Sure it might not stay at 94x. But as long as SpaceX trades above 20x revenue, Google makes money from this deal.

And the bigger play is this deal pushes SpaceX over the finish line for S&P 500 inclusion. That's worth tens of billions for everyone involved.

▲

chrisandchris 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I rreally dislike how big corp figured out that the can sell stuff to each other without actually moving some good. Looking at you, Nvidia... I have a feeling that the ordinary people will again pay for that.

▲

fooqux 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This sounds exactly like the kind of thing that will be outlawed in thirty years after tracing back the root cause of the second great depression.

▲

dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That would require regulators to actually pay attention, something they haven’t done actively since a long, long time

▲

dawnerd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

First step would be to prevent the regulators from profiting to begin with.

	▲	WarOnPrivacy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In my experience, if we don't (meaningfully) root out corruption and ineptitude, we will continue to be governed+leveraged by one/both.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

dyauspitr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Outlaw what? Prevent companies from selling goods and services to each other?

▲

carefulfungi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The problem described isn't companies buying goods and services. It's buying from an entity they partially own and then profiting as that entity becomes more valuable because of the purchase.

▲

dyauspitr 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s still very tenuous you can’t prevent companies that own 5% of other companies from buying services from the that company

	▲	matthewdgreen 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We can prevent anything we want. If there's a major AI crash analogous to the Depression, we'll probably institute a lot of new regulations.

▲

mihaic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, if it's done with an intent to defraud the general population, which could be the case here. Effects and intent really matter when deciding actions.

	▲	spwa4 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except the regulators first outlawed what is generally considered to have caused the great depression (savings banks allowed to invest, which translates to very, very rich people being allowed to take massive risks with poor people's money) ... then re-legalized it. So not only are the regulators not going to allow things that cause another great depression, they're allowing the things that caused the first great depression too. They must want a rerun. (Because if you don't allow this you're effectively demanding the extremely rich make good investments to stay rich ... and not even France, otherwise pretty socialist, dares to go that far)

▲

whateveracct 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it's not about that. it's about how it gets reported in their financials.

▲

snypher 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think SpaceX should be valued on rockets n space n stuff, not how many magical calculator dollars they bring in.

Surely Google can "make compute go" for $1b/month. Nice way to avoid holding the bag, maybe?

	▲	trollbridge 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The market seems to value both rockets and magical calculators.
	▲	dyauspitr 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean, we all understand that this is some sort of circular financial play, but at the end of the day Google is paying SpaceX $1 billion for compute. This is no different from AWS or Azure.