I think this part tells you everything you'd need to know:
"We turn to his views on government and politics and the Twitter Musk appears, the more emotional, unrestrained persona that comes across in his frenetic posts. He is lauding billionaires as the most efficient stewards of capital, best placed to decide on the allocation of social benefits. “If the alternative steward of capital is the government, that is actually not going to be to the benefit of the people,” says Musk."
Might as well return to having kings and queens huh, after all what is more righteous than divine intervention? And in any case, why stop at billionaires? Corporations are worth trillions, wouldn't they be even better suited to decide the allocation of social benefits?
Honestly, this much is known. I think Bill Gates shares this perspective, that somehow because they are billionaires they know better than the rest of us. But excuse me, not everyone has had the chance to be born in such privilege. The economic structures of our world will always produce billionaires because market systems often tend to concentration of capital and this concentration of capital and money is clearly translated into concentration of power which in turn makes the process even faster. Of course these people are talented and smart in many ways but it's silly to think that they would have the capabilities of solving the world's problems. I mean, why aren't they already doing it? It feels like somehow we're back at the gilded age.
Here's my opinion: If someone thinks they are capable of making tough decisions for hundreds, thousands, millions of people then they are probably not the right person to make such decisions. Personally, I believe decisions should be made collectively and locally and we should have systems capable of bubbling up decisions from the local communities into the global sphere. But the decisions themselves has to reside in the small groups of people that are actually affected by them, not in billionaires who will go to a restaurant and order a whole lamb just to have a taste because they're on a diet after looking fat in a picture from their yacht.
There's quite a lot on which I agree with Musk, but that's an issue on which I strongly disagree. People whose primary attribute is that they hoard as much money and power as possible for themselves, are not in any way the best stewards of capital. Many billionaires have clearly shown how unsuited they are at deciding on the allocation of social benefits.
No, it should be the people. And if it can't be the people, it should be a government that represents the people. And if your government doesn't represent the people, then that is the thing that needs to be fixed.
> Might as well return to having kings and queens huh
While I get that that is hyperbolic for effect, I wonder if anyone has done a study of billionaires on the whole and how their "post-becoming-a-billionaire" economic investments and actions have actually benefited society. I'd be most interested in whether 'billionaires' are demonstrably a force for good, and whether there are measurably better alternatives. Elon consistently annoys me these days, but I can't deny that historically he has demonstrated being an exceptionally talented organizer and enabler of change, and I do think his remarks about the results of his participation in the auto industry are between slightly over-exaggerated and spot-on.
> that somehow because they are billionaires they know better than the rest of us.
Respectfully, I'd propose that it leans more the other way around: (early on) they knew better than average (Musk & Gates were both prolific readers), and thus the fruits of their labors are that they now have tremendous wealth. Of course, it's not a purely linear equation either: (1) the more wealth you pursue, the more mistakes you make, the more you learn, and (2) the more wealth you ultimately accrue, the more the opportunity landscape warps around you because you're the deep pocket now. So, yes, to an extent, although it pains me to admit, on the topic of business billionaires would probably score as well or better than the average person when tested.
It becomes reasonable that billionaires adopt this warped (mother/father knows best) perspective, because their world is fundamentally warped when compared to someone without a tremendous audience at their fingertips. I don't think that makes our right or theirs wrong, but it sure is annoying sometimes. It is however a fallacy to believe that just because someone is born more directly into the opportunity to become a billionaire (as Elon certainly was) that it immediately disqualifies them from having earned it. Kardashian kids are a different story.
> but billionaires optimize for their own wealth growth.
Okay, and by so doing make cheaper or more capable products and new jobs and technologies. But I can’t figure out what I said previously that this is in response to unfortunately.
There will always be someone, in our system, capable of taking the opportunities that they're given and becoming a billionaire. All of these great inventions are nothing but the result of years and years of societal effort; I mean, in the case of Musk he is now one of the richest men thanks to Tesla a company and products he didn't create but bought! Of course, he did a lot of work to get the company to where it is and that's amazing... but I think these people like to think of themselves as market-creators instead of simply market-discoverers if that makes sense.
And also, I guess I didn't emphasised this point enough but I don't really think Elon Musk is not, say, more knowledgeable in many areas that the average person. I think that is in fact true, but when you are dealing with politics there is so much more that should be considered. It might not be obvious but who makes a decision is as important as what the decision is. When things go right, we can all be happy, but when things go wrong and things will go wrong a shared decision is much better for society than a decision that was made by a single individual. In reality, what Musk is describing is nothing new, these systems of governance have been explored and discussed at length for century if not thousands of years! And I this illustrates very well how Musk is walking proof that what he's saying is wrong: he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to governance. He thinks he knows the right answer to questions that people spend their entire lives exploring and he doesn't really engage in any serious way with all the literature and work that's been done in this area.
And finally, here's my personal opinion on the matter of governance: I think the average person might be better suited to make a good decision for a very simple reason, an average person will not have the ego that Musk has and is most likely willing to change their minds. Though our modern political structures do not really allow for people to actually change their minds a lot, there are plenty of deliberative-democracy experiments done in Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, etc. that have shown very promising results in allowing groups of people to actually make well informed decisions on very touchy subjects. There are good structures and proposals out there and I've never really seen Musk even consider these; most likely he doesn't know about them... but then you should ask yourself: if he's so interested, then why doesn't he actually engage in the topic deeply? Ultimately, he's a businessman and he's more worried or at least as worried about making money than he is about making the world a better place. I think he truly believes making money and improving the world are compatible, and I'm not saying it might not be that way, but to me that in itself is a discussion worth having and I'm not sure how dogmatic he is in this view but considering he is a billionaire I'd be almost willing to bet that he has a pretty set view in this regard.
The company didn’t even have a car when he “bought it”. Nobody drives the lotus. Elon is responsible for pushing Tesla to scale—why are people so enamored with this clearly fallacious narrative? You even go on to say that he did a lot of work etc etc. so what does it have to do with anything?
> Market creators vs market discoverers
Is math created or discovered? The “market” for EVs was nonexistent in the early days of Tesla. So no, it doesn’t make sense.
> All this shit about governance (and your clear affinity for socialism or communism)
With all due respect, the only thing that has been proven not to work is everything. Communism ends in tears, capitalism ends in fire. It’s becomes humans are bound to the second law of entropy. Communism might work better if we all had a little brain chip (not Elon’s) in our skulls that gave us a kick of dopamine when our we gave our money to the communal pot. Until then our biology runs contrary to communism being functional.
> Avg person is better suited to make small decisions, and all that bs
The irony is that you’re here proposing that nobody should be allowed to make big decisions, which is a bigger decision than anybody has ever made. Bigger than Nagasaki.
> modern political structures don’t allow ppl to change their minds a lot
What is centrism? Despite me lambasting your opinion, I have a core faith in capitalism over the alternatives but absolutely detest the Republican Party for what it’s become and won’t vote Republican for at least a decade or more. ????
> Musk hasn’t considered direct democracy
I mean I’m not Musk’s keeper but, he has, and he has historically disregarded direct democracy as chaos. That’s his opinion.
If you think someone is the devil you might study them before you parrot the Reddit cliff notes on the person. I guess you haven’t really “considered” Musk.
Math is a language we use to describe natural phenomenon. Mathematical language is created but the fundamentals are discovered. Our brains have specific neural pathways that encode concepts that encode the fundamentals of mathematics such as the concept of containers, of "more" and "less" and so on.
>With all due respect, the only thing that has been proven not to work is everything. Communism ends in tears, capitalism ends in fire. It’s becomes humans are bound to the second law of entropy. Communism might work better if we all had a little brain chip (not Elon’s) in our skulls that gave us a kick of dopamine when our we gave our money to the communal pot. Until then our biology runs contrary to communism being functional.
I actually recommend a book called "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber which actually questions this idea of our biology dictating one or another type of societal structure. It's a very interesting read. Let me first say that societies are not just its economic system (so capitalist mode of production, socialist, communist, etc.) but also a cultural and political one. Not only that but an economic system itself is composed of different parts as well: markets are a component of capitalism but markets are NOT capitalism. Markets exist in feudal system and they can also exist in socialist systems. Another component of capitalism is private property which is NOT the same as personal property, so this is the difference between owning a business and owning a house. My personal view is that decisions are better made when more people that are affected by it are involved in making such a decision, it is why I believe firmly in Democracies versus Monarchies. But firms in modern capitalist systems follow monarchic structures of governance as opposed to democratic ones. And in any case, I have lots of critiques of modern representative democratic systems anyway. With this said, I think you're actually pretty wrong in thinking that our biology runs contrary to sharing economies. It's true that we are not ants but humans are hyper-social creatures and countries in Europe are definitely leagues above the USA when it comes to "sharing to a communal pot" and as David Graeber shows very well in his book there are even much more extreme of sharing societies (that btw, are not communists).
>The irony is that you’re here proposing that nobody should be allowed to make big decisions, which is a bigger decision than anybody has ever made. Bigger than Nagasaki.
I'm proposing a view, I'm not imposing it. Everyone is allowed of course to propose, to discuss and ultimately to decide. But decisions such as "what kind of political system we should have" are decisions that have never been taken in a fully democratic way. Modern societies are all constitutional-based republics but think about who and the conditions that gave rise to these texts! I recommend here a book by a chilean author called "Systemic Corruption: Constitutional ideas for an anti-oligarchic republic" that goes in-depth about the history of different constitutions and republics starting with Greek and Roman history all the way to modern constitutions.
>What is centrism? Despite me lambasting your opinion, I have a core faith in capitalism over the alternatives but absolutely detest the Republican Party for what it’s become and won’t vote Republican for at least a decade or more.
But do you honestly believe that the US political system is balanced in any way? It's a bipartisan system, by definition there is no center. You'd need at least a system with 3 parties to be able to have a center. But not only that, from the outside (I live in Australia) the US political system looks to be shifted entirely to the right of the political spectrum! Republicans are not "the right" democrats are. Republicans are quite literally the far-right, they're no better than Meloni, Lepen, etc. in Europe! Think about what the political spectrum looks like in European countries where you actually still have active communist and socialist parties with people in congress! I mean Germany has just nationalised a big energy distribution company in lieu of the energy crisis; that's not a decision you'd ever see in America.
>I mean I’m not Musk’s keeper but, he has, and he has historically disregarded direct democracy as chaos. That’s his opinion.
Stating something, disregarding it is not the same as engaging with it. Switzerland is probably one of the most orderly democracies in the world and their core tenant is direct democracy so how could anyone disregard such an option? Has Musk read any critique to Plato's republic? To engage with something is to read through it, to read critiques to it. Anyone that simply "disregards" an entire political philosophy seems to me like they are not really interested in engaging with the topic very well. As such, I'm not really disregarding Musks ideas but I'm offering you an extensive set of reasons on why I disagree with it. Just saying "direct democracy is chaos" is such a simple statement that does not really engage in any profound way with the whys and hows. Every good political structure requires balance.
Except billionaires become billionaires because it’s a gift from the government.
This is what I believe: a corporate billionaire’s wealth is a fraction of the valuation of the company and what it is capable of delivering. What the govt does is offer the supports and environment for it to thrive. You need the government’s blessings. (Not the politicians’..there is a big difference)
When a company delivers maximum value to the public good in the form of public investment potential, jobs, services..then it is not because of the billionaire but because of the potential value and national stability his product or company provides.
A good example is Jeff Bezos. He might be worth billions but the sheer amount of value derived from investing in Amazon shares(pension funds do this .. for example) and the money supply and movement created by the jobs Amazon provides is more valuable than the services Amazon provides to people. Anyone can be an online book seller, but Amazon can employ thousands and also give an opportunity for a little old lady to collect her pension after working as office admin in a local school.
What the govt wants is stability in economy. This isn’t about politicians or parties. Ultimately they all strive towards keeping America stable and Americans happy. An unstable economy leads to revolts and revolution. Think Syria or South Africa. Happy citizens = stable economy. Stable economy = lights are on and tables are full = peace. Unstable countries are run by corrupt politicians and dictators. Not a government.
Musk doesn’t get it. He doesn’t come from a stable country and cannot comprehend how America works. His opinion might be valid in South Africa but not here. We do have a stable govt that is vested with the nation’s welfare. Our govt is not against us.
Also why Amazon and Google and Facebook(not anymore. Meta will fail) will have more Godfathers in the Govt than any SoftBank company. Because SoftBank investments for example will benefit Japan and Saudi money and not benefit the common man in America. These home grown American companies represent American soft power globally. They will always be treasured and will get an extra bowl of soup. The others will get stepchild treatment unless they aid America. As it should be. Any nation should look after its own interests first.
These unicorn companies didn’t get there by themselves or just because of their founders. They had help. Because they pledged commitment to the United States to help and be helped. Again..Elon Musk doesn’t get it. He might be American now but he acts like he hasn’t accepted the country that has adopted him. He couldn’t have become the success he is in any other country other than America. Doesn’t have appreciation or know how to say Thank you before asking for the next helping.
He has definitely managed to become a problem. He is like a guy who is completely oblivious that the girl likes him but continues to insult her because he thinks it’s good for a laugh as buddies. The girl..America…has a crush on him, but wants respect in what can be a potential great relationship.
Yes I agree with you. But is America more interested in its people (humans) or its corporations (which according to American law they are people). And how do these decisions affect the world as a whole? Is America such a special place that it should be above every other country in the world?
I think in many ways, America (the nation) falls into pretty much the same trap that Musk falls into but on a higher level of complexity. The so called American exceptionalism. In reality, you see this thinking permeate every level. Apple definitely thinks they know best, so do every other company, so do their boards, so do their billionaires, so does their country. So I'm not sure I agree when you say that Musk doesn't get it, I think he gets it very well but doesn't get it right. And neither does anyone in America (the nation).
But historically this phenomenon isn't something that's unique to America but it is the curse of pretty much every empire in history. Every empire thinks they're the one to lead the world to greatness and they of course play a part. But every empire rises and then falls. So why would America be any different? I believe we're only going to get out of this trap when the world truly comes together and power and decision making become completely decentralised.
You are addressing two diff issues. America Vs Rest of the world is a diff topic from America vs Musk. I wasn’t commenting about anything that would suggest that America should/should not be above the rest of the world. This was merely about relationships between America and the billionaires USA fosters.
Without a doubt, the billionaires of America wouldn’t exist without American govt’s benevolence. The difference between other oligarchies and America is that America is benevolent to those who keep our economy stable and it is in the interest of the people(employment, environment etc).
Talking about American exceptionalism is slightly off topic, imo.
America is not cursed. It’s not perfect but very naturally, it’s interests are aligned towards the welfare of Americans and America’s position in the world. America will support anyone who makes this possible. This isn’t always true of many countries in the world as corrupt leaders and tribalism destabilizes the nation.
We have a stable economy. On balance, America is better than most other countries in terms like environment, hunger, employment etc. Cultural factors of our diverse population is not the failure of the nation. It’s called freedom. Example: malnutrition in poorer countries is due to lack of food or drought or famine. Malnutrition in America is mostly due to bad food choices of individuals. It is not the failure of America to keep its populace well fed. We have the cheapest food and the best supply chains. That’s all the govt can do. Etc.
America is not perfect but anyone ..including immigrants..can become billionaires here. As it’s been proven again and again. I doubt if this is possible anywhere else in the world at our scale and reach. Bashing America for perceived fill-in-the-blanks is weak. Often it’s a case of sour grapes even though US is not perfect.
> Except billionaires become billionaires because it’s a gift from the government.
I agree that governments have a part to play in creating regulations. But you’ll also notice how Tesla straight left California, because California tax law is just insane and Texas is more competitive.
Government definitely wants a stable economy.
Elon behavior is definitely a problem, although I don’t think it’s one worth worrying about. If he wants to piss on our collective respect for him, that’s his choice to do so.
Indeed, you are right. He is making it increasingly difficult for me to continue defending him which I so badly want to do.
He seems to be surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. He lacks the discrimination and wisdom to choose the right advisors. It is a special kind of tragedy.
This is my greatest fear, although I’m unsure of its validity. It certainly seems like it.
Hyperbillionaires basically aren’t human—they’re more like sentient, financial celestial bodies. Money planets. Their mere presence warps the financial world around them.
Maybe too many sycophants is like a star with more mass than it can handle, leading to supernova or black hole.
I don’t think society made Elon Musk a billionaire. The govt certainly encouraged him and provided him with support because they thought uplifting him and his companies would ultimately uplift American society. This was delivered by subsidies and loans and grants ..but mostly by opening doors. Sometimes by turning the other way and a blind eye.
Society can’t create billionaires. The total number of Teslas doesn’t even come close to its valuation which has contributed to his billionaire status. They bet on him (using our tax dollars) and on his future contributions. Turns out it was a bad bet.
"We turn to his views on government and politics and the Twitter Musk appears, the more emotional, unrestrained persona that comes across in his frenetic posts. He is lauding billionaires as the most efficient stewards of capital, best placed to decide on the allocation of social benefits. “If the alternative steward of capital is the government, that is actually not going to be to the benefit of the people,” says Musk."
Might as well return to having kings and queens huh, after all what is more righteous than divine intervention? And in any case, why stop at billionaires? Corporations are worth trillions, wouldn't they be even better suited to decide the allocation of social benefits?
Honestly, this much is known. I think Bill Gates shares this perspective, that somehow because they are billionaires they know better than the rest of us. But excuse me, not everyone has had the chance to be born in such privilege. The economic structures of our world will always produce billionaires because market systems often tend to concentration of capital and this concentration of capital and money is clearly translated into concentration of power which in turn makes the process even faster. Of course these people are talented and smart in many ways but it's silly to think that they would have the capabilities of solving the world's problems. I mean, why aren't they already doing it? It feels like somehow we're back at the gilded age.
Here's my opinion: If someone thinks they are capable of making tough decisions for hundreds, thousands, millions of people then they are probably not the right person to make such decisions. Personally, I believe decisions should be made collectively and locally and we should have systems capable of bubbling up decisions from the local communities into the global sphere. But the decisions themselves has to reside in the small groups of people that are actually affected by them, not in billionaires who will go to a restaurant and order a whole lamb just to have a taste because they're on a diet after looking fat in a picture from their yacht.