LogFAQs > #976531613

Not only did it disappear, but the people who were depending on that wealth to exist are suffering.

The lenders of the money? They just want the debt paid, the brand value only matters if it helps pay the debt owed to them. It's kind of you to be concerned for them, but there are risks to lending someone money when he goes around saying he's buying twitter only to promote free speech.

They're losing jobs and not necessarily getting hired by competitors. The lenders books can no longer ever be balanced even if they completely confiscate what's left.

Yeah, it is sad.I feel bad for them. They can work for other companies. Twitter wasn't created for them to have work as cold as it sounds.

Bringing things back to our discussion. How does this address your point: It means the wealth Elon Musk has is just a fake made up number.

This isn't the same as simple competition either. When Blockbuster fell, Netflix gained. When Sears fell, Amazon gained. No one is gaining anything here. They're just losing.

There are several direct competitors and indirect competitors to Twitter.

And because it's private you can't even have bears betting on puts or short selling.

Lenders, options traders. Your circle of concern is intriguing.

The advertisers didn't go to another platform. No serious competition has risen to to fill the void where Twitter used to be. Existing competition hasn't changed significantly.

Meta released Threads as a direct response to Musk buying Twitter

Because the wealth was never real.

The wealth was real for the twitter shareholders. Elon musk paid them (don't hit me!).

Ahh it is like a beautiful hike. We ended up right where we started. My goal was to end up at the destination where you explained why the wealth was never real but instead you led me in one giant circle.

If you want to take me to my destination. the one where it demonstrates The wealth was never real, that'd be cool.