4 ms·
Yes. However, I would argue that is a good thing. Musk has become a poster child one can easily point to and ask a question along the lines of 'is it reasonable
by A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Yes. However, I would argue that is a good thing. Musk has become a poster child one can easily point to and ask a question along the lines of 'is it reasonable for society to allow a person with resources near some nation-state levels to exist and not limit their ability to gather that amount of resources?'
While in general I am very permissive and I hate imposition on my individual freedoms, I am increasingly convinced that leveling of playing field is necessary. You reach an upper limit of say 'five small islands' and you start seeing major increase in tax burden. As you can undoubtedly tell, I am no tax expert, but I am tired of this prince equivalent of our times. Wait, not princes ( princes had some structures that kept them somewhat in check ). Maybe robber barons is a better comparison. US managed to get them under control once, but that required a world war II. I am honestly not sure we can repeat that approach this time.
<< Well now we're going to see what extremism looks like when a far more competent person is orchestrating it.
I would hesitate to characterize Trump as incompetent. He and Musk share some qualities and note that both of them managed to use the existing system to their advantage better than an average person ( leaving for a moment the above average starting point for both ). Still, fool and his money is soon parted and notice that both of them manage to screw everyone they interact with ( but themselves ), which indicates some level of competency. Unfortunately, that competency is focused only one thing.
In short, I disagree. Twitter saga is just better documented. WH by necessity is harder to properly scrutinize ( despite all the leaks and media attention ).
- jl6 4y ago> Musk has become a poster child one can easily point to and ask a question along the lines of 'is it reasonable for society to allow a person with resources near some nation-state levels to exist and not limit their ability to gather that amount of resources?' It’s an interesting question but if you’re hoping for a ‘no’ answer, Musk is a pretty mild test case. For all his failings, he hasn’t used his personal wealth for anything that bad. Far worse is done by corporations and governments (and actual princes). In fact, I’m not sure individualistic supervillainy actually happens all that much. Being bad at scale is still a team effort.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoOh, I absolutely agree. That is why I opened with poster child qualification, because it seems most people need an appropriate scapegoat ( it is just easier to have one 'bad guy' to focus on as opposed to a menagerie of individuals with varying levels of liability and involvement ). We like to keep things simple. The part that annoys me is ( as you indicated ) that Musk actually did bring into being some rather neat stuff ( Tesla comes to mind -- I hate that he made car into subscription, but I love that he moved the entire industry 20 years ahead ). I probably need to qualify that statement. Like with most people, I like some of the things he did. I dislike some of the things he did. To your point, with corporation at least that power is somewhat distributed and each individual is a ( mild, but still ) check on the other. You raise a good point though and I wonder if billionaire class overshadowed pan-nationals for me for some reason.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoWhen a game is rigged, you don't have to be competent to win
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoIt is an easy and cynical statement. And I am saying that as a cynical person myself. The game is heavily tilted, but it is still a game with real winners and real losers. I do not want to assume too much though. Would you be willing to elaborate a little? It is difficult to argue Musk is not competent at his various roles. Are you saying he was guaranteed to be where he is now?
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoI was more referring to Trump not being necessarily competent, but using a big public profile to con people into handing over money and then deliberately not paying people and using bankruptcy to shield him from consequences. It's more a lack of morals than being competent. Once someone has a lot of money, it becomes very difficult for them to decrease their wealth as capitalism rewards people/institutions that have lots of money and/or influence. If you have money available to purchase your way into owning various companies, then it's not too difficult to keep those companies alive though I would say that Musk has made some good decisions as to which companies to buy. I would consider that Tesla became successful partly due to a new potential market (which Musk should get some credit for spotting) and partly due to reaping the benefits from all the workers there - it's their talents that are making Tesla profitable and Musk is merely ensuring that he doesn't pay them sufficiently so that he can increase his own wealth. Billionaires benefit from their own lack of morals more than being spectacularly competent.
- concordDance 4y agoDo you think you can become a billionaire with $25k from Daddy?
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoI don't have the psychopathic greed that billionaires have, so I would never have got more than a few million before helping others.