Sunday, May 3, 2026
Elon Musk is the Ivar Kreuger of our time, and the OpenAI trial is PROVING it in real time.
If you don't know who Kreuger was, you should:
In the 1920s he was the most admired businessman in the world. The "Match King."
He controlled 90% of global match production, lent money to sovereign governments, and his securities were the most widely held in America.
But after his death in 1932, auditors spent 5 years untangling over 400 subsidiary companies and discovered the whole thing was held together with fictitious assets, forged bonds, and the unquestioning loyalty of people too dazzled to ask questions.
Investors lost $750 million (~$17 billion in today's money). His deficits exceeded Sweden's national debt.
Doesn't this sound familiar?
The Musk playbook is the most DANGEROUS house of cards I've witnessed in my career.
This week in federal court, Musk took the stand to argue that Sam Altman stole a charity. 3 days later he'd contradicted himself under oath so many times that the judge told his lawyers she suspected plenty of people don't want to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk's hands.
OpenAI's attorney asked if Tesla is pursuing AGI. Musk said no. The attorney then pulled up Musk's OWN post from March 4 where he wrote Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI.
His own words entered into evidence against him. BY HIM.
Then the attorney asked if xAI used OpenAI's models to train Grok (which violates OpenAI's terms of service).
Musk called it a general practice among AI companies. Pressed for a direct answer, he said "partly."
Think about that: Musk is in court accusing OpenAI of betrayal while admitting under oath that xAI violated the very same company's terms of service to build Grok.
Then came the credibility test:
Musk was asked to name his companies that benefit society. He listed Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and X without hesitation. Every one of them is an uncapped for-profit enterprise.
Then why did xAI start as a benefit corporation and quietly flip to a for-profit C-corp? No clean answer.
This is someone who repeatedly launches entities with noble-sounding charters and converts them into for-profit corporations once the money gets serious.
Then his money manager Jared Birchall took the stand:
OpenAI's lawyer asked about the donor-advised funds at Vanguard and Fidelity that Musk used to send his $38 million. Did Musk have any legal right to direct where the money went once it entered the DAF?
Birchall couldn't answer. Said the legal question was beyond his expertise.
The entire lawsuit hinges on that donation creating enforceable obligations. But the man who managed Musk's money just told a federal jury he can't confirm Musk had any enforceable claim over those funds.
Now step back...
This is a man who promised full autonomy by 2018, a million robotaxis by 2020, and unsupervised FSD by June 2025.
EVERY deadline was missed.
He claimed he invested $100 million in OpenAI. The real number was $38 million. His defense? His "reputation" made up the difference.
Kreuger had 400 subsidiaries and used one entity to prop up another through structures nobody could follow. Musk has Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink, the Boring Company, and X.
He shifts AI talent from Tesla to xAI, has xAI building the brains for Tesla's Optimus robot, and uses X as a megaphone while the algorithm amplifies his narrative to 200 million followers.
Kreuger's investors trusted the man, NOT the math.
They loved the confidence. They stopped asking questions because the aura of genius made questioning feel foolish.
The same psychology applies to Musk's empire today.
Kreuger's reckoning took 5 years of forensic auditing after his death. But Musk is providing his in REAL TIME: contradicting his own posts under oath, admitting to the practices he's suing others for, watching his logic collapse under cross-examination.
Different decade.
Different industry.
Same ending.
The truth always catches up.
Been down the rabbit hole and followed links to sites like https://ncua.gov/news/ deregulation-project where you'll find that credit unions are in the middle of a deregulation project based off of one of Trump's executive orders. If you read the substack below, you'll see this is all from the Project 2025 playbook.
Regulations exist to protect the consumer, you, us, we the people. And without those regulations, banks will do whatever shady shit they feel like to make sure THEIR bottom dollar increases, not yours.
There is something we can do though.
They make policy change proposals that are open to the public for comment. We can go tell them that we don't want deregulation. They have one up to remove verbiage about refunding interest to you. They say it's duplicative, well, ask yourself why? Why would they have duplicative verbiage on something like that unless it was because there were gaps or loopholes in the original verbiage which wasn't in favor of the consumer? Do we know that 100% for sure? No. But this admin has worked for a large bank and knows they don't duplicate anything, they cover tracks.
There's another proposal to remove regulations for reputational risk. Sounds like no big deal, but do you remember the Wells Fargo scandal, when they were caught creating accounts in people's names without permission, so branch workers could meet goals? The massive loss in confidence from the public that came from that, THAT is reputational risk. So what do you think they will try to get away with if there's no regulations?
You have a voice in so much more than just calling your reps. Go read through some of these proposals and leave comments. Especially if you bank with a credit union. (We'll look into other websites for regular banks to see if there's a similar option and post if we find anything.)
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NCUA-2026-0266-0001







