “forced” to buy because he, uh, signed a contract saying he would. I’m sorry, but “voluntarily signed a purchase agreement” is only “forcing” if you believe people above a certain wealth level can do whatever the fuck they want with impunity.
He could have backed out and paid the fine he agreed to pay in the case he backed out, but he didn’t want to do that, either.
He’s not being investigated by someone else.
He can’t win because he’s a fucking idiot.
having just gone through a procurement cycle for a $30k/year purchase at work can’t imagine how much work multi-billion dollar purchases must be (if you take them seriously).
Depending on the situation you could possibly be sued for considering other competitors late in the cycle, let alone after signing and then trying not to pay.
If you rob a bank and get caught in the middle, does that mean it’s not a crime?
It doesn’t matter if he was successful or incompetent, a crime is a crime.
If you planned to rob a bank but then back out of the plan, only for the feds to force you to go through with it, that is entrapment, and your case would get thrown out.
No, it’s the other way around. In Musks case not buying twitter was robbing the bank. The feds forced him to not rob the bank but he is still under investigation because he tried.
Thanks for explaining it, I’m too exhausted to deal with these morons anymore.
He offered to buy Twitter of his own volition. Nobody made him do that. He offered a rather high price, and had the option to pay $1 billion to get out of it. His preference was to act like “oh, let’s just forget about that”. Of course the shareholders and executives wanted him to go through buying Twitter at the best price they could possible get, and someone with his experience and level of business dealings would know that “oh, nevermind” wouldn’t work. I’m sure he would pursue someone who signed a contract that would be in his favor and then tried to slink out of it.
But anyway, this investigation is not about the puirchase of twitter. it’s when he bought 9-10% of the company and illegally did not disclose it properly. It’s in the first line of the article…
Securities and Exchange Commission inquiring whether Musk broke federal law in 2022 when he bought stock in the platform
It’s all the same thing. He “offered” to buy Twitter and then tried to back out. Market manipulation.
The board of Twitter forced the sale, because they had every right and responsibility to their shareholders to do so.
Now he’s wrecking the company seemingly on purpose. Market manipulation.
Now he’s wrecking the company seemingly on purpose. Market manipulation.
Seeing as how the company is now private, how is him wrecking the company “market manipulation”? Twitter isn’t on the market anymore.
I believe they are referring to him buying a significant amount of stock and failing to disclose it, which is illegal. Then talking about buying it for a high price, then trying to get out of buying it after signing the deal. There were lots of shenanigans going on before the final purchase. That’s what this is all about.
