Elon Musk, conman?

[Rev. Powell]

I don't mean to sound rude, ralfy, but if people are constantly misinterpreting your opinions, might you think about how you can change your style of discourse so your message comes across more clearly?

[ralfy]

Hey, sorry, ralfy, I'm not really attacking you personally, I don't dislike you, just find your posts and opinions wrong, tedious, and an active encapsulation of why academics who rarely set foot in the real world ought never to be allowed to influence government policy. People like you get people like....people like friends of mine killed. I didn't mean to make you feel under assault, and refer you to the (I thought rather kind and supportive) personal email I sent you when you took your marbles and stomped off went away for a month, saying I hoped you'd not had your feelings hurt by the locking of the threads you'd hogged.

I actually have taken up for you several times and noted that you seem a decent sort, just haughty and naively inexperienced in life, and quick to tell other people you have the only answer and the views of those others don't matter. That is arrogance of the least sexy sort, and will never ever get you a blowjob.

For the record, up there I was just busting your chops a bit by gently satirizing the non-stop negativity of your pedantic, nonsensical, blathering, seemingly pro-Putin, anti-US/anti-UK/anti-EU/anti-capitalistic/anti-western/anti-reality armchair mansplaining. I don't think you realize how annoying your views and the way you present them can be. If I hurt your feelings, it was not intentional, though I was messing with you a little. You need thick skin in life and especially online, and sometimes when others sense you being weak, they bite all the harder.

Also, can I take it you're not moving to Russia then?

PS: For the love of Bog, Sven, lock this thread!

See, that's what I mean? This thread is about Musk being a con man, and I countered that. But you change the topic, attack me instead, then apologize, then engage in more labeling, then raise some woke crap about mansplaining, and then ask the OP to lock the thread. LOL.

BTW, where'd you get the idea that I'm an academic? For all you know, I could have been making that up.

So, what do we get so far about Musk the "con man"? He risks his own wealth plus equity financing to take over a company that's $3 billion in the hole, and now manages to cut down its losses to $270 million in less than a year.

Advertising goes down but starting in the month before he took over and made the company private because Twitter was posting promotions alongside tweets about child porn, and those involved ex-Twitter offficials who were later fired by Musk.

After that, several birds were set free, and now they start tweeting about the same officials meeting with the feds and posting naughty bits about grooming kids. Meanwhile, operations run smoothly even after firing many overpaid employees who turns out were not critical to the same operations.

They move to Mastodon, which according to one investigation is dominated (around 60 pct of its posts) by child porn groups. Two weeks ago, the Guardian reported that 30 pct of those who switched to Mastodon have returned to Twitter due to lack of engagement. Those were the same geniuses who kept arguing that with Musk in charge Twitter would fall apart quickly.

The difference is that they can no longer silence Taibbi and others. That might explain why even the NYT is now admitting that the contents of Biden's laptop are authentic after two years of claiming otherwise.

Brilliant.

[ralfy]

Hmm, how many times did I point out to you that you'd made a claim I'd said something that I hadn't? I didn't even pull you up on all of them there were so many. Pot, kettle, colour check.

Too many times, I'm afraid, and a complete waste of my time, too.

[ralfy]

I don't mean to sound rude, ralfy, but if people are constantly misinterpreting your opinions, might you think about how you can change your style of discourse so your message comes across more clearly?

OK, this is my first post in the thread:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

What "style of discourse" do you think I should have used so that my opinions would not be misinterpreted?

Finally, to the OP, keep in mind that I am not derailing your thread. My first post was on-topic, but some, including a moderator, has decided to make your thread about me. With that, I'll understand if you lock it.

In any event, I might as well try to remain on-topic to avoid that. My points about Musk being a con man:

Usually a con man is someone who tries to gain the trust of others, only to cheat them. Given that, who is Musk trying to fool, and what does he expect in return? I'll let others answer that. Meanwhile, what can we say about his opponents: can they be considered con men, too?

The only proof to address are the so-called "nothing burgers" maintained by mainstream media. The problem is that the same mainstream media were admitting related points in the past. To wit,

- Collusion between media and government; ironically, left progressive outlets like the Guardian have been raising such, and I believe that my point about ownership in my first post cements that;

- Twitter losses and the proliferation of child porn; ironically, not only did that begin before Musk took over but it was no less than Reuters that investigated on the matter;

- burying reports on vaccine problems, Biden's laptop, banning Trump and others, etc; ironically, the same mainstream media are now reporting on the same and slowly reversing what they kept denying for two years.

Meanwhile, the smears against Musk and Twitter are falling apart, as Mastodon, according to the Guardian, is now experiencing membership losses, while Twitter net losses have dropped dramatically, according to Reuters.

Take note that these reports are coming from the same mainstream media outlets that worked with ex-Twitter officials. Given such, who are the con men in this issue? Musk or his opponents?

[Alex]

Hmm, how many times did I point out to you that you'd made a claim I'd said something that I hadn't? I didn't even pull you up on all of them there were so many. Pot, kettle, colour check.

Too many times, I'm afraid, and a complete waste of my time, too.

Yes, you constantly making incorrect claims about what I'd said was indeed a waste of your time, and not just yours. For someone who said he is against false information, you sure tried putting plenty of it out there.

[ralfy]

Yes, you constantly making incorrect claims about what I'd said was indeed a waste of your time, and not just yours. For someone who said he is against false information, you sure tried putting plenty of it out there.

My claims are found here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693977.html#msg693977

and the evidence here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

Let me know what's wrong with them and what false information is involved.

Some additional points to consider:

The Twitter $3 billion shortfall:

https://nypost.com/2022/12/21/elon-musk-says-he-saved-twitter-from-3-billion-shortfall/

How the deal was funded:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-will-elon-musk-pay-twitter-2022-10-07/

Why advertisers were pulling out of Twitter:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-brands-blast-twitter-ads-next-child-pornography-accounts-2022-09-28/

The identity of the top owners before Musk took over:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060916/top-3-twitter-shareholders-twtr.asp

Note Nos. 1, 3-5, especially in light of ESG scores:

https://fortune.com/2022/11/01/elon-musk-twitter-esg/

For an example, here's an example of how ESG scores affect companies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKX5PW2cZwo

[Alex]

Yes, you constantly making incorrect claims about what I'd said was indeed a waste of your time, and not just yours. For someone who said he is against false information, you sure tried putting plenty of it out there.

My claims are found here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693977.html#msg693977

and the evidence here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

Let me know what's wrong with them and what false information is involved.

Some additional points to consider:

The Twitter $3 billion shortfall:

https://nypost.com/2022/12/21/elon-musk-says-he-saved-twitter-from-3-billion-shortfall/

How the deal was funded:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-will-elon-musk-pay-twitter-2022-10-07/

Why advertisers were pulling out of Twitter:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-brands-blast-twitter-ads-next-child-pornography-accounts-2022-09-28/

The identity of the top owners before Musk took over:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060916/top-3-twitter-shareholders-twtr.asp

Note Nos. 1, 3-5, especially in light of ESG scores:

https://fortune.com/2022/11/01/elon-musk-twitter-esg/

For an example, here's an example of how ESG scores affect companies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKX5PW2cZwo

Where did I mention your claims about Elon Musk? Yet again, you are replying to something that hasn't been said. As I said, disinformation.

[Rev. Powell]

I don't mean to sound rude, ralfy, but if people are constantly misinterpreting your opinions, might you think about how you can change your style of discourse so your message comes across more clearly?

What "style of discourse" do you think I should have used so that my opinions would not be misinterpreted?

If you're happy with the results you're getting, no self-reflection is needed.

[ralfy]

Where did I mention your claims about Elon Musk? Yet again, you are replying to something that hasn't been said. As I said, disinformation.

Wait: you're talking about something else? Isn't this a thread about Elon Musk?

[RCMerchant]

Elon Musk can suck my dick. I don't think he will, but he can! He's welcome to it! 

[ralfy]

If you're happy with the results you're getting, no self-reflection is needed.

You need to be clear about your explanation. Here's the first post:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

What style of discourse do you think is necessary for that, and what results do you have in mind?

You know, this is weird: almost all of my posts are on-topic, and yet you're a mod that's going off-topic. I don't get that.

Anyway, here's a summary about my points concerning Musk:

The OP argues that Musk is the most successful conman, followed by a reference to Twitter:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg692248.html#msg692248

and the point that he's "creepy", except for Buffett (!):

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg692249.html#msg692249

plus a reference to renewable energy efforts which failed:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg692254.html#msg692254

Thus, he's a con man because he promotes things that are not important, that are less valuable than they're advertised, etc. These are actually all true (LOL), but the catch is that his opponents do the same thing.

For example, who's been pushing for the use of renewable energy? The Democrats and liberals. Who's been pushing for some "green deal" while driving around in an overpriced Tesla? AOC. The same one who was fawned over by Twitter woke execs and now being trolled by Musk (OK, but that's $8 a month, please; LOL). Who started the borrowing and spending gig that led to the rise of billionaires like not just Musk but even Buffett? Reagan and his voodoo economics.

Who's the main financier of renewable energy? Climate deniers like the Kochs and the oil industry. Who thrives on voodoo economics? Musk, with his space exploration and green energy dreams, shared by the same liberals and even conservatives who see bright times ahead thanks to game changers.

Who's gained and lost from that voodoo economics? Just Musk?

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg692297.html#msg692297

Buffett and others, too.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rethinking-reaganomics-wh_b_749839

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-home-capital-buffett-investment/bailout-buffett-burnishes-lender-of-last-resort-image-idUSKBN19D2IA

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-goldman-sachs-sale-billions-return-bailout-2020-5-1029212109

Just in case you're now lost and think I'm jumping from point to point, just keep in mind that I'm responding to points that you and others raised in this thread. In any event, here's what ties them together:

The world that Musk the "con man" lives in is essentially based on Reaganomics, which involves increasing consumer spending coupled with increasing financial gambling. That's why his billionaire rivals are also con men. That's also why both political parties and various pinkos, like AOC and even Bernie Sanders, are part of the same economic system. In short, they're all con men or dependent on the same.

Much of the wealth that they're talking about essentially refers to numbers in hard drives, and driven primarily by speculation. That's why Musk lost $200 billion in a year while Bezos earned $10 billion in a day. That's why the five richest men in the states saw their net worth growing significantly even during a war and a pandemic, and no additional work is needed. As Buffett would put it, and quoted from the article cited above:

"Every day that goes by that Goldman does not call our preferred is money in the bank," he said, referring to Goldman's having to pay Berkshire a $500 million yearly dividend until it bought back the company's shares.

"It's been pointed out that our preferred is paying us $15 a second," Buffett continued. "So as we sit here, tick, tick, tick, tick, that's $15 every tick."

His last point is fascinating:

"I don't want those ticks to go away," he added. "I just love them. They go on at night when I sleep.

I'm certain the other billionaires think the same way.

It's that high level of borrowing and spending thanks to cheap credit that also allowed Twitter execs to spend lavishly on gym equipment, designer chairs, and other luxuries for their HQ:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/18/23560375/twitter-auction-company-assets-headquarters-bird-statue-coffee-machines

even when they were $3 billion in the hole:

https://nypost.com/2022/12/21/elon-musk-says-he-saved-twitter-from-3-billion-shortfall/

[ralfy]

Elon Musk can suck my dick. I don't think he will, but he can! He's welcome to it! 

According to one UNDR (UN Dev't Report) the gap between rich and poor worldwide increased two hundredfold the last two centuries, and it has reached a point where only 200 people in the world have more wealth than the bottom half of the world population.

At that rate, the average Joe can laugh it off and say that Musk can s*** m* d***, but it might go the other way round.

As the WEF, which they control, put it:

https://twitter.com/wef/status/813869325635424256

and as cited here,

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better."

[RCMerchant]

OK, he can toss my salad any day! 

[Alex]

Where did I mention your claims about Elon Musk? Yet again, you are replying to something that hasn't been said. As I said, disinformation.

Wait: you're talking about something else? Isn't this a thread about Elon Musk?

I was originally referring to your earlier non-Elon Musk related comment in this thread.

[ralfy]

I was originally referring to your earlier non-Elon Musk related comment in this thread.

I did not post non-Elon Musk related comments in this thread. Here's the first post:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693810.html#msg693810

To recap,

The richest people in the world (which includes Musk) and their opponents (which includes billionaires who are not seen as con men) are alll con men because much of their wealth is gained and even lost due to financial speculation and increasing consumer spending.

That financial speculation and consumer spending involve deregulation and cooperation from governments that need funding from the rich. The rich also own media and social platforms which inform and entertain the public, which in turn vote for one group of politicians or another.

In order to maintain that wealth, the rich need to promote policies that are in their favor. That involves the ff:

1. arguing that people need to be vaccinated through emergency authorization using products provided by for-profit drug companies owned by the rich and that profit from such, with authorization exempting them from liabilities;

2. grifting for conflict against other countries so that the defense industry, which is also funded by the rich, can profit, while corrupt politicians get their cuts through deals made with the same rich in other countries and through aid that they authorize and sent to their corrupt counterparts in other countries;

3. promote postmodern liberalism, which includes creating the impression that the same corporations owned by the rich should show greater corporate responsibility towards those affected by social injustice, which in industrialization nations is equated with political correctness and identity politics.

That's why Twitter involved overpaid wokes engaged in content management, which consisted of banning anyone who reported on gays grooming children, and pushed things like child porn. That's also why advertisers started pulling out of Twitter, as their promoted tweets existed alongside others advocating child porn and promoted by the same content managers.

That's also why Twitter was banning, shadowbanning, restricting, demonetizing, etc., users who questioned what the U.S. government and the rich were doing.

That's why when Musk took over, the same mainstream media which was owned by the rich kept pushing the agenda that Twitter will be losing money because of Musk. It turns out that the opposite is taking place, and that Twitter was losing money because they were overpaying useless employees and buying expensive products not needed for work for their offices, including expensive gym equipment and designer chairs.

They also reported that more users will move to Mastodon. It turns out that the opposite is also taking place. Someone pointed out that those who kept arguing and calling for that included con men who were running Twitter before Musk took over and have returned to Twitter to continue criticizing Musk there because they're not getting enough engagement in Mastodon.

Meanwhile, several were arguing that Musk was grifting via Tesla while politicians like AOC were buying overpriced Teslas and selling "green energy" ideas.

They also reported that Musk is losing heavily. It turns out that many tech and media companies are also losing heavily.

Finally, many of those "birds" were have been set free from their cages because the content managers are gone include Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Project Veritas, The Intercept, The Grayzone, Syrian Girl, Andy Ngo, and more who are now exposing shenanigans committed by the same content managers who were donating to Biden and co. and meeting with the FBI.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media that's being attacked by this and are experiencing not only decreasing viewer and readership numbers but even decreasing trust ratings are referring to them as nothingburgers. Meanwhile, slowly they begin to acknowledge that all of these "fake" news is turning out to be true, which should not be surprising because they were doing that before.