1. I will now examine Twitter’s past financials and predict the future from them. I conclude that criticism of @elonmusk is bizarrely off base, because Musk has overnight changed Twitter’s net (profit) margin from negative 20% to approximately plus 28%, more than Apple or Google.
2. I am using annualized percentages based on Twitter’s most recent quarterly filings, for the period ending 6/30/22. These documents are freely available at the SEC’s website.
3. Annual revenue was about $4.4 billion. Annual expenses were slightly more, and fell into four major buckets: cost of revenue; R&D; sales and marketing; and general and administrative. Those are roughly 37%, 26%, 25%, and 12% of total major expenses, respectively
4. According to the company, cash expenses for cost of revenue are essentially infrastructure—hardware and third-party servers, with some employee costs, namely “operations teams.”’ Employee costs include those related to stock and option grants (i.e., non-cash expenses).
5. R&D expenses, on the other hand, “consist primarily of personnel-related costs.” The same is explicitly true of sales and marketing and of general/administrative
6. In other words, the vast majority of 63% of Twitter’s expenses are personnel costs. If we assume “primarily” is 80%, and that 20% of cost of revenue is also personnel costs, 58% of Twitter’s total costs are personnel costs.
7. When Musk took over, Twitter had 7,500 employees. Let’s guess 70% of those have left. Leaving aside pay differentials, that suggests that Twitter’s expenses have, likely permanently, dropped 41% overnight. That makes its new annualized projected profit $1.3 billion.
8. This means Twitter’s net margin, going forward, is now about 28%. By way of comparison, Apple and Google both maintain net margins in the 22 to 25% range. In other words, Twitter is now more profitable than those companies.
9. Your mileage may vary, and this is somewhat of a simplification. But it shows why Musk can win just by firing worthless losers. Yeah, sure, maybe leftist pressure will keep some advertisers away. I doubt it. When the next Current Thing arrives, they’ll be back.
10. But when you change from a negative profit margin to a margin that’s the envy of the tech world, you have a lot of room to screw up.
11. I also note that it is ignorant to say that Musk has loaded up the company with debt. The debt/equity ratio in the deal was roughly 0.3:1, when many deals are done at 1:3, or with NINE TIMES as much debt.
12. Sure, he has to make debt payments. But this isn’t some kind of knife-edge scenario as the ignorant often paint it.
13 (new). This thread having been up for 24 hours, and gotten more than 6 million impressions, the only interesting thing is that not a single person has said anything in response that legitimately suggests I am wrong in any way. (Lots of ignorant responses, though.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let us analyze and rate the truthfulness of each of Senator Lee’s five claims, based on the current Senate text of the bill (link in replies). TL;DR—four of the five claims are false, in whole or in part.
Claim 1: “The bill prohibits any sale of National Parks, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Historic Sites, Recreation Areas, and other protected units.”
Rating: True. Section (a)(4) defined “federally protected land,” which lists these and additional categories (actually, “a unit of the National Park System,” but presuming a unit is not some technical narrow category, it should be the same thing). Section (g)(4) forbids selling any “federally protected land.”
This prohibition is placed on the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, who together administer land sales of BLM land and National Forest land, respectively, under this program.
Claim 2: “Most [parcels eligible for sale] will never be conveyed, and any disposal still requires local consultation and environmental review.”
Rating: False. Section (b)(1) requires each Secretary to not only “select for disposal” “not more than 0.75 percent of [BLM and National Forest] land.” It also requires him to select NOT LESS than 0.5 percent. These are the “parcels eligible for sale.” But the Secretary does not have discretion whether to dispose. He “shall dispose of all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to those tracts selected for disposal.” Thus, all selected tracts will in fact be disposed of, and must be disposed of within five years (Section (j)).
There are zero actual limitations on the Secretary’s discretion, other than “federally protected land,” land not being in an eligible (Western) state, or land with certain grazing permits and mineral rights already granted.
Local consultation is not real. There is no requirement to pay any attention to that consultation; sales are entirely within the discretion of the Secretary. In any case, as with all real estate development, state and local government will often or always be in the pocket of developers, and that “consultation” will likely in practice only represent the interests of developers. And since the unit of local government gets 5% of the sale price, Section (h)(A)(i), they are incentivized to get on board with development.
Environmental review is not mentioned anywhere in the bill (though there may be other applicable laws).
Why are the English passive? In any Western country in history, what has been done to the British by their rulers and their pet migrants would result in the mass levying of private justice: the overthrow of the British government, the permanent neutering of the elites, and a long list of actions not discussable on X. Why has nothing needed been done? 1/
I think the main reason is not the obvious one. To be sure, there are obvious ones. Feminization. The totalitarian British terror state. Sedation by drugs, entertainment, and technology. All these matter. But the main reason is that all modern Western societies are low-trust societies. 2/
In our societies, for many decades, deliberate, considered actions have separated men from each other, destroying their intermediary institutions (churches, unions, bowling leagues), and then inserted the government as the provider and comforter for men (and even more for women). Robert Nisbet predicted exactly this in 1948, in The Quest for Community. 3/
One magic day a year ago, all the Lords of Tech stopped threatening Elon Musk with destruction by deplatforming (as they did to Parler). Since Musk met with Tim Cook, we haven't heard a peep from any of them threatening Musk, whereas that's all we heard before. Why? 1/
In retrospect, it's obvious that in that meeting Musk threatened Apple with destruction (and more quietly, Google and AWS). 2/
It would be relatively easy for Musk to make a new and better Apple, for example. You only need 10% or less of the number of employees, as he already proved. He's proven he can design. Manufacturing is easily outsourced, as is app production. 3/
It is fascinating to see the two iron pillars of public worship for my whole lifetime, the consensus view of World War II and the so-called civil rights era, lose all power, and become mere distant historical events, not even ones of actual importance or relevance today. 1/
Nobody under 30, and few of the well-informed under 40, believes the old Manichean good guy-bad guy view of World War II. They instead see lots of bad guys and lots of gray. (Those who get their power from past caricatures hate this, which is why they excoriated @martyrmade, when he dared to point this out.)
The same people care not at all about Martin Luther King and similar men of his time, nor should they. Whether he was good or bad, it is no matter. He was a long time ago, and is equivalent today in importance to, say, the French and Indian War, or less important. And most see that the real problem today is anti-white hatred and society being organized around theft from whites. Whatever injustice may have been a problem sixty years ago simply doesn't exist anymore, at all, so we rightly don't care about it.
The Europeans would not have the problem of alien migrants if they had not failed to have children. Even if they expel of the invaders, their societies die unless they totally change their social structures. That's probably impossible. That's why I say Europe is over. 1/6
Sure, you can point to the heroic Reconquista. But that was a strong Christian society with lots of children. No examples of doing what's needed exist in modernity. 2/6
What's needed to restore society, as a baseline absolute requirement, is that several children would have to be the norm for women. Women who fail to produce children would be stigmatized harshly; those who do lionized. (This was the norm throughout human history.) 3/6
2/X: Life under Franco was excellent for most people. To say otherwise is ahistorical. The Church turned against Franco not for reasons of appointment conflict, but because it turned Left.
3/X: Caesarism, whatever Strauss says, is not necessarily tyranny. Nor is authoritarian rule, where "no opposition is tolerated." Tyranny is failure (here, of an individual) to rule for the common good. Charlemagne brooked no opposition; he was not a tyrant.