greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
User ID: 68

Herman Pontzer has shown that the body adapts by burning fewer calories at rest, so your total CO is constrained. This is assuming you don't overeat due to hunger after working out. This goes to show why weight loss is so hard. The only viable option is to eat less, which is uncomfortable and unsustainable for most people.
They can stipulate the terms of the loan in such a way as to ensure and profit and mitigate the risk of the volatility with hedging instruments. I think he could probably get $100 billion by pledging 300% collateral, which is his whole net worth.
Here, you would have Musk trying to unload $100B of a stock with a P/E over 100, balanced by ... which bank do you think wants that?
Elon has already successful borrowed tens of billions to Fund X/Twitter buyout. not $100 billion worth, but there was a counterparty.
Some might be concerned that these sorts of predictions are a bit vague. What will they actually do? What will it look like? How could we watch events unfold and categorize what is happening? Of course, as the old joke says, fascism comes with smiley faces and McDonald's, so it's unlikely that their activities will be immediately apparent on just a surface glance. Thus, I will turn to the impetus for this post and submit that one need look no further than current events.
The PMC wants automation, typically of lower-skilled work.
Pundits have been predicting a white-collar jobs collapse for years, well before AI. In the past, it was due to computers and robots. Now it's AI. What they fail to grasp is that white-collar workers have transferable skills or attributes beyond the actual job description, such as high higher IQ. This means better adaptability to changing economic conditions. A coder can learn law ,for example; or a lawyer learn code. The PMC will , if anything , be protected from automation and other change, not hurt. less skilled workers are more vulnerable because they cannot adapt as well.
where you getting this from? i have not seen headlines indicating such
official sources say $892 billion https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/hegseth-trump-1-trillion-defense-budget-00007147
million would not make sense
It's like civil forfeiture. The govt. becomes the new owner even though nothing is sold.
The human body is really really efficient. It is just hard to burn a lot of calories doing it. And there are quite a bit of people that do really hard work - construction worker for example - and you will see quite a bit of them that are chunky. And it is really easy to compensate for the calories burned with a couple of spoonfulls of something.
this times 100x. It's not like laborers are overwhelmingly thin compared to office workers. Bill Gates was wire-thin in his 20-30s despite his job literally entailing sitting at a computer all day. Gyms are full of people who are overweight and never lose much. The body adapts by slowing metabolism (CO) or increasing hunger (CI).
By this logic acquisitions would not be possible because it would tank the market. It's simply a legal transfer of ownership records from one entity to another. Nothing is sold on the market. Musk can sell his shares to an investment bank at a discount using dark pools or OTC , the bank books an instant profit and hedges it. musk gets his cash.
He doesn't want to sell because he still wants to retain voting rights. If he wanted $100 billion liquid cash he could get it either with loans (using tsla as collateral), selling tesla shares, etc. Due to the inherent volatility of Tesla, likely such a loan would need to be double collateralized , so the OP is right that he could not access all of it, but I think if he wanted $100 billion he could get it. This is what many billionaires do. They pledge stock as collateral to borrow billions of dollars without having to actually sell the stock on the market, and without paying taxes. He came up with the funds to buy Twitter.
Elon doesn't have much of a penchant for books either. Most of these billionaires and other successful people in business tend to be unimpressive outside of their craft. They are not erudite or worldly people. If the goal is to maximize wealth, this does not leave much time for other things.
He may well succeed. American negotiating position (as the world's greatest military power) is strong. We may see democratic nations transform into communist dictatorships liquidating their pension funds to fund American war factories, or taking IMF loans to buy Teslas. There is no ceiling to winning here.
it sounds like you are going full Moldbug
I think they got tired of wokeness too. It was not just about cozying up to power.
Iran's leadership is smart enough to avoid provoking the US into action. Saddam Hussein made the mistake of invading neighboring countries, Iran in 1980 and then Kuwait in 1990. 9/11 was a pretext to deal with him for good.
He took out a $45 billion credit line https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/musk-and-tesla-compensation-or-control
In fact, however, to maintain his voting power, Musk seeks to avoid selling his Tesla shares. As an alternative, he borrows money, using shares as collateral. On December 4, 2020, Musk had borrowed $515 million against 265.0 million Tesla shares, which had a market value on that date of $52.9 billion—more than 100 times the amount of the loans on those shares. On April 19, 2024, Musk had 238.4 million shares pledged for loans, equal to $43.5 billion at Tesla’s stock price on June 13, 2024.
There is this popular notion I have seen it a lot on hacker news and Reddit, which purports that billionaires are not actually as wealthy as indicated by their net worth because their liquidity is tied up. This is generally false, especially when said equity is in stock, which is liquid and where all parties can easily agree upon a price. Tesla stock is extremely liquid, and there is a huge market for it. This is how collateral works, in which Elon pledges stock to an investment bank as collateral for a credit line. The bank can hedge this risk and profit from fees. Yeah, artwork or collectibles are different and there may not be enough liquidity to absorb a large sale, but stock and real estate are more liquid and transparent.
I think it's too soon to tell. The market came roaring back and Trump hasn't even done anything, nor any progress from China -US relations. As soon as the stock market goes back up, he will go quiet. he hadn't complained about tariffs until recently, for this reason. It's not so much the tariffs they they dislike, but the market's reaction to it. To wit, excluding April, his last tweet that mentioned tariffs was on November 25th, 2024: https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1861198845574815947
Regarding the economic implications, Ackman and others are justified in complaining. These tariffs are unprecedented in size and scope. It's like "we want trade reform, not a return to the early 20th century"
Man I should have gone into the humanities instead of into the sciences. I am so much more passionate about this stuff than STEM.
I have noticed this a ton on hacker News and related communities ,where there is sort of cross pollination. People who are in technology who seem really enamored by the humanities. I have never experienced this feeling as much.
$100 extra billion is basically a rounding error. elon could fund it
Agree. I think most of this is overblown. That's not to say it isn't bad, but it's not going to lead to crisis as many are predicting. Consider a $5 cup of cofree from Starbucks. The bulk of the price is the advertising. Raw goods are only a small percentage of the final price of a good. The beans, which are imported, are a tiny percentage of the final price, so the math works out to a final inflation tally that is much less than the touted 10%.
Not all goods are imported, raw goods are only a fraction of the cost of a good. So it evens out to much less than 10%. A large percentage is advertising . For a $5 cup of coffee Starbucks, only a tiny percentage of the price is the raw goods.
Stocks have exhibited a long-term tendency to rise, so buying dips has generally been shown to be prudent. Institutions have to meet other criteria, like defined risk tolerance. You don't have to be that knowledgeable to observe this trend, and even the experts who are assumed to be knowledgeable have been shown to be no better than a coin toss e. g. "J. P. Morgan sees 40-60% chance of recession in 2 years" This is what passes for 'expert analysis'.
similar to Covid, the market is pricing in the non-zero possibility of something really bad happening. like a bad recession or hyperinflation. Like Covid, history has generally shown such moves to be an overreaction.
As far as I'm concerned, the collapse is well underway. The only thing Trump did was rip down the curtain.
the market was at close to record highs just 4 weeks ago, and the crash came right as Trump unveiled the tariffs. Your analysis seems to get the causality wrong.
It always takes a few hours for the thread to be populated with topics ,and then the discussions build from there
it's see-sawing. I added to the dip. I think it's an overreaction. It's one of those things where it's not suddenly going to get better as both sides have massive egos invested, but IMHO it's not as bad as the headlines and market reaction would imply.
yeah cardio just does not burn much fat. Runners and cyclists are thin because they do not eat much to begin with, not that running induces much weight loss. the sort of person with the discipline to take up running as a habit probably has the discipline to eat less.
More options
Context Copy link