Judge Rules Against Elon's Pay Package [⚠️ ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[Crissa]

I think I should just give up on expecting people to honor deals as they have been agreed to. This is an exercise in futility.

Expecting people to abide by a deal when it's revealed they weren't given the relevant info is hardly honest, either.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

I think I should just give up on expecting people to honor deals as they have been agreed to. This is an exercise in futility.

And if SpaceX ever goes public, it will end up in the snowballing litigation nightmare that Telsa is becoming.

I think that more than one perspective can be true in this situation.

For example: if the Tesla boards package was poorly put together, wouldn't it make sense that a claimant would make use of that to get it nullified?

That doesn't mean it's "just", rather it just means Tesla left the door open for the fox to get into the henhouse.

Now at the same time this doesn't mean the "mortality" of the fox is correct, for the want of stealing a hen, but it does highlight the need for having a door to keep them out, because foxes are real, and will do what foxes do.

So in this case it could well be that the divorce lawyer EM used for putting the deal together was not up to the task, and put up neo signs, and left a trail of breadcrumbs to a largely unfenced henhouse without any doors to close.

As for the morality of the fox, or the fairness of the outcome, the above does not imply either way. As a society such a form of "fox" is in fact a person, and persons should be beholden to higher values. But as a society we are required to play by the rules, and Tesla putting a package together without protecting their flank, by using the rules to that advantage, is poor form to play the game.

In saying that though, from a world veiw, justice is not always served by the "current set" of rules either, and many a time the henhouse seems to be run by the foxes, just simply by way of them knowing the rules of the hen house better than the hens, that was meant to protect them.

If we step away from the legalities though, there needs to generally be more thought and serious consideration of things that "could be" rather than just what "currently is", especially so in a ever faster changing world.

Applying a set of rules that have previously "worked" in no way protects us anymore when that rule can be circumvented or ignored, or even worse holds back progress to better solutions altogether.

The balancing act is to have enough historical precedence to firm up the validity of a law, and still allow enough forsight that it doesn't impede greater understanding or wisdom to allow the law to transform into something relative to a future situation, and by doing so validate the reasons for the rules existence in the first place.

I don't doubt that rules and law are accumulative, and genuinely lack a method for revision in a common law system, given that the constitution is the only basis for precedent to be overturned.

This acts as a one way valve to create more rules, with no method to reconcile validity with a future reality. Hence EMs proposal for a sunset clause, that basically reassesses the validity of a rule by forcing it to be renovated according to current circumstances or otherwise disappear of its own accord for lack of purpose.

In the end we should only have rules that apply to our current situation, and not "only" have rules that drag us back in history to when we weren't even born, or had any say in the matter. But here the conflict is clear as per my remark above, in that a balance must be held between proving a rule to be valid and useful now, and making sure it is still so in the future.

We can make an analogy in science.

Most "breakthoughs" in science don't come from abiding by the rules, but by redefining "our" understanding of what the rules actually are.

There is a distinct point I'd like to make here: Do we "believe", for lack of ultimate proof, that there exists a subset of ultimate rules that directs the function of the universe? And if so should we contemplate using them as a foundation for the rules of our society as well?

Gravity works equally for those that beleive in it or not, or want to abide by it's rules or not, or in the case of infants like us, need to learn to understand the limits of those rules.

On a cosmic scale it's nigh impossible for us as individuals to create an understanding of the "known" universe in our individual lifetime. 99% of our "knowledge" is taught to us, based on which we extrapolate our own judgements that we pass on to our offspring and so on.

This is the definition the accumulation of dead mens ideas and living by them, that creates the disconnect between the realities of "me and us, now" and "they and them, then".

So even if we had the required faculties to envisage such a perpetuation of the right ideas, what would keep them true and protected from corruption, by those that can?

That is why on the one side, even as a Aussie, I hold the ideals of the US constitution as valuable, not because it was written by young American men, but rather by people that had a better and closer understanding of the working principles of natural world, and what underlays the foundation of those rules, and how they should apply to us all as a people.

The point here is that those types of rules do not stem from men, but rather the understanding of the principles of what already is in the natural world.

Just like the mechanics of the universe doesn't change, rather we change our understanding of it, so too should we seek out those fundamental principles, so that we can abide by them in full concession of what we beleive is true.

Sadly, the vote or opinion of mob rule, of those that do not consider or want to spare a cycle of thought on these things, is not the way to achieve such enlightenment or endeavour.

This might sound like something the ruling class might say, but it doesn't detract from it's validity or potential reason for our current situation.

Simply our current forms of information propagation do NOT reconcile with current reality.

Mass media has until recent history only been the domain of organised religion, which it turn used it both for and against its own people as well. But without the "right" knowledge we will be perpetually lost in a sea of things we know little or nothing about, drowning in things of no consequence to our wellbeing or useful as foundation of our future, making our desicions and choices meaningless in the grand scheme of progressing towards sustainable change.

 

[CyberGus]

To pay Elon an extra $50B, Tesla will need to charge an extra $25,000 for each of the 2M Cybertruck reservations.

Coincidence? ?

 

[kundalini77]

The judge ruled that way, despite majority shareholder approval.

Yep, 81% majority over rule by some dude with 9 shares and a corrupt judge.

Like, it makes you wonder..

 

[JBee]

If the mud fits...It's obvious to many that we are past "peak Elon". His latest threat to start another company for AI and robotics, taking that value away from Tesla, is not going to be seen in a positive light by most rational investors.

You don't get that EM doesn't need investors to do what he wants. He also doesn't want or need money. He doesn't need to "threaten" anything, by most investor standards he could afford to disappear into retirement now.

That is not his goal, so conflating your standards with his, is deluding your perspective here.

If money by principle is the mechanics of "economic resource allocation" then at some point with fiat currency there will be enough "resource allocation", but not enough resources to be allocated. Simply adding zeros to you dollar bill becomes meaningless if that isn't convertible for tangibles at the same rate.

EM says: there is no factory that produces engineers. He also says universities and colleges don't breed the "qualifications or work ethic" required to participate in Tesla/SpaceX etc. Or we have a population problem. Read: not enough young enthusiastic motivated minds to design future change.

There is a upper limit on viable human resources, as well as other resources. These are hard natural limits, something fiat currency is not beholden too whatsoever.

Besides, no single company should hold all the cards for a sustainable future. Monoculture will be the demise of civilisation, as diversity is nature's way of evolving with agility and redundancy to change, in the present.

Further, making more coin is irrelevant to sustainability, for investors or EM. Especially so if it's worthless fake fiat pumped by the fed with no bearing on economic reality except to dilute the base. This is because currency doesn't naturally flow to what is right, only to what is what is profitable for its own sake, regardless of the real cost in the natural world.

It's important to note that "economic freedom" is far more relevant here than "legal freedoms" or the supposed freedoms to choose a leader, if the choice is between dumb and dumber. The reality of your life "choices" ends at the counter where you have to foot the bill, and pay with currency generated by your future tax obligations. Either way you will be coerced to pay IF you use fiat. There are many things that have "unrealised returns" in that their true value has not yet been assessed by currency. That is why unfettered institutionsal currency erodes the economy...ask Argentina.

Simply it's meaningless if it is legal or not, if it can't be bought anyway, or by virtue of the system being used, is rendered worthless anyway by adding zeros.

The main factor for EMs position is to not lose too much control. Shares not only produce dividends or can be traded for ebb and flow trends, but are also the dominant method of controlling corporate choices. Investor profits are immaterial if Tesla can't maintain a competitive advantage, so they need to keep the advantage by allowing the "inventors" to control the progress of "their" inventions. Nobody can force them to do so, nor have many such success or motivation at doing so, so why should EM be reprimanded and lose control or meaningful influence of the things he creates, for the reasons he creates them? Would you just to appease the shareholders?

 

[PilotPete]

Elon has consistently over estimated Tesla's AI technology for years as the slow progress of FSD has shown.

Exactly how has Elon "over estimated Tesla's AI technology for years" when FSD 12.X is the first iteration of the full end-to-end usage of specialized AI?

 

[PilotPete]

Elon has given us enough evidence that he's far from a consistently rational actor that I do not trust him with controlling or guiding AI.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...-twitter-ai-is-actually-woke-hilarity-ensues/

In reading this thread, and your posts, I get that you are not an EM fan. Ok, cool, no problem.

 

[CyberGus]

Exactly how has Elon "over estimated Tesla's AI technology for years" when FSD 12.X is the first iteration of the full end-to-end usage of specialized AI?

Elon has consistently decreed FSD to be “finished” within a short timeframe, only to miss those targets over and over.

He’s just too damn optimistic.

 

[jerhenderson]

C

There's a simple solution really - at least once we get the final ruling - which won't occur for another 60-90 days - so any appeal isn't possible until that point in time. The simple solution is to simply amend the existing comp plan from 2018 up until current time - practice full disclosure - literally attach the ruling to the proxy vote - and send out a new proxy vote to ratify the new plan under full disclosure. The board could also opt to create a new plan that is retroactive to 2018 - and proactive for the future - and take the same route.

IMHO people are making way too much of this ruling. There are easy solutions, and lessons learned that Tesla can take forward. Musk is doing what he always does, reacting emotionally as opposed to thoughtfully responding, and in a rather childish manner simply because he didn't get his way and got a hand slap for not following the principles of corporate governance properly. Big deal - adapt and move on - that's what grown adults do - they don't take their ball and go home - and certainly not to a state (Texas) that still doesn't allow any of its citizens to purchase a Tesla given Texas franchise laws still do not allow consumers to purchase cars directly from automakers. Go figure, kinda ironic if that becomes their corporate home base.

Childish? How would you like a judge to rule that you earned no pay in 2018 because a guy with 9 shares whined?

 

[jerhenderson]

I think I should just give up on expecting people to honor deals as they have been agreed to. This is an exercise in futility.

And if SpaceX ever goes public, it will end up in the snowballing litigation nightmare that Telsa is becoming.

SpaceX will never go public as too many people are too stupid to understand the value of colonization.

 

[Crissa]

Exactly how has Elon "over estimated Tesla's AI technology for years" when FSD 12.X is the first iteration of the full end-to-end usage of specialized AI?

He's said it'll be ready in a year for like six years.

Tho I'm gonna say I think it'll be ready in about 18 more months now.... but it's the same date I've had for twenty years.

Childish? How would you like a judge to rule that you earned no pay in 2018 because a guy with 9 shares whined?

Yes, that's childish. Complaining that you need to renegotiate your pay because you sandbagged like Scotty when the law says you have to play it straight like LaForge?

Yep, 81% majority over rule by some dude with 9 shares and a corrupt judge.

Like, it makes you wonder..

That vote is irrelevant if they didn't know the odds of what they were voting on. You can't mislead people, intentionally or accidentally.

All he needs to do is schedule a new vote.

-Crissa

 

[heems]

It's more like one shareholder revealing that the vast majority of shareholders were mislead.

Source? This is made up. Show me the majority owners who claim they were misled. This dude with 9 shares is now reading our minds? I mean why put this to vote again? They will again say we are stupid and didn’t know. This can be for any vote why stop here ?

many people have died on their swords for the wrong cause. That dude that was a “whistleblower” about Tesla scrapping too much. Or that reporter about the Mellon fields in China. Kathleen is the latest too. No one will remember these footnotes in history. They all lose and are pathetic.

 

[Crissa]

Source? This is made up. Show me...

Dude. Court rulings are public records.

https://inequality.org/great-divide/takeaways-from-musk-compensation-ruling/

This isn't some weird clickbait theory, or a long-standing difficulty in factories in the East Bay, or a one-off miscommunication with an employee.

Pathetic is not even bothering to tell the difference between courts and clout-chasers.

-Crissa

 

[BannedByTMC]

You don't get that EM doesn't need investors to do what he wants. He also doesn't want or need money. He doesn't need to "threaten" anything, by most investor standards he could afford to disappear into retirement now.

Yet he did in fact threaten to take AI and robotics away from Tesla and start another company if he doesn't get his extra shares and more control. This is really simple. Not to mention I didn't say he was doing it for the money so that's a complete straw man. Some people seem very unwilling to face the obvious facts.

 

[BannedByTMC]

Exactly how has Elon "over estimated Tesla's AI technology for years" when FSD 12.X is the first iteration of the full end-to-end usage of specialized AI?

You must be joking.

In reading this thread, and your posts, I get that you are not an EM fan. Ok, cool, no problem.

I'm not a fan of the "new" Elon who is obviously not committed to Tesla and the mission of the company and who has actively damaged the company in recent years with the entire Twitter mess.