4 ms·

> He explicitly stated that he does not view it as a money-making opportunity. His goals are altruistic. A few hours ago he tweeted out an article that celebra

> He explicitly stated that he does not view it as a money-making opportunity. His goals are altruistic. A few hours ago he tweeted out an article that celebrates Musk as a great person for growing shareholder value: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1516057871108165637 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1516057871108165637 > The Tesla CEO’s track record proves he’s a pre-eminent builder of businesses and maximizer of shareholder value. That's not the article you'd tweet to support altruistic intentions, is it?

staunch 4y ago
1. He needs Tesla to be highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of renewable energy. It's expensive to build factories, etc. 2. He needs SpaceX to be highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of multi-planetary life. It's expensive to build rockets, etc. 3. He doesn't need Twitter to highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of making it a global free speech platform. It's relatively cheap to run an internet service. This is an entirely consistent point of view.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  The article is about shareholder value, not profitability. Anyway, that aside, the article was specifically written to address the people writing Elon Musk's off as "...a self-absorbed corporate carnival barker..." which is a conversation happening within the context of the Twitter takeover attempt; hence, "managerial excellence". Musk's choice to share the article clearly demonstrates that he believes his ability to drive shareholder value to be a defence of his "managerial" credentials. Whether his intentions for taking over Twitter are altruistic or not, I don't know, personally I don't think it's profit driven (but definitely wouldn't describe it as altruistic...) but defending your managerial ability on the basis that you're a producer of shareholder value in a conversation about the ability to run a "global free speech platform" is nonsensical and undermines any proclamation he makes about his intentions.
- id 4y ago
  So he only really became a billionaire because it was necessary in order to save the world? Is that what his fans actually believe?
  - staunch 4y ago
    You seem to have it backwards. He became a billionaire as a consequence of creating immensely valuable companies, not the other way around. And he risked the entirety of his previously earned fortune in order to so. These are facts that you can verify for yourself. That he's not highly motivated by money or luxury, at least at this stage in his life, is obvious for anyone to see.
    - rurp 4y ago
      Yes clearly the billions of dollars, millions of adoring fans, and immense power he's acquired are an unfortunate side effect of him being a good samaritan.
      - staunch 4y ago
        No one claimed such a ridiculous thing? The fact is that no one in history that has great things for humanity did so without having some degree of mixed motivations. There's no inherent contradiction in wanting to make lots of money, become popular, become powerful, and do good things for other people all at the same time. In fact, it's a very common set of motivations among smart people.
      - passivate 4y ago
        Maybe there is room between the two extremes?
    - id 4y ago
      >That he's not highly motivated by money or luxury, at least at this stage in his life, is obvious for anyone to see. Really? Are you aware of his gigantic compensation plan at Tesla? The crypto price manipulations? And his lifestyle is anything but ascetic.
EricE 4y ago
Success is not altruistic? You're typing on a computer attached to the Internet. Sounds suspiciously privileged.

staunch 4y ago

1. He needs Tesla to be highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of renewable energy. It's expensive to build factories, etc. 2. He needs SpaceX to be highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of multi-planetary life. It's expensive to build rockets, etc. 3. He doesn't need Twitter to highly profitable to achieve his ambitious goals of making it a global free speech platform. It's relatively cheap to run an internet service. This is an entirely consistent point of view.

phphphphp 4y ago
The article is about shareholder value, not profitability. Anyway, that aside, the article was specifically written to address the people writing Elon Musk's off as "...a self-absorbed corporate carnival barker..." which is a conversation happening within the context of the Twitter takeover attempt; hence, "managerial excellence". Musk's choice to share the article clearly demonstrates that he believes his ability to drive shareholder value to be a defence of his "managerial" credentials. Whether his intentions for taking over Twitter are altruistic or not, I don't know, personally I don't think it's profit driven (but definitely wouldn't describe it as altruistic...) but defending your managerial ability on the basis that you're a producer of shareholder value in a conversation about the ability to run a "global free speech platform" is nonsensical and undermines any proclamation he makes about his intentions.
id 4y ago
So he only really became a billionaire because it was necessary in order to save the world? Is that what his fans actually believe?
- staunch 4y ago
  You seem to have it backwards. He became a billionaire as a consequence of creating immensely valuable companies, not the other way around. And he risked the entirety of his previously earned fortune in order to so. These are facts that you can verify for yourself. That he's not highly motivated by money or luxury, at least at this stage in his life, is obvious for anyone to see.
  - rurp 4y ago
    Yes clearly the billions of dollars, millions of adoring fans, and immense power he's acquired are an unfortunate side effect of him being a good samaritan.
    - staunch 4y ago
      No one claimed such a ridiculous thing? The fact is that no one in history that has great things for humanity did so without having some degree of mixed motivations. There's no inherent contradiction in wanting to make lots of money, become popular, become powerful, and do good things for other people all at the same time. In fact, it's a very common set of motivations among smart people.
    - passivate 4y ago
      Maybe there is room between the two extremes?
  - id 4y ago
    >That he's not highly motivated by money or luxury, at least at this stage in his life, is obvious for anyone to see. Really? Are you aware of his gigantic compensation plan at Tesla? The crypto price manipulations? And his lifestyle is anything but ascetic.

EricE 4y ago

Success is not altruistic? You're typing on a computer attached to the Internet. Sounds suspiciously privileged.