773
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
773 points (94.0% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2860 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So as a result he’s no longer so rich he could do it all again and still have more money than he could possibly spend in hundreds of lifetimes? No? Still super rich? Then it’s not really a meaningful distinction.
I disagree. It's impossible to say for sure either way but it's plausible his personal wealth could be wiped out, could be forced to divest his stakes in his own companies, etc.
Which would still leave him insanely rich, so the answer you are looking for is "no, elon musk is not taking any actual personal risk here at all."
I'm not sure how being forced to divest in your own companies to meet debt obligations would leave you insanely rich so we'll just agree to disagree here.
Because divesting means selling, which means.that you get money in exchange for property. How do you not understand this?
Because divesting in order to meet debt obligations means that with that money you have to immediately use it to pay debts that you owe to others, therefore you no longer have the money nor the assets. Is it really that hard to understand? If a bank foreclosures on your house it means that your property is sold and the money from the sale goes to the bank to pay off the loan.