4 ms·

Jack Ma was a figurehead and didn't know anything about tech (see his interview with Musk). Musk has a very deep understanding of tech of his companies (at lea

Jack Ma was a figurehead and didn't know anything about tech (see his interview with Musk). Musk has a very deep understanding of tech of his companies (at least for a CEO), so are most other American tech CEOs. As was pointed out, you can't siphon away tech like you can do with oil and other commodities without making things stop working.

chaostheory 4y ago
Maybe Zhang Yiming and Colin Huang are better examples? If not, there are plenty more. The fact is that extreme centralized economic planning is the enemy of innovation.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  This is a common legend, but it's hard to accept. China is way more innovative than much of Europe for example. The USSR was actually an extremely innovative place as well. Also, huge corporations are themselves extremely centrally planned, and that is where much of their strengths lie. There's a reason why Apple was able to capitalize on the smartphone, and it wasn't some market of suppliers. The problem with centralized planning is that it tends to ignore many local concerns, often with disastrous consequences, especially when leaders start to ignore any feedback from below in their central planning. This has caused the downfall of innumerable companies in various markets, but there is usually another company to take their place. When used by countries, it causes famines and other avoidable disasters, as happened in much of the USSR and China, especially under Mao's monstrous regime. But when done right, as it was in China after the 90s and before the Pooh, it has also caused the single biggest reduction in poverty in world history, measured by number of people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - petre 4y ago
    > China is way more innovative than much of Europe for example Of course they are, having built upon stolen EU and US tech and having trained their people in the West. But they learn fast and incrementally improve those designs. The difference is the Russians had their very own designs. Even in electronics, their concepts are fundamentally different from western concepts.
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      > having built upon stolen EU and US tech and trained their people in the West. But they learn fast and incrementally improved those designs. its the way for many successful countries... the u.s stole tech and ignored patents from england/europe to a great result, same with korea and japan and taiwan (with regard to "the west") etc... its not unusual
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Yea this is true, it’s just annoying that they do that and then boast as if it’s their own technology while screaming about the virtues of their State, which, is inarguably inferior on this particular point given that in order to advance in technology they must acquire it from superior economic systems.
    - bigcat12345678 4y ago
      Who is paying the royalty for gun powder?
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        Uh, this is disingenuous. Patents are limited to 20 years, and for a good reason. (I would wish for much shorter copyrights, too, or at least for the need to register and pay them after X years.)
        bigcat12345678 4y ago
        You are missing the point. In the era there is no royalty system at all. The moment royalty was introduced, it was unfair, unequal, already with a clear economy and political agenda.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    China’s population is double that of Europe, so China would need to produce twice the quantity of innovation to be comparably innovative. I’m not saying it doesn’t achieve this, but we should be wary of comparing two places with vastly different populations. > But when done right, as it was in China after the 90s and before the Pooh, it has also caused the single biggest reduction in poverty in world history, measured by number of people. This was largely China moving away from a planned economy and toward a more market oriented economy. Also, you have to take care about how you measure “largest reduction in poverty” here as well because poverty was declining all over the world at the same time, largely driven by advancements from the capitalist west and globalization. I’m sure economic planning can be credited with something, but the key element was “allowing western money to pour into the country” which looks a lot more like capitalism than central planning to my eyes.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      > This was largely China moving away from a planned economy and toward a more market oriented economy. Possibly, though they still retained much more control than the capitalist economies they outgrew. > Also, you have to take care about how you measure “largest reduction in poverty” here as well because poverty was declining all over the world at the same time, largely driven by advancements from the capitalist west and globalization. That is not true. The rest of the world outside China has remained at the same or worse poverty levels, largely. > I’m sure economic planning can be credited with something, but the key element was “allowing western money to pour into the country” which looks a lot more like capitalism than central planning to my eyes. If China had played by free market rules, Huawei, Alibaba and Xiaomi would not be competing with Samsung, Apple or Amazon right now. A large part of China's advantage came from the state using its negotiating power to force foreign companies to trade their IP for cheap manufacturing, thus propelling China's intellectual elite back from the dark age that it had been plunged into. Individual Chinese companies probably lost profits for a long time because of this, and much more US, Japanese or European money would have pourn in if they didn't enforce this policy; but, they would be much poorer today. Edit: note that China is and has always been a capitalist country. They were centrally planned state capitalists, and have moved somewhat in the direction of free market capitalism. But there has never been a period in China's history when production or wealth were democratically controlled.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    > when leaders start to ignore any feedback from below in their central planning. This has caused the downfall of innumerable companies in various markets this is called genba-ron (現場論) in japanese, and is part of the 3 g's (Gemba, Genbutsu, Genjitsu) that you learn in manufacturing (but can be applied genrally as well) basically you cant dictate things from afar but must empower those on the ground (genba) because only they see the actual things (genbutsu) going on and the actual results (genjitsu) of policies...
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    I think you meant WAS more innovative because it was opening up AND was becoming less dependent on central planning. Then Xi came along and single-handedly ruined nearly everything including the One China Two Systems policy that was carefully laid out by Deng Xiaoping. Imo as you've mentioned if a leader like Xi, a Mao regressionist, didn’t take power and instead someone like Jiang Zemin took it, China would have likely passed the US in innovation by now.
    - kwere 4y ago
      to be fair the backbone of the economic engine, real estate sprawling and the "hustle corruption" (really low wages integrated by bribes) and other cancerous issues were literally crearted/reinforced by jiang zemin / hu jintao. XI tried too late to change some things like education for profit (with political objectives) but his approaches were stupid and looked more like a political stamp down on rivals economic bases leaving the country to suffer
411111111111111 4y ago
> Musk has a very deep understanding of tech of his companies Like with his white paper for the Hyperloop which was fundamentally wrong and couldn't have worked? Or with his idea of putting Hyperloop segments on.... Wheels? Or with his idea to make the whole rocket reusable, until SpaceX accepted reality and pivoted to at least partial reusability? Or to cite current examples: full self driving that doesn't actively kill drivers when...? And while I'd love to have one, his idea for that household robot is straight out impossible with current technology. If anything, musk is an example of the parent, as all of his companies improved after they got over his original technical ideas. I don't understand why people keep wanting to put celebrities on high pedestals with completely unrealistic expectations. He's a successful businessman and extremely talented influencer, he has enough achievements to his name without randomly adding more to it.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Watch his interviews on Everyday Astronaut, he actually does have a deep understanding of the tech side of SpaceX as well.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Musk has a "I am very smart and thus can never be wrong"-problem, has gravitational bending amounts of arrogance, and seems to have some personality issues. But he's not stupid or ignorant, and has a better understanding of tech than most CEOs. I don't think that's putting him "on a high pedestal".
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > Musk has a "I am very smart and thus can never be wrong"-problem Outside his own domains of expertise he certainly comes across that way, but he does also say "yeah I reckon there's only like a 60% chance of our latest rocket not exploding".
  - arlcode 4y ago
    A few years back a popular claim was that Musk is personally programming features into the Tesla codebase. Whether that actually happened or not isn't that important but the fact that people thought it was a good thing always struck me as odd. It's really bad if the boss of a multinational company focuses on such minute details and hints at major management failures. All signs point to him being a very talented businessman and organizer who manages to get a lot of people producing innovative and popular products. It seems like people underestimate just how much of a challenge that is and feel the need to "give" him some more tangible skills. He has good understanding of the broad strokes of their technology and carries the vision forward but an Engineer-CEO he isn't and shouldn't be.
deltaonenine 4y ago

chaostheory 4y ago

Maybe Zhang Yiming and Colin Huang are better examples? If not, there are plenty more. The fact is that extreme centralized economic planning is the enemy of innovation.

tsimionescu 4y ago
This is a common legend, but it's hard to accept. China is way more innovative than much of Europe for example. The USSR was actually an extremely innovative place as well. Also, huge corporations are themselves extremely centrally planned, and that is where much of their strengths lie. There's a reason why Apple was able to capitalize on the smartphone, and it wasn't some market of suppliers. The problem with centralized planning is that it tends to ignore many local concerns, often with disastrous consequences, especially when leaders start to ignore any feedback from below in their central planning. This has caused the downfall of innumerable companies in various markets, but there is usually another company to take their place. When used by countries, it causes famines and other avoidable disasters, as happened in much of the USSR and China, especially under Mao's monstrous regime. But when done right, as it was in China after the 90s and before the Pooh, it has also caused the single biggest reduction in poverty in world history, measured by number of people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- petre 4y ago
  > China is way more innovative than much of Europe for example Of course they are, having built upon stolen EU and US tech and having trained their people in the West. But they learn fast and incrementally improve those designs. The difference is the Russians had their very own designs. Even in electronics, their concepts are fundamentally different from western concepts.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    > having built upon stolen EU and US tech and trained their people in the West. But they learn fast and incrementally improved those designs. its the way for many successful countries... the u.s stole tech and ignored patents from england/europe to a great result, same with korea and japan and taiwan (with regard to "the west") etc... its not unusual
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Yea this is true, it’s just annoying that they do that and then boast as if it’s their own technology while screaming about the virtues of their State, which, is inarguably inferior on this particular point given that in order to advance in technology they must acquire it from superior economic systems.
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    Who is paying the royalty for gun powder?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Uh, this is disingenuous. Patents are limited to 20 years, and for a good reason. (I would wish for much shorter copyrights, too, or at least for the need to register and pay them after X years.)
      - bigcat12345678 4y ago
        You are missing the point. In the era there is no royalty system at all. The moment royalty was introduced, it was unfair, unequal, already with a clear economy and political agenda.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  China’s population is double that of Europe, so China would need to produce twice the quantity of innovation to be comparably innovative. I’m not saying it doesn’t achieve this, but we should be wary of comparing two places with vastly different populations. > But when done right, as it was in China after the 90s and before the Pooh, it has also caused the single biggest reduction in poverty in world history, measured by number of people. This was largely China moving away from a planned economy and toward a more market oriented economy. Also, you have to take care about how you measure “largest reduction in poverty” here as well because poverty was declining all over the world at the same time, largely driven by advancements from the capitalist west and globalization. I’m sure economic planning can be credited with something, but the key element was “allowing western money to pour into the country” which looks a lot more like capitalism than central planning to my eyes.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > This was largely China moving away from a planned economy and toward a more market oriented economy. Possibly, though they still retained much more control than the capitalist economies they outgrew. > Also, you have to take care about how you measure “largest reduction in poverty” here as well because poverty was declining all over the world at the same time, largely driven by advancements from the capitalist west and globalization. That is not true. The rest of the world outside China has remained at the same or worse poverty levels, largely. > I’m sure economic planning can be credited with something, but the key element was “allowing western money to pour into the country” which looks a lot more like capitalism than central planning to my eyes. If China had played by free market rules, Huawei, Alibaba and Xiaomi would not be competing with Samsung, Apple or Amazon right now. A large part of China's advantage came from the state using its negotiating power to force foreign companies to trade their IP for cheap manufacturing, thus propelling China's intellectual elite back from the dark age that it had been plunged into. Individual Chinese companies probably lost profits for a long time because of this, and much more US, Japanese or European money would have pourn in if they didn't enforce this policy; but, they would be much poorer today. Edit: note that China is and has always been a capitalist country. They were centrally planned state capitalists, and have moved somewhat in the direction of free market capitalism. But there has never been a period in China's history when production or wealth were democratically controlled.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  > when leaders start to ignore any feedback from below in their central planning. This has caused the downfall of innumerable companies in various markets this is called genba-ron (現場論) in japanese, and is part of the 3 g's (Gemba, Genbutsu, Genjitsu) that you learn in manufacturing (but can be applied genrally as well) basically you cant dictate things from afar but must empower those on the ground (genba) because only they see the actual things (genbutsu) going on and the actual results (genjitsu) of policies...
- chaostheory 4y ago
  I think you meant WAS more innovative because it was opening up AND was becoming less dependent on central planning. Then Xi came along and single-handedly ruined nearly everything including the One China Two Systems policy that was carefully laid out by Deng Xiaoping. Imo as you've mentioned if a leader like Xi, a Mao regressionist, didn’t take power and instead someone like Jiang Zemin took it, China would have likely passed the US in innovation by now.
  - kwere 4y ago
    to be fair the backbone of the economic engine, real estate sprawling and the "hustle corruption" (really low wages integrated by bribes) and other cancerous issues were literally crearted/reinforced by jiang zemin / hu jintao. XI tried too late to change some things like education for profit (with political objectives) but his approaches were stupid and looked more like a political stamp down on rivals economic bases leaving the country to suffer

411111111111111 4y ago

> Musk has a very deep understanding of tech of his companies Like with his white paper for the Hyperloop which was fundamentally wrong and couldn't have worked? Or with his idea of putting Hyperloop segments on.... Wheels? Or with his idea to make the whole rocket reusable, until SpaceX accepted reality and pivoted to at least partial reusability? Or to cite current examples: full self driving that doesn't actively kill drivers when...? And while I'd love to have one, his idea for that household robot is straight out impossible with current technology. If anything, musk is an example of the parent, as all of his companies improved after they got over his original technical ideas. I don't understand why people keep wanting to put celebrities on high pedestals with completely unrealistic expectations. He's a successful businessman and extremely talented influencer, he has enough achievements to his name without randomly adding more to it.

snovv_crash 4y ago
Watch his interviews on Everyday Astronaut, he actually does have a deep understanding of the tech side of SpaceX as well.
Beltalowda 4y ago
Musk has a "I am very smart and thus can never be wrong"-problem, has gravitational bending amounts of arrogance, and seems to have some personality issues. But he's not stupid or ignorant, and has a better understanding of tech than most CEOs. I don't think that's putting him "on a high pedestal".
- ben_w 4y ago
  > Musk has a "I am very smart and thus can never be wrong"-problem Outside his own domains of expertise he certainly comes across that way, but he does also say "yeah I reckon there's only like a 60% chance of our latest rocket not exploding".
- arlcode 4y ago
  A few years back a popular claim was that Musk is personally programming features into the Tesla codebase. Whether that actually happened or not isn't that important but the fact that people thought it was a good thing always struck me as odd. It's really bad if the boss of a multinational company focuses on such minute details and hints at major management failures. All signs point to him being a very talented businessman and organizer who manages to get a lot of people producing innovative and popular products. It seems like people underestimate just how much of a challenge that is and feel the need to "give" him some more tangible skills. He has good understanding of the broad strokes of their technology and carries the vision forward but an Engineer-CEO he isn't and shouldn't be.

deltaonenine 4y ago