4 ms·
Musk is certainly a self-promoter in the vein of P.T. Barnum. It's gotten to the point of irritation. But you can't deny he's changed the car industry. A comp
by WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
Musk is certainly a self-promoter in the vein of P.T. Barnum. It's gotten to the point of irritation. But you can't deny he's changed the car industry.
A company's true function is to benefit society. Tesla has done that, so he gets a win from me. He's done it by taking chances and thinking outside the box. The tent is an example. Most companies would have given up but they did not.
20 years from now Tesla might not be alive but we will see its impact on the car industry. Very cool, Musk.
- eptcyka 8y ago> A company's true function is to benefit society. Could you elaborate on how did you come to said conclusion?
- WheelsAtLarge 8y agoSure, at its basics, society has needs, known or unknown, good or bad so companies are created to fill the needs. Companies survive if they reach enough people with their solution. Sure there are ways to manipulate needs but at its basics companies are supposed to benefit society by filling those needs. We are fed the idea that companies are created to profit the investors but profits are a side effect of meeting needs.
- davnicwil 8y agoMore specifically, profits are a side effect of meeting sufficient numbers of individuals' needs. It does not necessarily follow that meeting the needs of those individuals benefits society at large. Profits are also a side effect of meeting needs today. It does not necessarily follow that meeting needs today benefits society in a meaningful way in the longer term. For what it's worth, I think your implication is true. Clearly most companies create wealth and deliver benefit to society, it's that aggregate effect that makes capitalism the most successful system we know of under which to run a society. But the reality is that it's entirely the other way around: companies do exist to profit their investors and it's the benefit to society that's the (usual, aggregate) side effect. It's not good, or bad, it's just a fact.
- jadedhacker 8y agoProfits are also a side effect of grabbing surplus value from their workers. Just sayin'
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y agoNo, not really. If only it were that simple.
- jadedhacker 8y agoIt's trivially true. A worker produces something and gets a fraction of their value paid back to them. They would not have been hired if it were not so.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y agoThat part is true, but that's not what you said. Getting profit from that surplus is something else entirely.
- Bendingo 8y ago> profits are a side effect of meeting needs It's the other way around.
- 3minus1 8y agoWhat about a company that happily sells guns and bombs to both sides in a Civil War? They are filling the needs of individuals to decimate society.
- Game_Ender 8y agoOn angle on that is we have societies have created the concept of an entity that is not a person who can assume debt, and has certain speech rights. So that entity is supposed to advance society more than alternative, which would be something like owners being personally liable for its debts and faults.
- maxerickson 8y agoIt's pretty much the justification for granting corporations limited liability, that the benefits of increased investment outweigh the harms of the limited liability.