4 ms·

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, u

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.
- jerojero 4y ago
  There will always be someone, in our system, capable of taking the opportunities that they're given and becoming a billionaire. All of these great inventions are nothing but the result of years and years of societal effort; I mean, in the case of Musk he is now one of the richest men thanks to Tesla a company and products he didn't create but bought! Of course, he did a lot of work to get the company to where it is and that's amazing... but I think these people like to think of themselves as market-creators instead of simply market-discoverers if that makes sense. And also, I guess I didn't emphasised this point enough but I don't really think Elon Musk is not, say, more knowledgeable in many areas that the average person. I think that is in fact true, but when you are dealing with politics there is so much more that should be considered. It might not be obvious but who makes a decision is as important as what the decision is. When things go right, we can all be happy, but when things go wrong and things will go wrong a shared decision is much better for society than a decision that was made by a single individual. In reality, what Musk is describing is nothing new, these systems of governance have been explored and discussed at length for century if not thousands of years! And I this illustrates very well how Musk is walking proof that what he's saying is wrong: he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to governance. He thinks he knows the right answer to questions that people spend their entire lives exploring and he doesn't really engage in any serious way with all the literature and work that's been done in this area. And finally, here's my personal opinion on the matter of governance: I think the average person might be better suited to make a good decision for a very simple reason, an average person will not have the ego that Musk has and is most likely willing to change their minds. Though our modern political structures do not really allow for people to actually change their minds a lot, there are plenty of deliberative-democracy experiments done in Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, etc. that have shown very promising results in allowing groups of people to actually make well informed decisions on very touchy subjects. There are good structures and proposals out there and I've never really seen Musk even consider these; most likely he doesn't know about them... but then you should ask yourself: if he's so interested, then why doesn't he actually engage in the topic deeply? Ultimately, he's a businessman and he's more worried or at least as worried about making money than he is about making the world a better place. I think he truly believes making money and improving the world are compatible, and I'm not saying it might not be that way, but to me that in itself is a discussion worth having and I'm not sure how dogmatic he is in this view but considering he is a billionaire I'd be almost willing to bet that he has a pretty set view in this regard.
mcv 4y ago
There's quite a lot on which I agree with Musk, but that's an issue on which I strongly disagree. People whose primary attribute is that they hoard as much money and power as possible for themselves, are not in any way the best stewards of capital. Many billionaires have clearly shown how unsuited they are at deciding on the allocation of social benefits. No, it should be the people. And if it can't be the people, it should be a government that represents the people. And if your government doesn't represent the people, then that is the thing that needs to be fixed.
NoRagrets 4y ago
Except billionaires become billionaires because it’s a gift from the government. This is what I believe: a corporate billionaire’s wealth is a fraction of the valuation of the company and what it is capable of delivering. What the govt does is offer the supports and environment for it to thrive. You need the government’s blessings. (Not the politicians’..there is a big difference) When a company delivers maximum value to the public good in the form of public investment potential, jobs, services..then it is not because of the billionaire but because of the potential value and national stability his product or company provides. A good example is Jeff Bezos. He might be worth billions but the sheer amount of value derived from investing in Amazon shares(pension funds do this .. for example) and the money supply and movement created by the jobs Amazon provides is more valuable than the services Amazon provides to people. Anyone can be an online book seller, but Amazon can employ thousands and also give an opportunity for a little old lady to collect her pension after working as office admin in a local school. What the govt wants is stability in economy. This isn’t about politicians or parties. Ultimately they all strive towards keeping America stable and Americans happy. An unstable economy leads to revolts and revolution. Think Syria or South Africa. Happy citizens = stable economy. Stable economy = lights are on and tables are full = peace. Unstable countries are run by corrupt politicians and dictators. Not a government. Musk doesn’t get it. He doesn’t come from a stable country and cannot comprehend how America works. His opinion might be valid in South Africa but not here. We do have a stable govt that is vested with the nation’s welfare. Our govt is not against us. Also why Amazon and Google and Facebook(not anymore. Meta will fail) will have more Godfathers in the Govt than any SoftBank company. Because SoftBank investments for example will benefit Japan and Saudi money and not benefit the common man in America. These home grown American companies represent American soft power globally. They will always be treasured and will get an extra bowl of soup. The others will get stepchild treatment unless they aid America. As it should be. Any nation should look after its own interests first. These unicorn companies didn’t get there by themselves or just because of their founders. They had help. Because they pledged commitment to the United States to help and be helped. Again..Elon Musk doesn’t get it. He might be American now but he acts like he hasn’t accepted the country that has adopted him. He couldn’t have become the success he is in any other country other than America. Doesn’t have appreciation or know how to say Thank you before asking for the next helping. He has definitely managed to become a problem. He is like a guy who is completely oblivious that the girl likes him but continues to insult her because he thinks it’s good for a laugh as buddies. The girl..America…has a crush on him, but wants respect in what can be a potential great relationship.

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.
jerojero 4y ago
There will always be someone, in our system, capable of taking the opportunities that they're given and becoming a billionaire. All of these great inventions are nothing but the result of years and years of societal effort; I mean, in the case of Musk he is now one of the richest men thanks to Tesla a company and products he didn't create but bought! Of course, he did a lot of work to get the company to where it is and that's amazing... but I think these people like to think of themselves as market-creators instead of simply market-discoverers if that makes sense. And also, I guess I didn't emphasised this point enough but I don't really think Elon Musk is not, say, more knowledgeable in many areas that the average person. I think that is in fact true, but when you are dealing with politics there is so much more that should be considered. It might not be obvious but who makes a decision is as important as what the decision is. When things go right, we can all be happy, but when things go wrong and things will go wrong a shared decision is much better for society than a decision that was made by a single individual. In reality, what Musk is describing is nothing new, these systems of governance have been explored and discussed at length for century if not thousands of years! And I this illustrates very well how Musk is walking proof that what he's saying is wrong: he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to governance. He thinks he knows the right answer to questions that people spend their entire lives exploring and he doesn't really engage in any serious way with all the literature and work that's been done in this area. And finally, here's my personal opinion on the matter of governance: I think the average person might be better suited to make a good decision for a very simple reason, an average person will not have the ego that Musk has and is most likely willing to change their minds. Though our modern political structures do not really allow for people to actually change their minds a lot, there are plenty of deliberative-democracy experiments done in Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, etc. that have shown very promising results in allowing groups of people to actually make well informed decisions on very touchy subjects. There are good structures and proposals out there and I've never really seen Musk even consider these; most likely he doesn't know about them... but then you should ask yourself: if he's so interested, then why doesn't he actually engage in the topic deeply? Ultimately, he's a businessman and he's more worried or at least as worried about making money than he is about making the world a better place. I think he truly believes making money and improving the world are compatible, and I'm not saying it might not be that way, but to me that in itself is a discussion worth having and I'm not sure how dogmatic he is in this view but considering he is a billionaire I'd be almost willing to bet that he has a pretty set view in this regard.

mcv 4y ago

There's quite a lot on which I agree with Musk, but that's an issue on which I strongly disagree. People whose primary attribute is that they hoard as much money and power as possible for themselves, are not in any way the best stewards of capital. Many billionaires have clearly shown how unsuited they are at deciding on the allocation of social benefits. No, it should be the people. And if it can't be the people, it should be a government that represents the people. And if your government doesn't represent the people, then that is the thing that needs to be fixed.

NoRagrets 4y ago

Except billionaires become billionaires because it’s a gift from the government. This is what I believe: a corporate billionaire’s wealth is a fraction of the valuation of the company and what it is capable of delivering. What the govt does is offer the supports and environment for it to thrive. You need the government’s blessings. (Not the politicians’..there is a big difference) When a company delivers maximum value to the public good in the form of public investment potential, jobs, services..then it is not because of the billionaire but because of the potential value and national stability his product or company provides. A good example is Jeff Bezos. He might be worth billions but the sheer amount of value derived from investing in Amazon shares(pension funds do this .. for example) and the money supply and movement created by the jobs Amazon provides is more valuable than the services Amazon provides to people. Anyone can be an online book seller, but Amazon can employ thousands and also give an opportunity for a little old lady to collect her pension after working as office admin in a local school. What the govt wants is stability in economy. This isn’t about politicians or parties. Ultimately they all strive towards keeping America stable and Americans happy. An unstable economy leads to revolts and revolution. Think Syria or South Africa. Happy citizens = stable economy. Stable economy = lights are on and tables are full = peace. Unstable countries are run by corrupt politicians and dictators. Not a government. Musk doesn’t get it. He doesn’t come from a stable country and cannot comprehend how America works. His opinion might be valid in South Africa but not here. We do have a stable govt that is vested with the nation’s welfare. Our govt is not against us. Also why Amazon and Google and Facebook(not anymore. Meta will fail) will have more Godfathers in the Govt than any SoftBank company. Because SoftBank investments for example will benefit Japan and Saudi money and not benefit the common man in America. These home grown American companies represent American soft power globally. They will always be treasured and will get an extra bowl of soup. The others will get stepchild treatment unless they aid America. As it should be. Any nation should look after its own interests first. These unicorn companies didn’t get there by themselves or just because of their founders. They had help. Because they pledged commitment to the United States to help and be helped. Again..Elon Musk doesn’t get it. He might be American now but he acts like he hasn’t accepted the country that has adopted him. He couldn’t have become the success he is in any other country other than America. Doesn’t have appreciation or know how to say Thank you before asking for the next helping. He has definitely managed to become a problem. He is like a guy who is completely oblivious that the girl likes him but continues to insult her because he thinks it’s good for a laugh as buddies. The girl..America…has a crush on him, but wants respect in what can be a potential great relationship.