5 ms·

Elon Musk: ‘Aren’t You Entertained?’

17 points by NoRagrets 4y ago

quantified 4y ago
Paywall...
- anaganisk 4y ago
  Paywall or ads?
  - profstasiak 4y ago
    i choose a life of a pirate
alacritas0 4y ago
https://archive.ph/p4k5G https://archive.ph/p4k5G
jerojero 4y ago
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.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  > 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.
  - Tarsul 4y ago
    but billionaires optimize for their own wealth growth. Governments should optimize for very different stuff (with a touch of wealth growth, as well).
    - raydiatian 4y ago
      > 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.
ttyyzz 4y ago
That paywall is stupidly high. 39 € per month OR 345 € for 1 year Who in their right mind would pay that much money for this?
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  Over 1 million people, mostly corporate professionals. https://aboutus.ft.com/press_release/one-million-digital-subscribers https://aboutus.ft.com/press_release/one-million-digital-sub...
- NoRagrets 4y ago
  Maybe I got lucky with the allotted freebie article? I didn’t have paywall.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Kind of interesting. But I really wonder why anglosphere outlets can't do proper interviews. > Question. > Answer. > Question. > Answer. Not: "I asked whether ... he mentioned that ... the waiter served ... He recently ..."

17 points by NoRagrets 4y ago

quantified 4y ago

Paywall...

anaganisk 4y ago
Paywall or ads?
- profstasiak 4y ago
  i choose a life of a pirate

alacritas0 4y ago

https://archive.ph/p4k5G https://archive.ph/p4k5G

jerojero 4y ago

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.

raydiatian 4y ago
> 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.
- Tarsul 4y ago
  but billionaires optimize for their own wealth growth. Governments should optimize for very different stuff (with a touch of wealth growth, as well).
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    > 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.

ttyyzz 4y ago

That paywall is stupidly high. 39 € per month OR 345 € for 1 year Who in their right mind would pay that much money for this?

boeingUH60 4y ago
Over 1 million people, mostly corporate professionals. https://aboutus.ft.com/press_release/one-million-digital-subscribers https://aboutus.ft.com/press_release/one-million-digital-sub...
NoRagrets 4y ago
Maybe I got lucky with the allotted freebie article? I didn’t have paywall.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Kind of interesting. But I really wonder why anglosphere outlets can't do proper interviews. > Question. > Answer. > Question. > Answer. Not: "I asked whether ... he mentioned that ... the waiter served ... He recently ..."