What exactly does this guy bring to the table for Tesla? Money? Connections?
This goes completely against the intent of the SEC agreement and I would not expect this to be the end of it.
Obviously his prior experience where he "repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of as a chief executive and chairman" .
If I were a shareholder, I'd be screaming out to keep hold of Elon rather than Mr Murdoch.
> On 7 July 2011, James Murdoch announced the closure of the British tabloid newspaper the News of the World in the wake of a phone hacking scandal.
Although everyone has the right to make mistakes, this was the man who closed a 168yr old newspaper based on illegal activities that seemed rife in the company.
Based on what Mr Musk has already gone through, I don't think Mr Murdoch is what Tesla needs.
As an example, here is the board of directors for General Motors:
Not exactly a lot of car building experience.
- Former GM officials,
- Ex-managers of defense companies. They build machines too, right.
- Ex-joint chiefs of staff and business school head. They know management.
- Insurance and such. GM has a large workforce and managing that a good portion of activity.
Newscorp is a large organization too, but it seems more different from Tesla than the US Army, Cummins or even an insurance company is different than GM. So on it's face, it seems like the board knows something about manufacturing and managing large organizations. With Jame Murdock, it seems likes you could say "know something about spin", which might not be comforting.
The Murdochs are scum, but hey, if you're a world leader and Rupert Murdoch calls, you pick up the phone. Tony Blair only became PM because he sucked up to Murdoch to gain his papers' endorsement.
- Current CEO of GM
- Former Lockheed-associated Director was VP in charge of Information Systems. Assuming that's deliverable product and not internal IT (which she also ran), not exactly making the planes
- The former CEO of a drug manufacturer
- The former CEO of Harvard Management Company (the endowment)
- Retired Chairman of Joint Chiefs
- Retired CEO of a big oil company
- The Chairman of HP
- Former CFO of Wal-Mart
- Former CEO of Cummins (MOST adjacent business to GM vis engine mfg)
- Former Dean of Ivey Business School, The University of Western Ontario
- The CEO of eBay
So, sure, we can reach and say that some of the individuals have tangential industry experience or we can say that they are on the board because they have high degrees of personal/economic success, presumably large rolodexes, and various levels of experience at the top of large organizations.
I'm not taking a position on James Murdoch at all here, just pointing out that board members are not often subject matter experts of what a company produces so much as generally successful and influential people with various levels of business and leadership experience.
Did Elon have either before founding Tesla?
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The other option that this is a popularity contest and the position is mostly for forward facing purposes.
I'm going to guess that Elon will continue to micromanage from the sidelines but if this is a coup it definitely sets the stage for some drama.
I don't have horses in this race.
Already an insider within the company. You think anyone actually wants to deal with Musk?
Even if James Murdoch is entirely amoral and more of an abacus-bean-shifter (i.e., money guy), we must recognize that the reason why an electric car company like Tesla even exists is because of headstrong founders and employees who demanded a sustainable form of transport that was not just excellent among electric cars, but one of the greatest cars.
In a way, money guys getting into Tesla is validation of the mainstream viability of sustainable transport, but we are still in a fragile state where all kinds of forces are aligning themselves against Tesla. We still need people ideologically committed to a rapid sustainable transition.
> James Murdoch has been on the board for a while and is very good friends with Elon Musk. So this brings a sympathetic chairman who isn't going to crack down on Musk's erratic behaviour.
It seems a bit late to be concerned about this guy wielding influence at Tesla.
I remember seeing an interview about 5 years ago that featured both Elon Musk and Bob Lutz, vice chairman of GM. In the interview, Musk was incredibly deferential to Lutz and talked about his respect for Lutz and considered him a friend. They were very cordial. Nevertheless, Lutz has been on the record for many, many years as lambasting Tesla, it ambitious and sustainable aims, and its business model.
So hopefully it's a real friend and not a keep-your-enemies-closer friend. Or maybe either is fine.
Especially when the intent of the SEC agreement was that there was to be objective oversight of Musk.
I had never thought of Tesla being one of the 'good guys', especially with Musk's backward - even reactionary - views on public transport. It hadn't occurred to me that this might not be mainstream thought.
As far as helping to solve climate change, cars are part of it, but I wish people paid much more attention to the larger contributor: Agriculture.
I often get the feeling that people think changing cars to electric will solve the problem. It's important and helps, but it's just one piece of the pie. Not the biggest piece of it either.
Um, those countries are interconnected, so yes, it's way easier to travel vast distances in Europe through multiple countries in the US than it is to travel around without a car in nearly all of the states in the US. For example, want to get across Texas without wasting away in a series of greyhound bus stations? Good luck.
For what it is worth, according to Eurostat, cars are pretty important over there, too.
"Three quarters of trips by EU residents in 2016 were within their own country."
"Passenger car was by far the most important mode for passenger transport in all Member States."
"Passenger cars accounted for 83.1 % of inland passenger transport in the EU-28 in 2015, with motor coaches, buses and trolley buses (9.2 %) and passenger trains (7.7 %) both accounting for less than a tenth of all traffic (measured by the number of inland passenger-kilometres (pkm) travelled by each mode)"
I guess they like freedom over there, too.
No, my point is that if a group of countries can figure out how to improve transportation across themselves for similar distances, then why can't even individual states figure it out? They could, if they wanted to, but "freedom to drive" and other excuses.
You don't even need to "blanket" the country in tracks, for example. Connecting all major US cities would be a HUGE improvement over what exists today.
I'm not at all arguing that cars are unimportant, it's just that here in the US it is the only one of two choices for transportation (for almost all of the US) that we have given ourselves for moving between cities. The other option is air travel, which is expensive in terms of money and rights/privacy.
2) 7.7% is a nontrivial number, and I expect it to increase if transportation became more accessible
While I can’t profess any expertise on this topic, it strikes me as a possibly reasonable hypothesis that the sheer emptiness of much of the central US could have some kind of bearing on trying to make sustainable continent-wide public transport more difficult than in Europe.
Colorado for example, roughly the same size as the entire U.K., has around 50 people per square km. The U.K. has over 300. Even France, regarded in Europe as a largely rural State beyond a few large cities, is over 100.
Wishing for cars to go away is as pie-in-the-sky as wishing POTS or Email would disappear. Simply not going to happen - it's too ubiquitous.
The reason why is that a bus has to run whether or not it has passengers on it. A lot of empty buses without passengers are running around all day and night in most metro areas.
So yes, public transit makes a lot of sense where it makes sense. But it only makes sense within a relatively small number of very dense cities.
According to this article as long as you have about 11 people on a bus its more efficient.
It's also just generally easier to make electricity from renewable sources than to directly power cars with them.
It's the same shit-show in the UK. The same 20 Chairmen who know how to grease-the-wheels cycle around the big co's, milking fat-cat pay for 4 days a month.
This doesn't seem to be set in stone; rather, Murdoch is the lead candidate. There has to be a replacement for Musk by mid-November.
- Elon makes false accusations
- Elon says dumb thing about going private
- Elon smokes weed on a podcast (this is a +/don't care for me but I imagine not for Tesla's entire audience)
- Elon lets slip that the Saudis are where the money might have come from
- James Murdoch (that Murdoch, which generally people don't know or hate) might replace Musk on the board of Tesla
- Near constant questioning of company finances and viability
Before this year, Tesla was basically an awesome, expensive, trendy, and progressive car company that by and large people (those who can afford one, those who build them, those who love the planet, those who like high performance cars) loved --
We'll know soon enough with Q3's results. In the meantime, Model 3 are selling like hot cakes.
Tesla and Elon Musk propaganda campaigns are so successful on Hacker News that I'm getting close to just being done with the site entirely.
Hacker News? Every correction had zero upvotes. But now its the next day. This story is no longer on the front page. Anchoring effects are taking hold. Will Hacker News even ever know there was a correction to the article?
If I were an independent investor, I'd be pulling my money out after this news.
So it is technically nepotism.
"the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."