Pretty sure his relatively quick walk back on that "joke" was due to the realization that if it was left open as a credible threat it is very likely the government would have just seized control of SpaceX immediately.
There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him.
And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the US is not the same place it was a decade ago.
And this isn't just a random expropriation. While I may have to cry myself to sleep at the thought of our once great nation having devolved into a bitchy slap fest by a couple of narcissistic man babies, the fact is that SpaceX probably wouldn't exist today without the US government, so with Musk having a temper tantrum and saying "I'm taking my toys and going home", the US government would have at least somewhat valid national security reasons to take over SpaceX.
Couple that with the fact that Musk is hated, extremely, by many folks out both sides of the political aisle, means that the rule of law concerns about a SpaceX expropriation would largely be ignored.
Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO.
Your rationalization of it is not unreasonable, but the market would panic in a bad way if the government showed it was willing to take extremes.
> Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO.
I don't agree with this.
Like if it were merely a "tiff" between the administration and a CEO, then yes that would be destabilizing, but there is important context here that you are entirely glossing over.
Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program. If he didn't walk back that threat I think it would have been very easy for large companies to see the outcome as entirely Elon's fault and maybe just double-check in on their own CEOs to make sure they make sane decisions.
I'm personally convinced Elon realizing the likelihood of this outcome (probably because someone else reminded him of it) is exactly why he started walking the threat back.
And as a side effect of this mess, Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function.
> Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program
It’s sort of a given in American capitalism that owners are free to be idiots with their money. Nationalising SpaceX would wipe hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth to zero (or close to it). That’s a taking of private property triggered by the personal animus of the President; that characterises Argentina more than America. It would absolutely freak investors out, because now you need to diversify your assets geopolitically in a way Americans aren’t used to (but Argentinians, Russians and Chinese are).
Better: target Elon personally. Yank his credentials. Force him to revoke his super voting status, potentially trim his shareholding.
> Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function
We’re overdue for antitrust reform. The Whigs, in particular, were animated by concerns around undue concentrations of power.
> wake up and smell the coffee - the US is not the same place it was a decade ago
I hear this from folks on the coast a lot. Then our candidates lose in the middle of the country because when someone suggests taking a rich person’s stuff, every small business owner self identifies with them because that’s how American optimism has a habit of working.
> What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
Right here where I live, in the United States.
I never suggested expropriation in general would be widely supported, but when you have the richest man in the world (who has spent the last year making enemies of virtually everyone other than a small cadre of twitter shitposters) manically making decisions while reportedly on a downward spiral drug bender and he suggests taking action that would lead to endangering the lives of astronauts and an overall weakening of America's national security, yeah the government would have had massive popular support for seizing SpaceX.
If you don't think so I think you might be living in a libertarian bubble.
There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him.
And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.