205
SpaceX’s stock slide costs founder his trillionaire title (www.barrons.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

Yes, it can fluctuate due to market value,

I literally stated that possibility.

What are you saying? Are you trying to make some financial hot take? Are you trying to still imply it’s not worth real money? Won’t anyone think of the poor trillionaire who is now only simultaneously worth/not worth hundreds of billions? The path you’re going down leads to “is any money real money?” and adds nothing to the conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    That their money is not "real" at all as you suggest was my point. It will go up in smoke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Understanding this level of finance is not hard and I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove or your resistance to it.

    What a billionaire is doing is no different (as a radical simplification to make it easy to understand) than a normal person taking a home equity loan. Your argument is that “the home isn’t real” and that’s the same as saying “SpaceX isn’t real”. The home’s value can fluctuate thanks to the real estate market, or whether or not the owner does a good job maintaining and upgrading the home. SpaceX can suffer market fluctuations and be well managed or suffer bad decisions. The money leveraged on the values of these investments is real.

    As far as what you just said I can tell that you haven’t thought one step further than making the statement, I am pointing out how the money is real. We’re done here, you plainly want to be right rather than learn how the system works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    The intrinisc values of his companies, and others, are a fraction of their current market value.

    When you borrow against it, when the price falls back to intrinsic value, in Musk's case 1/100th or so of Tesla's current valuation, they get margin calls.

    My point is not hard to understand and undeniably true. Owning theoretical money you can't realize in full is not the same as owning assets that can be realized. Musk is not trillionaire, never was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    I’m not playing financial Schrodinger’s Box with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Is that the vag of some chick you know? Doesn't seem to be applicable here.

    My point is undeniably true, no matter how many half wits vote with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Ah, good job. Now you’ve swung to insults. That’ll win ya. Guess you need everything explained to you. Your argument is attempting to force a point against what society has deemed what monetary worth is.

    You’re not gonna win that argument, but feel free to bang your head on the keyboard uselessly while you attempt to bend the world to your will.

    Not only that, but you have moved the goalposts from “billionaires are still worth money even if it isn’t all in cash” to “they can’t possibly cash it all out so it doesn‘t count.“ A real strawman that has no bearing on how wealth works. So your “truth” is irrelevant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •