Oh and the subsidies for his sunblocker company are entirely justified as they don't go directly to him, he just reaps the benefits from the companies that receive them.
Oh and he invested millions of dollars in his companies to get them to where they are now profitable. What have you accomplished that you can judge him?
Thank you for the corrections, education, and rabbit hole :) I had heard Gwen Shotwell say StarLink would be going public last year and just [wrongly] assumed they had. Thanks for clarifying that.
I do agree that if SL didn't take advantage of available government programs like (formerly CAF) RDOF there would potentially be ramifications with upset shareholders.
The dividend thing... you're right, but I left that out to simplify things, because then someone would say "Oh hey, when they make lots of money I get dividends" but the opposite is not necessarily true - again as you say governed by a shareholders' agreement.
1. Broadband to underserved communities IS important
2. SpaceX will get my business when they enter my market
3. Corporations and their shareholders are not the same
SpaceX will be delivering broadband Internet access to underserved communities. Whether it's the lesser developed countries, Mississippi, your grandad's RV, or a billionaire's yacht, low-latency is a must for VoIP. It's also a must for interactive serves where a "back and forth" suffers from RTT delays.
I look forward to having it as an option so I can pay my $99 to StarLink and not to Comcast. The $500 installation fee is a bit rough but there's value in never ever dealing with Comcast again.
Now as to the corporations, previous poster wrote:
First note that the subsidy is going to SpaceX, not Elon Musk. Bluntly, saying this is a subsidy to a rich man is just a lie, one I really wish Karl would stop repeating.
This is the same insanity about Bezos being so rich he could pay his workers more. A shareholder is not "responsible" for corporate debts any more than he's "entitled" to take money out of its coffers when times are good. That's why it's called a corporation.
I own stock in several public and private companies. When they do well they don't send me moare money but my stock tends to appreciate. When they do badly they don't request moare money from me but the stock tends to depreciate.
Bezos spent YEARS losing MILLIONS and [I wish I'd bought Amazon stock then] and during that time nobody said to the stockholders "There's a cash call and you need to invest more."
Understanding how corporations work, why they're not "people" but they are "entities" and why their shareholders are not responsible for the debts they incur -- this is fundamental to economies worldwide.
Pre-empt: Yes, Musk and Bezos are CEOs so they do exercise the discretion to change plans. However, both are CEOs of public corporations and so have a fiduciary duty... not to their employees, but to their shareholders. This is part of the "contract" that encourages people to invest in public companies.
It's a simple tradeoff. Nobody is forcing me to buy 10 shares of Coca Cola. I do so because I think its value will appreciate. People on the other side of that same transaction think it will depreciate. In no way, shape, or form is that money going to Coca Cola. They can file an 8-K and issue more shares at the then-current price, but the buy/sell in the markets is about stockholders.
One final note. A lot of stock is owned by institutional shareholders, retirement funds, firefighters' and police unions, etc. They would be prohibited legally from investing if there was an undefined potential liability.
I'm sorry I went long. It gets so tedious watching blame successful people and being demandas that these people fund the SJW wish-of-the-week. I do think that employees are generally underpaid in the US and I do favor a higher minimum wage... funded by the corporation, not the stockholder or CEO.
I do appreciate you taking all the context and quoting one line, but I'll be your Huckleberry.
Would it be OK if ABC made an entertainment product...
Yes. Perhaps you've watched ABC. If not, "Love Boat".
...why would it be OK for EA to make an entertainment product...
That's what they do.
... without the player's permission?
The player's permission is not required. Now go back, and read my whole note where I mentioned that it's legal to report about news and statistics and players without paying them.
Do I personally think NCAA athletes should be paid? I already said that. Is it legally required - no.
Is the player's permission required - also no.
Don't confuse ethics, justice, and the law. They are three very different things.
EA is not acting unlawfully here. Sadly neither is the NCAA. Ideally, well I covered that above and you couldn't be bothered to quote it so I'm guessing you didn't read or understand it. I'll summarize for dummies:
NCAA should compensate athletes IN RETURN FOR WHICH athletes should get a degree and not leave for pro sports after a year.
None of this bears on EA. Just like it doesn't bear on ABC, BBC, NPR, or your momma talking smack about that guy on the team that beat up the other guy.
I think the NCAA and their "conferences" (thing Big-10 or Pac-12 etc.) are the real problem. The "students" aren't there to study anything. They go to these institutions to be "athletes".
How to fix:
if you're a "student" then you must maintain decent grades without some trainer doing your work. I think B- or better, but it could be higher or lower
If you sign up for a 4 year degree (BS, BA, etc.) you have to stay at that same school and can't "go to the national league".
NIL is bull. If you're playing public sports you don't have "magic" rights to your name, image, or likeness. That's not a thing, isn't codified in 17USC as a thing, and never has been.
WHAT DOES EA OWE YOU? Nothing.
WHAT DOES THE NCAA OWE YOU -- A lot, because they do make billions of dollars selling your NIL.
How is this different? Players have a contract with NCAA affiliated schools and in so doing have an interest in their financial future. EA is no more than a game company, which in lots of ways is like a news company. If Reuters or AFP or ABC or NPR want to report on a player's progress (or even show video) they owe nobody anything.
ESPN game highlights? Free.
Sport clips? Free.
Keep that in mind next time it's "blame EA" time. It's not.
NIL can be used because that's how it works. Reporting news or sports stats does not require a license. Factual reporting or replays are free of license no matter how much NCAA feels about it.
Then there's the part where the NCAA (for one) wants to collect these fees -- even though not deserving them -- and hold 3rd party vendors like EA required to pay them.
And finally there's that part where NCAA (for one) doesn't want to compensate the players, so first, they collect a fee they shouldn't be entitled to.... secondly... don't compensate the players... and third... prevent EA (e.g.) from being able to profit from it.
I have my own opinions, and I'm not a lawyer, so with that in mind
players are public performers and their images and stats are public
one can include them in a game without paying anyone anything
unrelatedly they SHOULD be allowed to collect for being NCAA stars
And used them to beat up cops and wanted to hang the Vice President of the United States.
I note that the word insurrection is in single quotes. Perhaps that is sarcasm, or maybe it's just a lack of understanding of what an insurrection is. It's a violent uprising against authority or government, which is exactly what the trespassing hooligan mob did on January 6th.
Re: Re: Next time just tattoo 'gullible' on your heads...
Given you're a nobody who won't sign her name, I don't expect anything from you and don't think you "seem" anything.
Really if you can't add anything at all AND can't sign your name, just slink back to your PS3 and tell mom to make more mac and cheese before you go back to high school.
You buy a house to rent out. You rent it to ONE renter. The state comes along and says "Hey it shouldn't be fair that they can only rent this house from you. It must be listed on VRBO or AirBNB or whatever so people don't have to go through you to rent your house."
No they don't.
Example2:
You open a store. You rent the building. You hire staff and you pay them. Then you make deals with vendors. Vendors provide products.
Simple, right?
Then you put out advertisements to let potential customers know they can buy THESE products from THESE vendors at YOUR store.
You don't therefore create an obligation to allow other people (customers) to buy your (vendors') products outside your store. That's between the customers and the vendors.
Oh? Did you sign an exclusivity deal so only you can sell the vendors' products and one assumes you get something in return? That's lawful.
Pass a law requiring that you allow people to violate your exclusivity to sell whatever to whomever but you still have to do what you said in your exclusive contract? Nagh.
The State of Arizona (sorry, I live here) is wrong here 100%. We may not like Google or the other people taking 30% of a cut for setting up the agora... but they did, and vendors pay it, and so do customers.
If you genuinely couldn’t figure out...
Also, learn to think beyond the most surface details.
In the more likely case you are a troll, you are playing checkers right now dude. step it up.
His questions seemed legit. Your 3-pronged answer really seemed more of the dick response.
If you're the only smart guy here, apply to replace Mike or Tim or Karl. Until then, "maybe you should be polite". Certainly you're capable of being respectful... a talent lots of us have... but to demonstrate it so adroitly three times in one post.
Also, when you quote the underlying legal brief and use a phrase not used in the commentary article you might want to clarify where you get it from.
The filing is included in the article (in this very page). Item #1 summary, paragraph 2 says mandated licensing fee. I'm not sure what other reference is needed seeing as it's right there.
However, you now know "If you read the original article and see the embedded filing and see that first section - summary - and go paragraph number two" you'll see it.
If I got it from a different website or the filing directly on RECAP or whatever... I would have posted that link.
Thanks for explaining that "mandating" means one thing to me "must be done" and another to lawyers (not sure what).
There are many unsympathetic people in this world. Thank you for self-identifying.
Julian Assange created an organization that brings transparency to governmental abuse of power. I'm sorry you can't have any sympathy.
He violated laws, created by governments, to prevent transparency of their abuses of power. I'm sorry you think that's "illegal manipulation".
His crimes against women have been withdrawn, so ... innocent until proven guilty... not much to opine there until he's convicted.
Thus far he's an innocent guy who's spent nearly a decade in a prison (of sorts).
But hey, you can't have sympathy for him. When you look in the mirror next time ask yourself who the "good guy" really is... the guy who risked a decade of his life in a room in the UK, or the armchair quarterback who "can't have any sympathy."
Elon Musk didn't get any money. A corporation he heads did.
There's no monopoly here, and Comcast is not relevant to whether StarLink deserves the same benefits to get their network up. Underserved communities really don't care about what other companies won't serve them... they care about the one that will.
The link that says he "gamed the system" actually takes you to another article written by the same author that says... nothing about gaming the system.
Whether or not the satellites reflect light is also irrelevant to whether or not they provide underserved customers Internet service and should be able to get broadband funding.
But hey, hate on Elon all day long. At the end of the day the company he runs is bringing broadband service to lots of underserved if not unserved people. I'm sure he really cares that someone chose to make it about him or reflections or monopolies or other entirely unrelated and irrelevant things.
You're fourteen. A company has put out a product YOU can IMPROVE. We know it's an improvement because other people use YOUR improvements on that company's product.
The company could fix the product. The company could embrace your improvement. The company could hire you (that would be a scheweet gig). Instead the company sues you and calls you a hacker, now a pejorative term.
The fourteen year old kid is a minor. His mom as a pro-se defendant doesn't beat the companies big lawyers. Then there's a settlement.
Settlements should be made public.
Companies should evaluate whether their effort to "stop the hack" will improve their product, or whether it's just a bandaid on a stuck pig
Judges should look at disproportion parties and act accordingly. Epic games suing a fourteen year old kid and his mom because they can't write software a fourteen year old could easily hack suggests the true villain here is not the kid (nor his mom).
Should people make more money - yes.
Should StarLink provide connectivity to underprovided people - yes.
Should StarLink get money from tax funds just like other last-mile providers - yes.
This has nothing to do with Elon Musk's net worth or how much stock he has.
I hold IBM stock. Should I give up some of my income to pay their employees? No. What if I was CEO? Still no. I also hold stock in Microsoft. Should I pay to develop Windows to have less bugs? No. Should I pay their staff? No. What if I was the CEO? Still no.
Musk is not PERSONALLY LIABLE for his corporation's success or failure. (Neither, by the way, is Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison personally liable).
If this is confusing... that's why we form corporations -- we remove personal liability (except in cases of fraud, material misrepresentation, failure to do fiduciary duty, etc.) from the PERSON and leave it with THE CORPORATION (or LLC if such a thing exists in your area).
I know I'll get hear for offering an opinion that is based in law and not in "morality". When one buys stock (or otherwise acquires stock, whether through inheritance, options, gift, etc.) one does not also get liabilities. There's an exception to this which is NONPUBLIC companies where a "call option" exists which one must affirmatively sign on to.
Sorry. I hope the tax funds help SL provide a service to underserved people. I hope that the employees get paid fair pay. It has no matter as to where Elon Musk personally sits on this earth in his personal earnings or "worth."
I don't mean to criticize anyone's fetish, so keep that in mind. Every human on earth should be entitled to enjoy their choices. My opinion is only about the risk/reward structure.
If you're SO BLESSED STUPID you put your GOSH DARN DIRK in a LOCK that some MORON ON THE INTERNET can HACK you're a BLESSED IDIOT who shouldn't have that dirk so you don't breed further.
Ehud
P.S. I'm a huge fan of Dirk Benedict (Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica) so don't take my changing words to keep this kid-friendly from thinking I'm besmirching Dirk. He's awesome. Seriously.
On the post: Dish, Space X Battle At The Broadband Subsidy Trough
Re: Re: Re: Do SpaceX deserve the subsidy?
Oh and he invested millions of dollars in his companies to get them to where they are now profitable. What have you accomplished that you can judge him?
On the post: Dish, Space X Battle At The Broadband Subsidy Trough
People who can't read
Why is it that you ignored everything I wrote and want to repeat that same stupid trope?
Let me summarize it for you in small words. NOBODY is saying employees shouldn't get paid. In fact I DID SAY I'm in favor of higher minimum wage.
Neither Elon Musk nor Jeff Bezos nor Larry Ellison nor any stockholder is responsible for paying for that out of their own pockets.
Ever.
Get it yet? If not I can use smaller words.
E
On the post: Dish, Space X Battle At The Broadband Subsidy Trough
Re: Re: SpaceX, Broadband, and corporations
Thank you for the corrections, education, and rabbit hole :) I had heard Gwen Shotwell say StarLink would be going public last year and just [wrongly] assumed they had. Thanks for clarifying that.
I do agree that if SL didn't take advantage of available government programs like (formerly CAF) RDOF there would potentially be ramifications with upset shareholders.
The dividend thing... you're right, but I left that out to simplify things, because then someone would say "Oh hey, when they make lots of money I get dividends" but the opposite is not necessarily true - again as you say governed by a shareholders' agreement.
Thanks for this!
E
On the post: Dish, Space X Battle At The Broadband Subsidy Trough
SpaceX, Broadband, and corporations
TL;DR
1. Broadband to underserved communities IS important
2. SpaceX will get my business when they enter my market
3. Corporations and their shareholders are not the same
SpaceX will be delivering broadband Internet access to underserved communities. Whether it's the lesser developed countries, Mississippi, your grandad's RV, or a billionaire's yacht, low-latency is a must for VoIP. It's also a must for interactive serves where a "back and forth" suffers from RTT delays.
I look forward to having it as an option so I can pay my $99 to StarLink and not to Comcast. The $500 installation fee is a bit rough but there's value in never ever dealing with Comcast again.
This is the same insanity about Bezos being so rich he could pay his workers more. A shareholder is not "responsible" for corporate debts any more than he's "entitled" to take money out of its coffers when times are good. That's why it's called a corporation.
I own stock in several public and private companies. When they do well they don't send me moare money but my stock tends to appreciate. When they do badly they don't request moare money from me but the stock tends to depreciate.
Bezos spent YEARS losing MILLIONS and [I wish I'd bought Amazon stock then] and during that time nobody said to the stockholders "There's a cash call and you need to invest more."
Understanding how corporations work, why they're not "people" but they are "entities" and why their shareholders are not responsible for the debts they incur -- this is fundamental to economies worldwide.
Pre-empt: Yes, Musk and Bezos are CEOs so they do exercise the discretion to change plans. However, both are CEOs of public corporations and so have a fiduciary duty... not to their employees, but to their shareholders. This is part of the "contract" that encourages people to invest in public companies.
It's a simple tradeoff. Nobody is forcing me to buy 10 shares of Coca Cola. I do so because I think its value will appreciate. People on the other side of that same transaction think it will depreciate. In no way, shape, or form is that money going to Coca Cola. They can file an 8-K and issue more shares at the then-current price, but the buy/sell in the markets is about stockholders.
One final note. A lot of stock is owned by institutional shareholders, retirement funds, firefighters' and police unions, etc. They would be prohibited legally from investing if there was an undefined potential liability.
I'm sorry I went long. It gets so tedious watching blame successful people and being demandas that these people fund the SJW wish-of-the-week. I do think that employees are generally underpaid in the US and I do favor a higher minimum wage... funded by the corporation, not the stockholder or CEO.
E
On the post: EA College Sports Is Back, But Some Schools Are Opting Out Until Name, Image, Likeness Rules Are Created To Compensate Athletes
Re: Re: Not sure EA is the problem...
I do appreciate you taking all the context and quoting one line, but I'll be your Huckleberry.
Do I personally think NCAA athletes should be paid? I already said that. Is it legally required - no.
Is the player's permission required - also no.
Don't confuse ethics, justice, and the law. They are three very different things.
EA is not acting unlawfully here. Sadly neither is the NCAA. Ideally, well I covered that above and you couldn't be bothered to quote it so I'm guessing you didn't read or understand it. I'll summarize for dummies:
NCAA should compensate athletes IN RETURN FOR WHICH athletes should get a degree and not leave for pro sports after a year.
None of this bears on EA. Just like it doesn't bear on ABC, BBC, NPR, or your momma talking smack about that guy on the team that beat up the other guy.
E
On the post: EA College Sports Is Back, But Some Schools Are Opting Out Until Name, Image, Likeness Rules Are Created To Compensate Athletes
Not sure EA is the problem...
I think the NCAA and their "conferences" (thing Big-10 or Pac-12 etc.) are the real problem. The "students" aren't there to study anything. They go to these institutions to be "athletes".
How to fix:
WHAT DOES EA OWE YOU? Nothing.
WHAT DOES THE NCAA OWE YOU -- A lot, because they do make billions of dollars selling your NIL.
How is this different? Players have a contract with NCAA affiliated schools and in so doing have an interest in their financial future. EA is no more than a game company, which in lots of ways is like a news company. If Reuters or AFP or ABC or NPR want to report on a player's progress (or even show video) they owe nobody anything.
ESPN game highlights? Free.
Sport clips? Free.
Keep that in mind next time it's "blame EA" time. It's not.
E
On the post: EA College Sports Is Back, But Some Schools Are Opting Out Until Name, Image, Likeness Rules Are Created To Compensate Athletes
NIL
Well there are separate topics here.
NIL can be used because that's how it works. Reporting news or sports stats does not require a license. Factual reporting or replays are free of license no matter how much NCAA feels about it.
Then there's the part where the NCAA (for one) wants to collect these fees -- even though not deserving them -- and hold 3rd party vendors like EA required to pay them.
And finally there's that part where NCAA (for one) doesn't want to compensate the players, so first, they collect a fee they shouldn't be entitled to.... secondly... don't compensate the players... and third... prevent EA (e.g.) from being able to profit from it.
I have my own opinions, and I'm not a lawyer, so with that in mind
E
On the post: FBI Director Uses January 6 Insurrection To, Once Again, Ask For Encryption Backdoors
Pretending it's not an insurrection. LOL. Not.
And used them to beat up cops and wanted to hang the Vice President of the United States.
I note that the word insurrection is in single quotes. Perhaps that is sarcasm, or maybe it's just a lack of understanding of what an insurrection is. It's a violent uprising against authority or government, which is exactly what the trespassing hooligan mob did on January 6th.
No two ways about it.
E
On the post: Arizona Moves Forward With Law To Force Google & Apple To Open Up Payments In App Stores
Re: Re: Next time just tattoo 'gullible' on your heads...
Given you're a nobody who won't sign her name, I don't expect anything from you and don't think you "seem" anything.
Really if you can't add anything at all AND can't sign your name, just slink back to your PS3 and tell mom to make more mac and cheese before you go back to high school.
On the post: Arizona Moves Forward With Law To Force Google & Apple To Open Up Payments In App Stores
30,000 foot view (9.144 Km)
You buy a house to rent out. You rent it to ONE renter. The state comes along and says "Hey it shouldn't be fair that they can only rent this house from you. It must be listed on VRBO or AirBNB or whatever so people don't have to go through you to rent your house."
No they don't.
Example2:
You open a store. You rent the building. You hire staff and you pay them. Then you make deals with vendors. Vendors provide products.
Simple, right?
Then you put out advertisements to let potential customers know they can buy THESE products from THESE vendors at YOUR store.
You don't therefore create an obligation to allow other people (customers) to buy your (vendors') products outside your store. That's between the customers and the vendors.
Oh? Did you sign an exclusivity deal so only you can sell the vendors' products and one assumes you get something in return? That's lawful.
Pass a law requiring that you allow people to violate your exclusivity to sell whatever to whomever but you still have to do what you said in your exclusive contract? Nagh.
The State of Arizona (sorry, I live here) is wrong here 100%. We may not like Google or the other people taking 30% of a cut for setting up the agora... but they did, and vendors pay it, and so do customers.
Suck it up, Arizona.
Ehud
Tucson (Arizona)
On the post: Another Game Developer DMCAs Its Own Game In Dispute With Publisher
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how does DMCA apply to contract disputes?
What is today, "be a dick day"?
Oh. Sorry. I guess nobody bothered to read something they clearly replied to. God, you so smart.
E
On the post: Another Game Developer DMCAs Its Own Game In Dispute With Publisher
How to be a troll
His questions seemed legit. Your 3-pronged answer really seemed more of the dick response.
If you're the only smart guy here, apply to replace Mike or Tim or Karl. Until then, "maybe you should be polite". Certainly you're capable of being respectful... a talent lots of us have... but to demonstrate it so adroitly three times in one post.
Dude, you're the king of dicks.
E
On the post: Taylor Swift, Evermore Theme Park Dispute Escalates As Swift's Team Countersues
Re: Re: "mandated fees"
The filing is included in the article (in this very page). Item #1 summary, paragraph 2 says mandated licensing fee. I'm not sure what other reference is needed seeing as it's right there.
However, you now know "If you read the original article and see the embedded filing and see that first section - summary - and go paragraph number two" you'll see it.
If I got it from a different website or the filing directly on RECAP or whatever... I would have posted that link.
Thanks for explaining that "mandating" means one thing to me "must be done" and another to lawyers (not sure what).
E
On the post: Taylor Swift, Evermore Theme Park Dispute Escalates As Swift's Team Countersues
"mandated fees"
What are "federally mandated license fees"??
E
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
CDA §230
I can't wait for the "liberals", "progressives", and "conservatives" to remove CDA §230 law that protects websites.
Then we won't have
Wow. What a better world that would be, where we can't share knowledge, humor, and have fun.
Thanks, politicians! You ran on "I will represent you in Washington" and now you're all on the "I know better than you."
Someone should pass a law to... oh yeah, you won't do that to ... you.
E
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Thank you for not having sympathy
There are many unsympathetic people in this world. Thank you for self-identifying.
Julian Assange created an organization that brings transparency to governmental abuse of power. I'm sorry you can't have any sympathy.
He violated laws, created by governments, to prevent transparency of their abuses of power. I'm sorry you think that's "illegal manipulation".
His crimes against women have been withdrawn, so ... innocent until proven guilty... not much to opine there until he's convicted.
Thus far he's an innocent guy who's spent nearly a decade in a prison (of sorts).
But hey, you can't have sympathy for him. When you look in the mirror next time ask yourself who the "good guy" really is... the guy who risked a decade of his life in a room in the UK, or the armchair quarterback who "can't have any sympathy."
I have sympathy for you.
Ehud
On the post: Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband
Summary
Elon Musk didn't get any money. A corporation he heads did.
There's no monopoly here, and Comcast is not relevant to whether StarLink deserves the same benefits to get their network up. Underserved communities really don't care about what other companies won't serve them... they care about the one that will.
The link that says he "gamed the system" actually takes you to another article written by the same author that says... nothing about gaming the system.
Whether or not the satellites reflect light is also irrelevant to whether or not they provide underserved customers Internet service and should be able to get broadband funding.
But hey, hate on Elon all day long. At the end of the day the company he runs is bringing broadband service to lots of underserved if not unserved people. I'm sure he really cares that someone chose to make it about him or reflections or monopolies or other entirely unrelated and irrelevant things.
He brings Internet to people who don't have it.
Winner.
E
On the post: Epic Games' Case Against Teenage Fortnite Cheater Finally Settles
Imagine yourself at 14...
You're fourteen. A company has put out a product YOU can IMPROVE. We know it's an improvement because other people use YOUR improvements on that company's product.
The company could fix the product. The company could embrace your improvement. The company could hire you (that would be a scheweet gig). Instead the company sues you and calls you a hacker, now a pejorative term.
The fourteen year old kid is a minor. His mom as a pro-se defendant doesn't beat the companies big lawyers. Then there's a settlement.
Ehud
On the post: Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband
Multiple issues here
Should people make more money - yes.
Should StarLink provide connectivity to underprovided people - yes.
Should StarLink get money from tax funds just like other last-mile providers - yes.
This has nothing to do with Elon Musk's net worth or how much stock he has.
I hold IBM stock. Should I give up some of my income to pay their employees? No. What if I was CEO? Still no. I also hold stock in Microsoft. Should I pay to develop Windows to have less bugs? No. Should I pay their staff? No. What if I was the CEO? Still no.
Musk is not PERSONALLY LIABLE for his corporation's success or failure. (Neither, by the way, is Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison personally liable).
If this is confusing... that's why we form corporations -- we remove personal liability (except in cases of fraud, material misrepresentation, failure to do fiduciary duty, etc.) from the PERSON and leave it with THE CORPORATION (or LLC if such a thing exists in your area).
I know I'll get hear for offering an opinion that is based in law and not in "morality". When one buys stock (or otherwise acquires stock, whether through inheritance, options, gift, etc.) one does not also get liabilities. There's an exception to this which is NONPUBLIC companies where a "call option" exists which one must affirmatively sign on to.
Sorry. I hope the tax funds help SL provide a service to underserved people. I hope that the employees get paid fair pay. It has no matter as to where Elon Musk personally sits on this earth in his personal earnings or "worth."
CGS.
E
On the post: Chastity Penis Lock Company That Was Hacked Says It's Now Totally Safe To Put Your Penis Back In That Chastity Lock
Long story, but let's cut to the chase...
I don't mean to criticize anyone's fetish, so keep that in mind. Every human on earth should be entitled to enjoy their choices. My opinion is only about the risk/reward structure.
If you're SO BLESSED STUPID you put your GOSH DARN DIRK in a LOCK that some MORON ON THE INTERNET can HACK you're a BLESSED IDIOT who shouldn't have that dirk so you don't breed further.
Google "darwin" and have a great day.
BLESSED people out there. Seriously. https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/snl-digital-short-d-in-a-box/3505985
Ehud
P.S. I'm a huge fan of Dirk Benedict (Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica) so don't take my changing words to keep this kid-friendly from thinking I'm besmirching Dirk. He's awesome. Seriously.
Next >>