When you have a couple hundred billion this is couch money. Good to hear he lost but that this is even possible is a problem.
To help add context.
At the “4% Rule” with $100 Billion, he can spend $4 Billion per year. He is making way more than 4% + inflation, so can spend even more.
I don’t think the 4% rule applies the same way when it gets to that point.
His spending affects the market. A “normal” investment assumes they are irrelevant to the market.
I don’t know how this changes things, but having to lean on TSLA stock when he owns so much of it impacts how much TSLA stock is worth.
Again, maybe it really doesn’t matter, but you can’t apply standard economics when the numbers are this big.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I got to say fair play to anyone who took the money and voted against him + points if you donated it to something he hates
I’m hearing he stiffed a lot of people.
Shocking, I know.
It’s always the ones with the most money that are the stingiest fucks. Always using their wealth as a reason why they’re entitled to anything, yet not actually paying unless forced to.
You don’t get to be the richest man in world by giving people money if you don’t absolutely have to…
NYTimes reported $25,000,000
gift article:
He already bought a presidency, can’t have it all I guess.
Womp wompppp
Legit question: don’t we lose here anyway because judicial seats are supposed to be non partisan?
Sure, but you can lose worse. For example last November
Judicial seats haven’t been non partisan for 30 years, back when the federalist society started pushing lists of approved GOP judges.
That’s at the federal level. Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected for 10 year terms, and are officially non-partisan. In practice, everyone knows that the candidates are supported by one party or the other.
Needs a last frame where the money is taken and the vendor says, with a smile, “No.”
Sorry but we’re out. Thanks for your monies tho
