I've fully grasped that he is rich. Though he is not, actually, $43bn liquid rich, at all; he's going to need to sell chunks of his other businesses to do this. That potentially means handing over significant influence over SpaceX or Tesla, so he can buy the cause of his hurt feelings in his spat with the SEC.
I don't give a damn whether he is the richest man in the world now (he is not -- Putin is) or continues to be.
I don't think Twitter want to be compared to someone buying a pleasure boat. That really does underscore my point about it being a narcissism purchase though, with the added frisson of white male mid-life crisis, so I'll stipulate if you will!
The strategy I outlined in a single sentence for twitter to stay true to its roots means not having to worry about shareholder value or decline. There are several viable, thriving market utilities run on this basis (e.g. in currency trading markets). They do not decline and they are beholden to their shareholders only in continuing to provide the utility.
There is no way that Twitter owned by a random rich narcissist won't decline as it tilts at windmills.
Twitter owned by a set of media companies that have come to depend on it as a means to exist -- as a utility that supports the media market through enlightened self-interest -- is viable.
I've fully grasped that he is rich. Though he is not, actually, $43bn liquid rich, at all; he's going to need to sell chunks of his other businesses to do this. That potentially means handing over significant influence over SpaceX or Tesla, so he can buy the cause of his hurt feelings in his spat with the SEC.
I don't give a damn whether he is the richest man in the world now (he is not -- Putin is) or continues to be.
I don't think Twitter want to be compared to someone buying a pleasure boat. That really does underscore my point about it being a narcissism purchase though, with the added frisson of white male mid-life crisis, so I'll stipulate if you will!
The strategy I outlined in a single sentence for twitter to stay true to its roots means not having to worry about shareholder value or decline. There are several viable, thriving market utilities run on this basis (e.g. in currency trading markets). They do not decline and they are beholden to their shareholders only in continuing to provide the utility.
There is no way that Twitter owned by a random rich narcissist won't decline as it tilts at windmills.
Twitter owned by a set of media companies that have come to depend on it as a means to exist -- as a utility that supports the media market through enlightened self-interest -- is viable.