Voters Set $400M of Elon Musk's Money on Fire(www.wired.com)

14 pointsby TazeTSchnitzel2 hours ago1 comment

sshah032 hours ago
Isn't it the equivalent of someone with a $1m networth spending $400? I think the value he got from his spend working out two years ago, makes it a calculated gamble that he won't lose sleep over. People keep bringing this up as a talking point a lot today and it probably doesn't matter.
- Jtsummers2 hours ago
  If he actually had $1 trillion in cash, maybe. But he doesn't, the vast majority of his wealth is paper wealth. To spend that money he has to borrow, sell assets, or tap into whatever his cash reserve is.
- paimapi2 hours ago
  It's not equivalent because $400M is an insane amount of disproportionate power and influence. In this specific instance it broke down likely due to the cultural zeitgeist and general dissatisfaction with costs and Trump but in a less tumultuous political environment, that amount of spending should always be corralled and limited.
  - FloorEggan hour ago
    But the only thing novel about it in this case is it was blasted all over the media. The rich have been influencing politics like this for decades, at least as long as since Citizens United.
    Acting like this is new or specific to Elon is either misleading or naive.
    paimapi23 minutes ago
    No but it gets people thinking about how much money the rich has on influencing politics. I don't think taking Citizen's United as the status quo for how we should run society is ever a good thing and persistent reminders that just because it has been this way it doesn't need to remain this way is always a social good.
  - andsoitisan hour ago
    > power and influence.
    What influence did it have?