Elon Musk: Activist Billionaire?

by Stephen Lendman

According to Forbes, Musk tops the list of world's richest people with super-wealth exceeding $250 billion.

He's currently worth about $260 billion, according to Bloomberg's Billionaires Index.

Among his many quotes, he said:

"One should try to make the world a better place because the inverse makes no sense."

"The point (of space travel) is to maximize the probable life span of humanity."

"I would like to die thinking that humanity has a bright future."

Trained in business and science, Musk earned a Ph.D in energy physics at Stanford.

A notable investor/entrepreneur, his pursuits include sustainable technology and energy innovation among other interests.

He envisions multi-planetary travel and civilization to ensure survival of the human species — in case "something catastrophic…happen(s)" on planet earth.

Gaining wealth and power don't drive him, he said.

"I want to fix (things) that don't work well…That really is the motivation for me," he claimed.

He once said he'd like to "die on Mars, but not on impact." 

Along with his other interests, he offered to buy most outstanding Twitter shares he doesn't already own at a significant premium to its current market value.

His $54.20 per share offer translates to about a $43 billion purchase.

While the amount is far from chump change, Musk's personal super-wealth likely means he can afford to pay what he offered.

Saying the company has "extraordinary value. I will unlock it, he added:

"I am not playing the back-and-forth game." 

"I have moved straight to the end."

"It's a high price and your shareholders will love it."

"If the deal doesn't work, given that I don't have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder."

With over 9% ownership of the company, selling his stake would likely have a significant downside effect on share value.

Buying over 90% of its outstanding shares would mean significant profit for current shareholders.

On Thursday, Bloomberg reported the following:

Musk proposed the purchase "in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, after turning down the chance to take a board seat at the company."

Twitter said its board will respond to his offer in the best interest of "all" company shareholders.

He's been outspoken about changes he'll make to the platform if his buyout offer is accepted.

He'll retain as many other shareholders as permitted by law for a private company — instead of being sole owner.

"I could technically afford it," he said, adding:

"But this is not a way to sort of make money." 

"It's just that I think this is my strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization." 

"I don't care about the economics at all."

Concerned about online censorship — what I call the new abnormal to suppress what conflicts with the fabricated official narrative — Musk told Twitter's board:

The company "will neither thrive nor serve (its) societal imperative in its current form."

It "needs to be transformed as a private company."

His offer was "best and final."

Twitter shares reached a nearly  $72 valuation last July.

Shareholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said he rejects Musk's offer for not coming "close to the intrinsic value (of the company) given its growth prospects."

By letter to Twitter's board, Musk said in part:

"I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy."

According to Project Veritas, (former) Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey "la(id) out a roadmap for future political censorship."

Things are much the same on Facebook and other social media, ones involved in censoring truth-telling on vital issues.

Google transformed itself from search engine to gatekeeper.

Much the same applies to its YouTube subsidiary.

Could Musk reinvigorate US speech and media freedom as dominant Twitter owner?

Was Jack Kennedy able to transform the American way from swords to plowshares, to eliminate the CIA he despised and achieve other noble aims?

Did MLK, RFK and others like them accomplish positive long-lasting change?

Even if Twitter's board accepts Musks offer, would he be little more than a voice in the wilderness by changing its way of operating?

And if it appeared like he had a chance, would his fate be no different than what happened to the above notable figures?