Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the.com boom.
Money being "thrown around recklessly" is the mechanism by which it leaves scrooge mcduck's pile of gold and enters the pockets of normal people.
Occasionally, it manages to find something interesting and generates real wealth and improves people's lives. A crap ton of money thrown around by Elon Musk landed on a reusable launch vehicle and lowered the cost of space launches by something like 30%. And a whole host of EV fanbois around here will have nice things to say about Tesla. For one example.
Musk is kind of the opposite. Since PayPal, every single one of his companies relies on heavy government subsidies and pays him handsomely. So really it's money leaving the pockets of normal people (via taxation) and entering Musk's pockets.
You may think that it's worth society investing in reusable rockets, etc. but any conversation has to start with what's really happening.
Musk is kind of the opposite. Since PayPal, every single one of his companies relies on heavy government subsidies and pays him handsomely
1. Musk's salary is minimum wage. The only sort of "being paid handsomely" is that the value of the companies, and thus his equity in them, has risen, which applies to every single business owner on Earth.
2. SpaceX being granted contracts for services by NASA is in no way a "subsidy". Rather, they're saving the government a huge amount of money vs. what was previously a
Last year his salary and bonuses (not asset appreciation) from his companies probably totaled to more than the cumulative salary and bonuses anyone ever has earned over their lifetime. Just his salary and bonuses would be enough to rank him in the somewhere between 50 and 60 in the Forbes 400.
2. SpaceX being granted contracts for services by NASA is in no way a "subsidy"
If you make up dumb shit and claim that's what I'm saying, it's easy to refute. But that's
It is not in any way "annual", it is not a "bonus", and it in no way meets the definition of "salary". it's tied to key metrics, and more to the point helps compensate for the dilution that occurs to his stake in the company every year, largely due to his instance that all employees get stock options.
but what about the direct financial subsidies they got during development of the Falcon 1 from the DoD? The DoD never got to use the Falcon 1 for a payload and yet we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
The DOD purchased a launches on Falcon 1 for Tacsat 1. They cancelled their order because they had already demonstrated Tacsat 1's capabilities when Tacsat 2 launched on a Minotaur 1.
The federal EV tax credit goes to everyone except Tesla and GM
The DOD purchased a launches on Falcon 1 for Tacsat 1.
They also did this, yes. the DoD also gave them hundreds of millions to develop rocketry.
Your original post singled Musk out as being heavily subsidized.
Musk is especially singled out in the post I was responding to as a particularly selfless individual doing good in capitalism without subsidies and without taking money out of his company, instead making money on stock appreciation.. It wasn't my choice to single him out, but I will say he is both mo
They also did this, yes. the DoD also gave them hundreds of millions to develop rocketry.
The two were one and the same. The DoD had a programme to investigate the use of smallsats for practical purposes (the TacSats were smallsats for demonstrating battlefield tactical control). There were however few options for smallsat launches at the time - mainly just the highly overpriced Pegasus. There were several companies proposing to develop much cheaper smallsat rockets, so the DoD make a contract with each of t
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.
That's nothing (Score:3)
Seriously guys, we have *got* to start regulating Wall Street and investments more. And do something about wealth inequality. There is way, way too much money at the top and they're throwing it around recklessly. The next crash is going to make 2008 look like the
Re: That's nothing (Score:-1)
Money being "thrown around recklessly" is the mechanism by which it leaves scrooge mcduck's pile of gold and enters the pockets of normal people.
Occasionally, it manages to find something interesting and generates real wealth and improves people's lives. A crap ton of money thrown around by Elon Musk landed on a reusable launch vehicle and lowered the cost of space launches by something like 30%. And a whole host of EV fanbois around here will have nice things to say about Tesla. For one example.
Re: That's nothing (Score:2)
Musk is kind of the opposite. Since PayPal, every single one of his companies relies on heavy government subsidies and pays him handsomely. So really it's money leaving the pockets of normal people (via taxation) and entering Musk's pockets.
You may think that it's worth society investing in reusable rockets, etc. but any conversation has to start with what's really happening.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Musk's salary is minimum wage. The only sort of "being paid handsomely" is that the value of the companies, and thus his equity in them, has risen, which applies to every single business owner on Earth.
2. SpaceX being granted contracts for services by NASA is in no way a "subsidy". Rather, they're saving the government a huge amount of money vs. what was previously a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense.
Last year his salary and bonuses (not asset appreciation) from his companies probably totaled to more than the cumulative salary and bonuses anyone ever has earned over their lifetime. Just his salary and bonuses would be enough to rank him in the somewhere between 50 and 60 in the Forbes 400.
If you make up dumb shit and claim that's what I'm saying, it's easy to refute. But that's
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think a stock award is? It's a form of annual bonus or salary.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not in any way "annual", it is not a "bonus", and it in no way meets the definition of "salary". it's tied to key metrics, and more to the point helps compensate for the dilution that occurs to his stake in the company every year, largely due to his instance that all employees get stock options.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wages that the company pays him. Oh no, it's erratic and not annual. It's still wage income at the expense of all the other shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my other post: no it is not "wages" and it is not "salary".
If you ever had filed your income tax yourself, you would know that.
Because all those things are legally defined terms and have a separate page/section on your tax filings. /* facepalm */
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is not a salary.
Perhaps you want to use a dictionary of legal terms and read it.
Re: (Score:2)
For #1, scroll down.
The DOD purchased a launches on Falcon 1 for Tacsat 1. They cancelled their order because they had already demonstrated Tacsat 1's capabilities when Tacsat 2 launched on a Minotaur 1.
Re: (Score:2)
They also did this, yes. the DoD also gave them hundreds of millions to develop rocketry.
Musk is especially singled out in the post I was responding to as a particularly selfless individual doing good in capitalism without subsidies and without taking money out of his company, instead making money on stock appreciation.. It wasn't my choice to single him out, but I will say he is both mo
Re: (Score:2)
The two were one and the same. The DoD had a programme to investigate the use of smallsats for practical purposes (the TacSats were smallsats for demonstrating battlefield tactical control). There were however few options for smallsat launches at the time - mainly just the highly overpriced Pegasus. There were several companies proposing to develop much cheaper smallsat rockets, so the DoD make a contract with each of t