4 ms·

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but being good for humanity overall is not the same as being a good person to be around. He definitely did a lot of good for

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but being good for humanity overall is not the same as being a good person to be around. He definitely did a lot of good for this world, but that doesn't mean that he's an easy person - quite to the contrary, to be this successful, you need to be very assertive and sure of yourself. Look at Bill Gates for another example. His early business dealings are well known to be ruthless and he pushed MS at the cost of a lot of things, but now he uses his wealth mostly for good. As much as we'd like, we really can't reduce people to "good person" and "bad person".

spaetzleesser 4y ago
The question is whether the damage these people made while accumulating wealth gets compensated by the good they did later. With Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller I don’t think so. With Gates I am not sure. Musk actually looks better. He has shaken up two industries that needed a good shake.
- Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
  > With Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller I don’t think so. With Gates I am not sure All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer. Nobody sheds a tear for the paper-millionaires, rightfully so. It's only their greed which didn't make them cashout before Standard Oil/Microsoft eventually outcompeted them delivering a better product to the consumer. Same with Facebook v. Myspace and Google v. Yahoo. Nobody sheds a tear for the shareholders of Myspace and Yahoo. Rightfully so. Musk is robbing taxpayers in the form of subsidies and tax credits for luxury vehicles which all end up parked in front of Bel Air mansions and 5th Avenue shops. On top of that he already said that he'll never do philantropy
  - spaetzleesser 4y ago
    “All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer” Especially Carnegie made life miserable for tens of thousands of his workers. No amount of charity can make up for the amount of suffering he caused.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer. Nobody sheds a tear for the paper-millionaires, rightfully so. Well actually... Microsoft was almost broken up by the government for what it did to Netscape, until there was a change of US Presidential administration, after which Microsoft was given a wrist slap, and then 9/11 immediately hit, which made the issue disappear from public consciousness. I'm not exaggerating here: the Department of Justice announced it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft in September 2001. See this article from the WSJ literally the day before 9/11: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000076767888491506 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000076767888491506
    - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      > Microsoft was almost broken up by the government for what it did to Netscape It should have been given the medal of freedom instead...those crackpots at netscape wanted to charge people money for the browser. Only former netscape shareholders could possibly defend Netscape. Microsoft I will always defend, the decision by Gates and Ballmer to allow piracy enabled me and my family to always have the latest version of Windows/Word/Encarta/IE even though we were poor.
  - greedo 4y ago
    The Federal EV tax credit for Tesla was completely phased out in 2020.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RivieraKid 4y ago
Exactly. In capitalism, if you want to become rich, successful and admired (purely selfless motivations), you usually end up being good for humanity as a byproduct.
- kibwen 4y ago
  That "usually" is doing a whoooooole lot of heavy lifting. Capitalism is the ultimate "fuck you, got mine" system, and only serves the good of society with heavy-handed intervention.
Cederfjard 4y ago
Assertiveness and being sure of yourself can almost be considered prerequisites to becoming that successful, sure I can buy that. Doing things like constantly posting juvenile and inflammatory stuff on Twitter (such as baselessly accusing people who you think have slighted you of being pedophiles), that I'm not as convinced points to traits that are as positive. > As much as we'd like, we really can't reduce people to "good person" and "bad person". I don't find that difficult at all. Yes, obviously literally every single person have good and bad characteristics and have done good and bad things. But as a human being I'm perfectly able to look at those things in aggregate and decide for myself if I think they tally up to someone being what I would personally consider a good or bad person.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

The question is whether the damage these people made while accumulating wealth gets compensated by the good they did later. With Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller I don’t think so. With Gates I am not sure. Musk actually looks better. He has shaken up two industries that needed a good shake.

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
> With Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller I don’t think so. With Gates I am not sure All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer. Nobody sheds a tear for the paper-millionaires, rightfully so. It's only their greed which didn't make them cashout before Standard Oil/Microsoft eventually outcompeted them delivering a better product to the consumer. Same with Facebook v. Myspace and Google v. Yahoo. Nobody sheds a tear for the shareholders of Myspace and Yahoo. Rightfully so. Musk is robbing taxpayers in the form of subsidies and tax credits for luxury vehicles which all end up parked in front of Bel Air mansions and 5th Avenue shops. On top of that he already said that he'll never do philantropy
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  “All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer” Especially Carnegie made life miserable for tens of thousands of his workers. No amount of charity can make up for the amount of suffering he caused.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > All 3 of them took wealth away from paper-millionaire shareholders of competing companies (eg. Netscape) and delivered superior quality of life to the consumer. Nobody sheds a tear for the paper-millionaires, rightfully so. Well actually... Microsoft was almost broken up by the government for what it did to Netscape, until there was a change of US Presidential administration, after which Microsoft was given a wrist slap, and then 9/11 immediately hit, which made the issue disappear from public consciousness. I'm not exaggerating here: the Department of Justice announced it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft in September 2001. See this article from the WSJ literally the day before 9/11: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000076767888491506 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000076767888491506
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    > Microsoft was almost broken up by the government for what it did to Netscape It should have been given the medal of freedom instead...those crackpots at netscape wanted to charge people money for the browser. Only former netscape shareholders could possibly defend Netscape. Microsoft I will always defend, the decision by Gates and Ballmer to allow piracy enabled me and my family to always have the latest version of Windows/Word/Encarta/IE even though we were poor.
- greedo 4y ago
  The Federal EV tax credit for Tesla was completely phased out in 2020.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RivieraKid 4y ago

Exactly. In capitalism, if you want to become rich, successful and admired (purely selfless motivations), you usually end up being good for humanity as a byproduct.

kibwen 4y ago
That "usually" is doing a whoooooole lot of heavy lifting. Capitalism is the ultimate "fuck you, got mine" system, and only serves the good of society with heavy-handed intervention.

Cederfjard 4y ago

Assertiveness and being sure of yourself can almost be considered prerequisites to becoming that successful, sure I can buy that. Doing things like constantly posting juvenile and inflammatory stuff on Twitter (such as baselessly accusing people who you think have slighted you of being pedophiles), that I'm not as convinced points to traits that are as positive. > As much as we'd like, we really can't reduce people to "good person" and "bad person". I don't find that difficult at all. Yes, obviously literally every single person have good and bad characteristics and have done good and bad things. But as a human being I'm perfectly able to look at those things in aggregate and decide for myself if I think they tally up to someone being what I would personally consider a good or bad person.