You can't say that after the same Elon bought Twitter for 55 billion. If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.
>If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.
The literal opposite is true. If he has to sell his stocks it means he does not have it in cash. If you are using your house as collataral, you do it precisely because you lack the money in cash.
The only way to reduce his networth bellow a billion is seizing stock in his companies grom him. Him paying money is the exact same thing, just with an additional (likely devastating, for him and the company) step.
The real question is whether you want the government seizing corporations from individuals.
koonsolo|3 years ago
constantcrying|3 years ago
The literal opposite is true. If he has to sell his stocks it means he does not have it in cash. If you are using your house as collataral, you do it precisely because you lack the money in cash.
The only way to reduce his networth bellow a billion is seizing stock in his companies grom him. Him paying money is the exact same thing, just with an additional (likely devastating, for him and the company) step.
The real question is whether you want the government seizing corporations from individuals.