Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 12K
- Views: 324K
- Politics
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,622
Sure. Just like he did under Biden.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,648
1. i don't think its clear what elon's motivations are or have been. he seems pretty red-pilled. maybe its an act. but there's no financial incentive for him to back the neo-nazi party in germany and yet . . .
2. for that reason, sununu's statement is ridiculous. we don't know. i suspect elon is mostly looking to protect spacex's dominance and also he wants to maintain his security clearance which would have almost certainly been revoked by kamala. but maybe he's just riding his own jock and feeling the power. or maybe he's even more transactional than i am suggesting.
2. for that reason, sununu's statement is ridiculous. we don't know. i suspect elon is mostly looking to protect spacex's dominance and also he wants to maintain his security clearance which would have almost certainly been revoked by kamala. but maybe he's just riding his own jock and feeling the power. or maybe he's even more transactional than i am suggesting.
SmilingJack
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 697
Elon is a bit of a boer.
- Messages
- 3,772
Duke Mu
Honored Member
- Messages
- 766
I guess. Let's not pretend that Trump has any strategic plan, or a concept thereof. There's something transactional at play...like stalling or some forgiveness for the $1B Trump still owes to oligarchs.
Mulberry Heel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,684
No matter how many times it is pointed out to conservatives that polls consistently show that a "green agenda" and "wokeness" are actually quite popular with a majority of Americans, or that those "nanny state" regulations during covid actually helped to save people's lives, and that what Republicans mean by rolling back "excessive regulations" are rolling back things like polio vaccine mandates and the FDA that help to provide sanitary food, they still keep posting this stuff, not only here but on social media and elsewhere. It's the usual case of if they say it over and over enough it becomes true, at least to them.
Also, I thought Trump won because of the economy, not all of this culture war stuff. It would be nice if conservatives could make up their minds as to what gave Dear Leader his victory (by all of 1.3% in the popular vote, one of the closest ever). In some posts it's the economy, but in another thread it's "wokeness" and "excessive nanny state regulations" and in another thread it's Democrats promoting "transgenderism." Whatever works at the moment I guess.
- Messages
- 15,299
From August but still relevant - Musk believed in his own brand of deficit spending when it came to acquiring Twitter:
Gift link —> https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musks...cb?st=9nkmED&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
“… The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.
The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.
The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory. …”
Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis
Loans of around $13 billion have remained ‘hung’ for nearly two years, bringing in interest payments but weighing on banks’ balance sheets
Gift link —> https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musks...cb?st=9nkmED&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
“… The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.
The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.
The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory. …”
- Messages
- 15,299
“… Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago who has tracked such deals since the 1980s, said Twitter isn’t only the biggest hung deal by dollar amount since the 2008 financial crisis but one of the biggest of all time.
“The loans have weighed on the banks for much longer than other hung deals we’ve seen,” he said.
The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal. Musk and other investors ponied up around $30 billion to buy the company, giving the banks some cushion in case things were to go wrong.
The banks—which also include Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—have been able to collect hefty interest payments from the X loans. They are generally for seven to eight years and carry rates several percentage points above the benchmark for investment-grade companies. And the banks could still ultimately be made whole if X is able to cover its interest obligations and repay the principal when the loans mature.
“At some price, they could sell it at a loss, but with Musk they could end up receiving 100 cents on the dollar, if things pan out,” said Kaplan. …”
“The loans have weighed on the banks for much longer than other hung deals we’ve seen,” he said.
The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal. Musk and other investors ponied up around $30 billion to buy the company, giving the banks some cushion in case things were to go wrong.
The banks—which also include Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—have been able to collect hefty interest payments from the X loans. They are generally for seven to eight years and carry rates several percentage points above the benchmark for investment-grade companies. And the banks could still ultimately be made whole if X is able to cover its interest obligations and repay the principal when the loans mature.
“At some price, they could sell it at a loss, but with Musk they could end up receiving 100 cents on the dollar, if things pan out,” said Kaplan. …”
- Messages
- 1,725
So everyone and their mother on the planet knew Musk would lose money on this, except the supposed financial geniuses who run the banks. Brilliant.
StrangePackage
Honored Member
- Messages
- 903
Guys, I'm starting to wonder if selling off critical aspects of our infrastructure, research, and national security apparati to multinational corporate interests was a wise decision.
- Messages
- 3,772
What does he do that would lead you to believe that he has any other ambition than to increase his wealth and therefore his influence?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see him following Gates around the world trying to eradicate Polio or bring better sanitation to remote parts of the world.
I mean a quick search and this is the first thing returned:
Musk's Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023. Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk's enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years. For the third year in a row, Elon Musk's charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money. Dec 12, 2024
Musk’s Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023
Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk’s enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years.
Seems like Musk is really into his philanthropy.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,622
The only thing I see that would lead me to believe he doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to increase his wealth is acting like a complete idiot and hurting his businesses. It was probably only a few years ago where Tesla And SpaceX were absolute darlings of the left, and Musk was widely admired for his scientific and business accomplishments. And then he ruined all that by tweeting like a monkey. It's hurting his wealth and he just doesn't care.What does he do that would lead you to believe that he has any other ambition than to increase his wealth and therefore his influence?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see him following Gates around the world trying to eradicate Polio or bring better sanitation to remote parts of the world.
I mean a quick search and this is the first thing returned:
Musk's Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023. Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk's enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years. For the third year in a row, Elon Musk's charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money. Dec 12, 2024
Musk’s Foundation Gave Away Less Money Than Required in 2023
Private foundations must donate 5 percent of their assets every year. Elon Musk’s enormous charity missed that standard for three consecutive years.www.nytimes.com
Seems like Musk is really into his philanthropy.
If his one and only goal was to get richer and richer, he'd be Larry Ellison or Sergey Brin: basically invisible and enjoying their vast riches. Even Mark Zuckerberg seems well adjusted compared to Musk in the last few years.
That's why I think Musk doesn't spend his every waking moment hoping to get even richer. I mean he'll do it when he can but I don't think that's his overriding purpose. He's beaten the become the richest person in the world video game. He's moving on to something else which seems to be political power and influence.
- Messages
- 1,725
Bleak outlook for US farmers – and Trump tariffs could make it worse
Bumper grain crop set to weigh heavily as farmers count costs of seed, fertilizer – and effects of possible trade war
Many US midwestern grain farmers will lose money this year after reaping a bumper crop, and the outlook for their future income is bleak.
US farmers harvested some of the largest corn and soybean crops in history this year. Big harvests traditionally weigh on crop prices because of plentiful supply. And those price pressures comes at a time when costs remain persistently high to grow corn and soybeans, the US’s most valuable crops.
That double whammy is hurting farmers. Income will vary per farmer and per state, yet even for producers in top agricultural states such as Illinois, losses could be staggering.
Agricultural economists from the University of Illinois and Ohio State University estimate that the average Illinois farm could make a loss of $30,000 for 2024. Their projections place farm incomes at the lowest level since the 1980s’ farm crisis led to bankruptcies.
The decks are stacked against farmers for 2025 as well. Costs for seed, fertilizer and other inputs rose during 2022, fueled by the Russia-Ukraine war, which also lifted crop prices to record highs.
While crop prices are down nearly 50% from those highs, in part due to a global supply glut, input prices remain elevated. Sterling Smith, an independent commodities researcher, says the national average break-even price for corn is $5.67 a bushel, and $12.72 a bushel for soybeans. Those levels are far above current Chicago Board of Trade most-active futures prices of $4.43 for corn and $9.76 for soybeans.
“We’re looking at this crop, that, when it gets planted, of being a money-loser next year,” Smith says.
And things could look worse for farmers if Donald Trump places tariffs on imports. Trump pledged to impose across-the-board tariffs of 20% on all US imports, with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. Recently, he advocated for 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.
...
Until the first trade war between China and the US in 2018, China was the No 1 destination for US agricultural goods. That came to a halt during the trade war, although China and the US eventually signed an agreement in 2019 to import a set amount of agricultural goods for two years.
During the skirmish, China began diversifying its suppliers, including buying from Brazil. Brazil was already a global grower and exporter of soybeans, but Chinese investment ramped up expansion, Smith says.
“China is not going to put their food supply at risk,” Smith says.
Brazil increased their soybean production by the equivalent of an area the size of the state of Kansas, and some estimates suggest it has as much as 70m acres (28m hectares) of unused pastureland it can plant to crops, the equivalent of two states the size of Iowa.
Brazil can also grow the equivalent of two crops in one year, planting soybeans in September and after that harvest, quickly plant a corn crop, he says, increasing Brazilian corn production. If Brazil continues with its aggressive expansion and the US continues its traditional output, a global situation of habitual oversupply will result, especially for soybeans, Smith says.
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,217
Not gonna lie, I kinda hope farm bankruptcies triple over the next 4 years. Some as trade war casualties, others due to a lack of affordable labor.