This is the pretty good point to all the "richest person" "net worth XX Billion" lists and calculations.
Most if not all of these people can't liquidate even close to their "net worth"
Most if not all of these people can't liquidate even close to their "net worth"
Larger sums are only really useful for making big-splash investments. Like this. As far as personal spending goes, it's no obstacle, so it doesn't matter that they can't easily turn their entire net worth into a literal billions-of-dollars balance in a checking account.
Twitter, you can't buy Twitter on a whim.
I feel like he's not obligated to do anything, but ignoring his commitment makes him a worse person, and there are probably amounts greater than zero which do not encounter the issue you describe
Are we sure Elon isn't just claiming that he forever wants more detail, like a sealioning troll, because in actuality he wants the money for himself more, and never actually intended to make the donations he committed to? Occam's razor would suggest that is actually the case.
I mean, if we was serious about it, after he received the plan, did he ask for more detail on any of the items he didn't understand?
It doesn’t say how they’ll spend the money aside from allocations here and there, and it wouldn’t solve world hunger.
it's actually just a plan, not a 'so-called "plan"', whatever that means
>It doesn’t say how they’ll spend the money aside from allocations
the way the money will be spent, is by allocating money to the items that it will be spent on, which are detailed in the plan.
that seems good enough to start for me, but where did Elon ask for more info than that? I asked this in the previous post, but very conspicuously got no answer.
surely he didn't just _forget_ about _billions of dollars he committed to donate to charity?_
There's little you can do as a billionaire that you couldn't do as a hundred-millionaire when it comes to simply buying things for liquid cash. You can buy all the houses, boats, private islands, etc. that you want.
The only meaningful difference in wealth at that scale is buying fundamentally scarce things: specific real estate and private islands, favors from politicians, private time with other powerful people. For all of those, you are competing with other wealthy people to win them, so it's relative wealth that matters.
It's probably ridiculous to most to think of hundred-millionaires being financially constrained, but I do think there's a material difference in the buying power of $100M and $1B without getting into unique goods.
I think that's broadly true, though some of the older ones might be able to. Bill Gates, for example, has diversified his wealth out of Microsoft (and he doesn't control the company these days, anyway). I don't think the market would punish Berk or AutoNation, for example, nearly as hard as they've punished Tesla for Elon cutting his ownership stake.
It would be interesting if there were some way to calculate something like the "cash net worth" of individuals. Work out what they could actually reasonably expect to get if they liquidated all their assets. Obviously it would be a pretty rough estimate, but you'd definitely see some reshuffling of the richest people lists.
Not all sales are equal. Here you have a guy who essentially arrived at the end of the road and brought Microsoft where only Standard Oil arrived before.
Both had extinguished all their natural competitiors and had to be essentially stopped by the US Federal Govt.
Stark contrast with the CEO of a luxury automaker who inflated a financial bubble to enrich himself who is now selling to buy a social media platform.
It could be that confidence in musk and his brand is having more of an impact on share price than supply and demand. He's behaving erratically and is clearly distracted from running tesla by this twitter fiasco. I'm not sure what weighs more on the minds of institutional investors.
Good drug dealers don't get high on their own supply.
Kind of stretching the analogy, but you hopefully get my point.