When you have a couple hundred billion this is couch money. Good to hear he lost but that this is even possible is a problem.
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
502 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
7606 readers
3240 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To help add context.
At the "4% Rule" with $100 Billion, he can spend $4 Billion per year. He is making way more than 4% + inflation, so can spend even more.
I don't think the 4% rule applies the same way when it gets to that point.
His spending affects the market. A "normal" investment assumes they are irrelevant to the market.
I don't know how this changes things, but having to lean on TSLA stock when he owns so much of it impacts how much TSLA stock is worth.
Again, maybe it really doesn't matter, but you can't apply standard economics when the numbers are this big.
I got to say fair play to anyone who took the money and voted against him + points if you donated it to something he hates
I'm hearing he stiffed a lot of people.
Shocking, I know.
It's always the ones with the most money that are the stingiest fucks. Always using their wealth as a reason why they're entitled to anything, yet not actually paying unless forced to.
You don't get to be the richest man in world by giving people money if you don't absolutely have to..
Musk: Shit, I knew it should be 21M. Greedy me...
I believe it was 25 million in the end
NYTimes reported $25,000,000
gift article:
Sorry but we're out. Thanks for your monies tho
He already bought a presidency, can't have it all I guess.
Womp wompppp
Legit question: don’t we lose here anyway because judicial seats are supposed to be non partisan?
Sure, but you can lose worse. For example last November
Judicial seats haven't been non partisan for 30 years, back when the federalist society started pushing lists of approved GOP judges.
That's at the federal level. Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected for 10 year terms, and are officially non-partisan. In practice, everyone knows that the candidates are supported by one party or the other.
Needs a last frame where the money is taken and the vendor says, with a smile, “No.”