Chromdome35
| Favorite team: | Arkansas  |
| Location: | Fast lane, behind a slow driver |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | Life in the fast lane, behind a slow driver |
| Number of Posts: | 8428 |
| Registered on: | 11/27/2010 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/8/26 at 11:55 am to cypher
Didn't you learn in this thread that Musk won't dare touch Ukraine's Starlink access?
1
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/6/26 at 10:37 am to Coeur du Tigre
I don't understand why you keep wanting to prosecute the single man who has done more for the defense of Ukraine than any other person on the planet.
Musk should just turn of Starlink for Ukraine if this is the thanks you give him.
How long would Ukraine survive without starlink?
Musk should just turn of Starlink for Ukraine if this is the thanks you give him.
How long would Ukraine survive without starlink?
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 5:04 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
It was a suggestion as an alternative to expropriation. If you want a legal explanation, Google it.
I did...
quote:
Relevance: real but limited. Standard Oil is the template for a structural remedy, but the legal test and the facts fit SpaceX poorly. I haven’t checked whether any antitrust action against SpaceX is actually underway, so this is analysis, not a status report.
What carries over
The tool exists. Standard Oil (1911) was a Sherman Act §2 monopolization case, and the remedy was a structural breakup into about 34 companies. A court can order divestiture if it finds unlawful monopolization.
The AT&T breakup (1982) is a closer analogy, since it split a vertically integrated network operator. A SpaceX version would separate Starlink (the network) from launch.
Why it fits poorly
Monopoly isn’t illegal. Exclusionary conduct is. The modern test (Grinnell) requires monopoly power in a defined market plus anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of it. Growth from a superior product or “historic accident” is explicitly not a violation.
Standard Oil’s conduct was predatory. It used rebates, predatory pricing and suppression of rivals. SpaceX’s position comes mostly from lower cost and reusability. The reason it’s the only operational NSSL rocket right now is that Vulcan and New Glenn failed, not that SpaceX shut them out.
Consumer welfare cuts the other way. Antitrust today focuses on price and output. SpaceX has driven launch prices down, which weakens a harm theory.
Market definition is contested. Starlink competes with cable, fiber and 5G as well as satellite rivals like Amazon Leo and OneWeb. Launch is a thin market with few buyers, and the government is the biggest one.
National-security concentration isn’t an antitrust harm. Dependence on one provider is a procurement and resilience problem. Breaking up SpaceX wouldn’t create a second certified heavy launcher.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 4:47 pm to Coeur du Tigre
You obviously aren't from the US, or you would understand that what you are saying is completely lacking in any legal basis.
Were Musk to go to jail, he'd still own the companies; he'd still control the companies. He owns 80% of the voting rights.
The government can't just confiscate a company from someone because they don't like them; maybe where you're from they can, but not here.
This is what Claude said to that question:
Were Musk to go to jail, he'd still own the companies; he'd still control the companies. He owns 80% of the voting rights.
The government can't just confiscate a company from someone because they don't like them; maybe where you're from they can, but not here.
This is what Claude said to that question:
quote:
Short answer: no. A prison sentence wouldn’t remove him or strip his shares. It would cost him day-to-day control and might cost the company clearances.
Corporate control
Per the S-1 and Reuters, he can be removed as CEO, chair or director only by a vote of Class B holders. He holds about 93.6% of Class B, which adds up to roughly 79–85% of total voting power depending on the source. Class B also elects 51% of the board.
Neither the board nor a court can remove him under that structure, and a conviction doesn’t trigger any removal provision I’m aware of. SpaceX is incorporated in Texas and is a Nasdaq “controlled company,” so it skips independent-board requirements.
Selling or transferring shares outside his circle converts Class B to Class A. That’s a way he could lose control, but only if he chose it.
Courts don’t normally strip voting stock as punishment. Criminal forfeiture generally reaches proceeds of the crime, and I’m not aware of anything here that would reach his SpaceX equity.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 4:34 pm to Coeur du Tigre
I'm familiar with Standard Oil, are you? Please explain how the Standard Oil case would be applicable to use against SpaceX? We are a country of laws, you can't just make shite up because it suits your political purpose.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 4:28 pm to cypher
quote:
StarShield is provided to the Ukrainian military via a DoD contract. The terms of the contract are not public but I seriously doubt the contract allows for arbitrarily throttling or terminating services.
StarShield is also currently contracted to the US military for use in the Iran war. Any interruption of services could put American lives and materiel at risk. That is why I believe an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the Ukraine degradation of StarShield services is patriotic and should have already been initiated.
Correct, its goverened by whatever contract is currently in place. Since we're not party to the contract, we have no idea what leaway it does or doesn't give Musk.
Were the Dems to lose whatever cognitive function they have and try to actually prosecute Musk, he just has to tell them that's the last contract the US Government will ever sign with his companies. They can go build their own LEO Constellation and while they are at it, figure out how they are going to put it in space....along with all the other payloads SpaceX is currently carrying for them.
Companies aren't required to do business with the government; Musk can take his toys and go home. If the Dems do actually go after Musk vs. performative noise, then expect Musk to play hardball back...don't forget the man has FU money.
There is an old adage about war, "the enemy gets a vote"; the Dems would do well to remember that.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 4:11 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
But why not hit them with the Standard Oil treatment? Break up SpaceX into individual business units, independently competing. Keeps them in the private sector, paying taxes instead of absorbing them and keeping them all in a controllable size regulations-wise.
So your answer to Musk is to break SpaceX and Starlink into two independent companies? Both of which Musk would still control. Boy, you got him now....
See my previous post
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 3:26 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
just nationalize spacex. that's within the federal government's power
Under what law?
How many US industries have been nationalized in the last 70 years?
Do people not understand how our government and laws work anymore???
You can't just nationalize a company without compensating the owner for what you take. I don't think the US gov is ready to pay Musk $1.68T to $2T (That's trillion) dollars for SpaceX. That's going to be a glorious position for the Dems to take..." Hey let's make Musk even richer" Their base will eat that up.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 3:22 pm to Coeur du Tigre
I already told you what the consequences are a couple of posts ago.
If the stock price is up 15% next week, is that then proof the smart money is back behind Musk? You can't look at any short-term market fluctuations to draw any conclusions about Musk. If you don't understand that, well, I don't know what to tell you other than you're out of your depth in this thread.
If the stock price is up 15% next week, is that then proof the smart money is back behind Musk? You can't look at any short-term market fluctuations to draw any conclusions about Musk. If you don't understand that, well, I don't know what to tell you other than you're out of your depth in this thread.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 3:00 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
No, this is what Wall Street thinks will happen to Musk. They look at the facts and I'm just observing.
Then you need to observe for a few more years to UNDERSTAND what the market is doing.
quote:
As to the Congressional investigation, am I just gaslighting and wish casting that too?
I never said there wouldn't be an investigation; I said the Dems will make a lot of noise but won't do anything to Musk because they can't without suffering the consequences.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 2:46 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
That tells you all you need to know about what 's going to happen to Musk. Unless you refuse to believe facts.
You're trying to use a short-term reaction in the stock market as proof that Musk is cratering. You obviously know nothing about how the US Stock market operates. This time next week, both SpaceX and Tesla could be +15%
quote:
That tells you all you need to know about what 's going to happen to Musk
No, that tells YOU what you want to have happen to Musk, its not proof of anything in the future. You are just gaslighting and wishcasting.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 2:10 pm to LARancher1991
Musk could issue one command and bring every Starlink satellite down, and the Government depends on SpaceX to launch payloads.
Dems may make a lot of noise, but they won't do a damn thing to Musk, don't think he doesn't have any leverage.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/327126/20260909/space-forces-76b-satellite-program-has-one-rocket-spacex-stands-alone.htm
https://satnews.com/2026/10/22/space-force-reassigns-six-national-security-launches-to-spacex-amid-vulcan-grounding/
Dems may make a lot of noise, but they won't do a damn thing to Musk, don't think he doesn't have any leverage.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/327126/20260909/space-forces-76b-satellite-program-has-one-rocket-spacex-stands-alone.htm
https://satnews.com/2026/10/22/space-force-reassigns-six-national-security-launches-to-spacex-amid-vulcan-grounding/
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 11/5/26 at 2:01 pm to Coeur du Tigre
I often wonder if you have a functioning brain; this post is not evidence of it.
re: Fun fact about Arkansas.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/30/26 at 10:03 am to QBUMizzou
Stop projecting. I understand you have to tear others down to make yourself feel better.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/22/26 at 12:25 pm to Leopold
It does highlight how ungrateful some people are for the contributions Musk has made.
It also says the contract had the speed limits in it...they can't complain then when that contract is enforced.
It also says the contract had the speed limits in it...they can't complain then when that contract is enforced.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/21/26 at 11:06 am to Coeur du Tigre
You often hear people talk about Trump playing 4D chess...I'm not sure he can play chess at all; many of his decisions don't appear to have given any thought to the next move, much less 2 or 3 moves down the board.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/20/26 at 4:10 pm to doubleb
Who knows?
I assume Elon can turn Starlink on or off for whoever he wants to. Maybe he should just re-enable it for Russia. I think I've made it very clear over the last 4 years of this thread that I'm pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia. That hasn't changed, but Ukraine, or at least Cope, seems to think that US arms and technology are some kind of obligation the world owes them.
I assume Elon can turn Starlink on or off for whoever he wants to. Maybe he should just re-enable it for Russia. I think I've made it very clear over the last 4 years of this thread that I'm pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia. That hasn't changed, but Ukraine, or at least Cope, seems to think that US arms and technology are some kind of obligation the world owes them.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/20/26 at 4:05 pm to Coeur du Tigre
No anger here at all; I disagree with your assessment of Starlink's future.
And my assessment of you still holds.
And my assessment of you still holds.
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted by Chromdome35 on 10/20/26 at 3:49 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
But the major customer base - governments and corporations - are strongly risk adverse and make these decisions accordingly. What will legal say and what will the insurers say? Does anyone want to be tied to someone likely to throw up another Nazi salute in a ketamine haze? When there are viable and cost effective options?
Technology can only carry you if you have a monopoly. If you don't, then it's like all other business and finance will determine success. Risk adverse corporate finance and risk adverse government finance. Immature Dunning Kruger cases like Musk will not be welcome in that conversation.
You're a fricking idiot.
Popular
38
