17 ms·

It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. It's pretty colorful language, but my mind im

It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. It's pretty colorful language, but my mind immediately jumps to "financial terrorist". He's using his enormous amount of wealth and influence as a weapon to bludgeon anyone and anything in his way.

tryptophan 2y ago
I typically like Elon about 70% of the time, but I need to agree here. I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence.
- orwin 2y ago
  He always had it? Money give influence naturally. I've listened to a history podcast about the robber barons and how following the backlash and dismantlement of the Standard oil, industrialist started buying articles, sometime even newspapers to sell their stories, and in the US, it worked wonderfully. You still have the brand "Quaker" that was born at the time, and probably a dozen other, where they manipulated their own famillial history to build an image, and hide the fact that children died in their mine or that they just had 20 redneck strikers killed. It's not as bad today, but building a personal brand by buying puff articles, fondations. Buying goodwill and influence was always present since at least that time (Honestly, Berkshire Hathaway made at least some of its money on WB reputation, so tech billionaires are not the only kind of CEO who do it)
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > He always had it? Money give influence naturally. Not as much as he has now: he was famously frustrated by the California state government's Covid lockdown mandates, and was pretty powerless against them. That frustration is probably what led him to buy influence in the Trump campaign,and later administration. Money can take you so far, political power will take you further for imposing your will on others. The "Shock-and-awe"/blitzkrieg strategy is another force-multiplier. By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I'm not going to be as extreme as saying "california has integrity". But California was wise to prioritize its people over a robber baron who's just mad his cars weren't selling. He probably still couldn't buy off CA to this day. Switching to a side of fellow billionaire politicians was simply a way to be among his own people, with similar levels of empathy for the working class. >By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot. I think long term someone is going to shut down his shenanigans for good. Maybe even Trump himself will throw him under the bus. But I do wonder how deep he can get and what his consequences are. Like, could he simply leak government data to Russia/China and only get away with a fine? He's not military, but Court Mashals have given the death sentence over much more mild causes.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      " By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot." This is a risky strategy if it is later determined that Musk broke laws with DOGE and is arrested and convicted.
      - munificent 2y ago
        The strategy has worked just fine for Trump for the past decade.
      - packetlost 2y ago
        Until he's pardoned by the president.
      - all_usernames 2y ago
        lol. Trump has immunity, and can also pardon
        UltraSane 2y ago
        Musk can be convicted AFTER Trump isn't president.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  He founded (for some definition) the two most impressive American corporations of the century and tweeted a lot to build a direct connection to people.
  - lightbendover 2y ago
    You may be referring to PayPal as one of those companies, but in case you’re not: Elon did not found Tesla.
    - Fnoord 2y ago
      He didn't found PayPal either. He founded X.com, and they happened to merge with Confinity who owned the brand PayPal. Confinity existed before X.com (and had better brand recognition with PayPal), and if Musk would've had it his way, PayPal as brand wouldn't exist post-merge; it would have been called X.com.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      I said "for some definition" because according a legal settlement he made with the others, he did found it.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    What’s impressive about Tesla? It’s already being outcompeted by companies in China, losing market share, and the other manufacturers are catching up. Besides that, he’s pissed off the demographics most likely to buy Teslas. It’s not like most Trump voters are buying EVs
    - diogocp 2y ago
      > What’s impressive about Tesla? The fact that it's worth more than all the other automakers combined. > the other manufacturers are catching up Re-read what you wrote, and consider how preposterous it is that automakers founded more than a century ago are now "catching up" to a company that sold its first car in 2008.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  He spent $44 billion on his own personal propaganda machine, and then used even more money to purchase the US presidency
  - fastball 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Slow_Hand 2y ago
      Whether he was serious about buying Twitter or not, he put himself in the position where he was legally required to complete the offer to purchase. Nobody forced him into that blunder.
      - fastball 2y ago
        I didn't say anyone forced him to make the original offer.
    - hypothesis 2y ago
      Huh? Some magic mushrooms forced him to make a bid to buy Twitter? Give the guy some agency!
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Who knows what prompted him to make the bid. The judges forced him to follow through on it when he was trying to get out of it.
        asadotzler 2y ago
        do you understand how bids work?
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        "Bid" was hypothesis's word, not mine, so whatever "gotcha" you think you're springing on me, send it elsewhere. Yes, I know how bids work, at least approximately. It wasn't a bid in the strict sense. It was an offer to buy, which Twitter accepted, and then Musk tried to withdraw the offer (because of too much of the traffic being bots, IIRC). The judge did not allow Musk to withdraw, because there was no such "subject to" in his offer.
- jredwards 2y ago
  I liked Elon until about 2018. Since then he's gradually degraded from "interesting founder" to "guy who picks fights about weird topics on the internet" to "absurdist oligarch actively working to destroy institutions which support average Americans." I certainly suspect that there were always elements of what he's become that just weren't as publicly apparent.
  - m_fayer 2y ago
    I really like “absurdist oligarch”. “Rich awkward joker” also comes to mind.
    - beAbU 2y ago
      "Trolling Edgelord" comes to mind for me. It's as if all this is one big joke to him, and he gets a kick out of everyone being upset by his antics.
  - akudha 2y ago
    What did you like about him until 2018? He is not some visionary or genius or even smart. Neither is/was he a decent person to deal with (read up on his PayPal days). He is however, extraordinarily ruthless and thin skinned. So what is it that you saw in him that you liked him?
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Circa 2010 he still had the image of being an outsider and optimist instead of whatever we've got going on today.
    - creato 2y ago
      (Not OP) I liked his willingness to invest so much in exciting, lofty goals (Tesla, SpaceX). Twitter wrecked his mind. I'm not talking about buying it, I'm talking about being such a heavy user of it.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  I liked Elon 90% of the time 5 years ago. Now honestly I don’t want him to build a whites only mars base.
  - electriclove 2y ago
    Do you really think it will be whites only?
    - laerus 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - doodlebugging 2y ago
        I'll bet there will be lots of non-white applicants for positions as laborers helping them carry their travel bags to the launch pads.
    - bayarearefugee 2y ago
      I'm sure they will carve out exceptions for Uncle Toms like Vivek Ramaswamy, but if they get too uppity they'll be tossed out the airlock.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - moogly 2y ago
    > Now honestly I don’t want him to build a whites only mars base. I do because the Earth would be rid of him and we could maybe have at least 1 slow news day.
    - dyauspitr 2y ago
      This might be the worst cost benefit tradeoff I’ve heard of.
- ls_stats 2y ago
  >I typically like Elon about 70% of the time >I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence. then you don't know much about him
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    no, rather, GP tryptophan doesn't know much about {him|her|it}self.
  - enumjorge 2y ago
    Almost everything that is happening in US politics was telegraphed beforehand if you were looking carefully enough. If Musk's current level of influence and his actions are a surprise to anyone, I'd politely suggest that they augment their sources of information.
    - senordevnyc 2y ago
      Since you’re ahead of many of us, can you let us know what happens next?
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        This [1] should give you another 150 days of predictions. [1]: https://www.project2025.org/playbook/ https://www.project2025.org/playbook/
- d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rorylawless 2y ago
    If pre-Musk twitter was in the hands of censorship, what is it now? By all accounts it is a bot-infested echo chamber for his own bizarre obsessions where dissent is quickly stamped out.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Whoever flagged my other comment: you have committed a crime.
  - pfisch 2y ago
    Oh, I didn't realize he freed twitter from the clutches of censorship...
    - nkozyra 2y ago
      Yep, and he defeated the bots. No more bots on Twitter.
  - esskay 2y ago
    Twitters got more censorship than it ever had, and what's left is a cesspool of porn, conspiracy theories, elon ass lickers and spam.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    He is breaking the law, full stop. Sorry but you don't get to do that in a Republic without consequence. Process matters when it comes to regulation, because without it you get unchecked power and tyranny.
  - rurp 2y ago
- starchild3001 2y ago
  He's only 50% evil :)
- calebio 2y ago
  > I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence. memetics
- oulipo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    When he's not fascing. Like maybe when he's asleep, or playing video games.
    - cglace 2y ago
      Paying people to play video games for him
mattmaroon 2y ago
[flagged]
- ls_stats 2y ago
  So... not wanting to have people around with enough money to buy a US president is... Marxism?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  So opposition spending $250M to win an election and then given control over government spending by that same president, while owning companies that have billions in government contracts, is Marxism? In most non-Marxist democratic countries, the above would be considered corruption.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    It's Marxism to assume that it's at all rational to limit the amount of wealth someone can accumulate. What is the alternative to unlimited accumulation of wealth?
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      If that’s the definition of Marxism, sign me up!
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    Repeating myself from another comment. The dems outspent republicans by a billion or so, so 250M didn't do much. If it did, Kamala would've won by a lot. Way more billionaires supported Kamala vs. Trump (83 vs 52).
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      The point is not how much was raised. The point is that the person who gave the most -- by far -- is now in a position to unilaterally make major decisions affecting all Americans, and other countries too (USAID).
TrackerFF 2y ago
How much of it is tied up to a criminally overvalued Tesla stock though? Sure, Tesla could go to zero and he'd still be a fabulously wealthy man, but with how things are moving - It wouldn't surprise me that he's about the fall down the ranks. Let's see how much power he has once the "richest man in the world" aura fades away.
- fujinghg 2y ago
  I reckon Musk is so over extended that the only reason he’s doing what he’s doing is to basically rob what he can to cover it before a bigger fish comes along and he falls off a yacht like Madoff.
  - fastball 2y ago
    How do you mean? There were major loans to buy Twitter, but AFAIK Musk brought on a bunch of other people so that's not entirely on him. Other than that what is he extended into?
    - sidibe 2y ago
      His companies are supporting each other in weird ways like xAi intercepting Tesla's GPUs, xAi being separate from X which is where it's used, Boring building one of its few tunnels in a Tesla factory for ???, the employees from one working at another, etc. there's probably a lot of shenanigans going on to make each company look OK at the right times. The one that has to be somewhat transparent is looking pretty shaky
      - tim333 2y ago
        Yeah, I can't find the link but apparently a lot of the improvement in x/twitters results are due to xAi paying x to advertise.
- dustingetz 2y ago
  was looking for a musk margin call in 2023, no such luck, now he’s VP and markets are still fake
morkalork 2y ago
Considering the threat of his wealth and the ability to fund primary challengers against sitting senators is being used to whip their votes, I wouldn't restrict the it to just "financial" terrorist.
- mightyham 2y ago
  Not disagreeing with you, but just want to point out that billionaires and political lobbying groups have used funding (or the threat of funding) primary opponents to coerce congress for a long time.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
zozbot234 2y ago
> He's using his enormous amount of wealth and influence as a weapon to bludgeon anyone and anything in his way. Using your "enormous amount of wealth" as a weapon means you'll be frittering away that wealth very quickly. Especially since others will be inclined to take the other side of the bet as soon as they catch on to it happening.
- Miraste 2y ago
  I imagine that's why he's pivoted to using other peoples' wealth.
  - yubblegum 2y ago
    Gee, at some point hard to tell if Elon is not just the guy on stage for whoever holds the (purse) strings.
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      Yea probably Soros and the free masons are still running the show /s
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        I mean, in this case it would be the Saudis.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      Well, people need to understand that it's not just one group of people, but an ever-evolving group of people that don't always share the same interests - but have very similar, overlapping interests - and will gladly take each other to court, but will just as gladly unite to vanquish outsiders.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you'll be frittering away that wealth very quickly Musk’s vulnerability is Tesla. He has personally levered those shares in a way that makes him vulnerable to political retribution. (Banning cameras-only self-driving being one option. Politicising recalls being the nuclear one.)
bcrosby95 2y ago
He's just being louder about it than most billionaires.
gip 2y ago
I thought competition was exactly what business was about and how the capitalist system was functioning and financing itself? I don't condone Musk's actions but I'm not sure how he ends up as a terrorist. That looks like aggressive competition in a line of business. It's not clear how critical infrastructure or public safety would be negatively affected by his actions, therefore not sure what to think of it. PS: I do believe Musk should be subject to the federal criminal conflict of interest statute given his position in gov.
yodsanklai 2y ago
> "financial terrorist" As a thought experiment, I like to wonder what would be the maximal amount of damage to humanity an extremely wealthy person could do entirely legally. Or if not damage, just trolling. For instance, writing X on the moon or something like that.
- _huayra_ 2y ago
  Easy: buy media companies to sow political division and pollute the discourse, buy political influence to restrict access to open and unbiased education to ensure the populace cannot engage in critical thinking, then poison the environment in myriad ways until people in their 20s require a dozen rounds of IVF to have kids (or more likely, just giving up because of the ruinious state of inflation compared to incomes).
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    Come on... endlessly wealthy and wants to do harm? There's only one real, obvious answer: Engineer a plague, or a series of plagues targeting food crops, livestock, and humans. Make something as contagious as measles that kills a third of people reliably, spread it multiple global focal points at once, and you could topple the world pretty effectively. If you attacked the economy and food supply at the same time I don't think there would be any coming back from that. It would be insane, an apocalyptic fantasy that few could afford outside of (hopefully somewhat) accountable or at least pragmatic governments. But a very rich person could afford it. And as much as information warfare is terrifying, biological warfare is much worse. I get your "it's already here" point, but lets really take the question at face value and run with it. edit: Consider that a group MUCH less wealthy than Elon Musk was able to experiment with nuclear weapons, and managed to carry out a sarin attack.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      Just doing that seems like you will likely be arrested.
      - 2y ago
andrei_says_ 2y ago
I pay more taxes than Tesla.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  Tesla took on a lot more losses than you ever did, decreasing their current day tax bill, so that's a meaningless comparison.
Arkhadia 2y ago
You do realize the saudis for almost a century are way richer, more powerful, and way way way more corrupt right?
ak_111 2y ago
He single handedly also vindicated one of the most authoritarian regimes - China - in how it slapped Jack Ma as soon as he started entering politics and gaining influence beyond tech entrepreneurship.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Nothing vindicates the CCP. They enact laws guaranteeing free speech and human rights, then execute their critics and sell their organs.
  - ak_111 2y ago
    That's what I am saying, Musk shenanigan so bad they EVEN vindicated CCP.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      No. Musk being a shithead does not vindicate a regime that routinely practices mass murder in flagrant violation of their own Constitution (which presumably only exists as a sick joke to them.) Article 35 of their Constitution guarantees free speech, but they murder people who try it. Read the rest of their Constitution while you're at it. Even as a less than serious rhetorical argument, what you said is insane. Get a grip.
      - gotoeleven 2y ago
        No one in this thread knows what vindicated means.
      - globalnode 2y ago
        im not criticizing your opinion but can you point me to some evidence that shows they routinely practice mass murder? im genuinely curious.
        dttze 2y ago
        He has none most likely, and if he does it’ll be some garbage sourced from Adrian Zenz.
guybedo 2y ago
I don't get what is "financial terrorism" here: He's making an offer to buy something at twice the price of the other offer on the table. I'm not sure it'd be a good deal for Musk but it looks like a good deal for the seller.
- z7 2y ago
  I don't understand it either. Why is Elon Musk a "terrorist"? And why is this the most upvoted post? Maybe being European limits my ability to comprehend American political rhetoric.
  - zozbot234 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tekno45 2y ago
      The guy that is privately accumulating as much money as possible is trying to benefit us all?
  - togetheragainor 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - HelloMcFly 2y ago
      > The American left, who hates Musk because he’s an outspoken and unrepentant capitalist (among other reasons) Ah yes, all the criticism I hear about Musk from my liberal friends has everything to do with his "unrepentant capitalism". You either have a small or very peculiar social circle. Your comment isn't technically wrong since you were thoughtful enough to add "(among other reasons)" but it almost beggars belief that you'd be serious here. Do I really have to spell out why the left hate Musk?
      - togetheragainor 2y ago
UncleMeat 2y ago
Yep. Taxing billionaires is not about generating a lot of money for everybody else. It is about limiting the power of the most powerful people. It is bad for society for people to have this much money.
Geee 2y ago
I disagree. Wealth accumulation is absolutely a good thing. Elon does good things. EVs, rockets, Starlink, Neuralink etc. This is stuff that people want. More capital is allocated to good things when the same person can manage more capital. Elon's wealth is mostly in the things he has built himself. In addition, Elon isn't even that rich, when compared to other entities, which aren't a singular person. As an example, BlackRock manages over $10 trillion of assets (that's 30x compared to Elon), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms Elon is not the richest entity in the world, and he doesn't have any special powers to bludgeon anything, like none of these large companies have, unless they do some weird market manipulation tricks (which should be illegal anyway).
- lxgr 2y ago
  > compared to other entities, which aren't a singular person And you're seriously arguing that that's not a pretty important difference? > he doesn't have any special powers to bludgeon anything I've seen him described in all kinds of ways, but "without special powers" is a first.
- mediaman 2y ago
  Using BlackRock as a comparison is really disingenuous. They're basically a Vanguard. They hold assets as trustee for the actual owners of the wealth. BlackRock and Vanguard can't wake up one day and decide to put in a bid for OpenAI because of some personal vendetta. You are confusing "assets under management" (AUM) with actual net worth. Blackrock's net worth is $43 billion, compared to $11 trillion in AUM, because 99.6% of the top-line number you chose is actually just client money. Musk, meanwhile, is around $400 billion, so you have the numbers backwards; Musk has about 10x the net worth of the nation's largest fund manager.
- soared 2y ago
  Elon did good things. And then it went to his head. Look at almost every tech billionaire today and how many good things they (aren’t) doing. And the argument is moot anyway - he wasted tens of billions on Twitter. If he was doing good things (true scotsman) he would’ve built schools.
innocentoldguy 2y ago
I disagree. I understand that Musk invested in OpenAI under the understanding that ChatGPT would remain open source. He has expressed dissatisfaction with the direction OpenAI has taken ChatGPT and wants to return it to its original charitable mission. He paid millions of dollars for something that OpenAI didn't deliver, so I can understand him wanting to bring the project back inline with the vision he paid for. I view Musk's decision here as a good thing that will benefit the world.
- uoaei 2y ago
  You may not believe this, but there is no moral quality to money, spent or otherwise. There is no mandate and no value to obeying Musk's wishes. If he wants to, he could apply legal mechanisms. The fact he's resorting to public pandering to sycophants to back him in his righteous cause suggests that he has exhausted those legal means.
- BoiledCabbage 2y ago
  > I understand that Musk invested in OpenAI under the understanding that ChatGPT would remain open source. This is false, but it what he tries to portray to save face. It has been shown numerous times that he was in agreement with keeping it AI private when it was assumed he would be in control of it. And specifically for safety reasons. And the only reason OpenAI took microsoft money was because Musk pulled his already pledged and budgeted funding for the company. Why did he pull funding? Because he insisted OpenAI was light-years behind Google (he was very wrong) and insisted the way to save it was to give him full control of the company (also wrong). They told him he was wrong so he got made and pulled his already pledged funding. Pledging funds for a non-profit then afterwards getting upset that they won't just give you the non-profit entity is pretty absurd.
nicoburns 2y ago
> It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. Musk is bad, but he's only really one example amongst thousands. And there aren't many examples of where this has ever been a good thing.
lend000 2y ago
Genuine question: are people genuinely against the work being done by DOGE? I am frequenting both X and HN + other liberal leaning news sources, and it's like the people in the comments are living in different solar systems. I see a post on X with receipts showing millions of dollars of pretty obvious waste and/or corruption, many involving news outlet grants and subscriptions, including names, amounts, etc. Then I see some tearjerker story about families of USAID workers on one of the beneficiary news outlets. And in the comments, people lamenting that Elon Musk's success is only due to luck and his estranged father's defunct gem mine. Or worrying Elon will use their SSN (which is already available on the dark web) to open a credit card. You're pretty smart people. Do we really think auditing government spending by a super-competent outsider is a bad thing? The last time it was done was by Clinton, btw, who managed to create a surplus (granted, the debt situation was nothing compared to today). And before that, Truman, back before hyper-partisan politics. I can't imagine the level of grift back then was anywhere close to today in our bloated budget. I'm optimistic, and I think y'all need to relax.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  USAID was audited by an (actual) independent (actual) auditor in November of 2024. They recommended a review of leases and to tighten up their employee expense reporting requirements. You have no reason to believe Elon is either competent, nor independent, nor well-intentioned on any of this. No, no one is against “a more efficient government.” Obviously. No one is “pro-fraud.” Obviously. Please post specific examples of fraud that DOGE has surfaced, not just “things that were congressionally approved but I don’t like.”
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    > congressionally approved You say that like it’s a good thing…
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Following the constitutionally designed balance of powers is a good thing, even when some line items appear in the budget which I personally disagree with. This is what’s known as “compromise,” or otherwise “being a fucking adult.”
teaearlgraycold 2y ago
We need an income and a wealth cap.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Such an idea runs counter to the principles of individual liberty.
  - latentcall 2y ago
    Maybe but it would be for the greater good, a concept probably hard for many Americans to understand by design.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      Correct.
  - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
    There should be limits on individual liberty. We don’t let every American have a nuclear bomb in their basement.
Timber-6539 2y ago
Capitalism is bad because Elon won the game. Never mind that Sam Altman is a board member of the same non-profit he is trying to sell to himself for pennies.
- apothegm 2y ago
  Why not both?
blitzar 2y ago
China might not have been "wrong" when they put Jack Ma back in his box.
swat535 2y ago
As an interesting thought experiment, replace Musk's with Google. Here are some recent headlines: * "Google" group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI. * Teen on "Google's" DOGE team graduated from 'The Com'. * "Google's demolition crew. * Google's DOGE is feeding sensitive federal data into AI to target cuts Then ask yourself, if you would write the same comment, calling "Sundar Pichai", a terrorists? Why or why not?
- lores 2y ago
  Yes... Both would be terrorists if that's the appropriate word, it would just take a bit longer for people to call Pichai that because he hasn't defined his public image to be "Nazi edgelord" and minds need to adjust.
  - kaycey2022 2y ago
    Pichai is just a bureaucrat though
distracted_boy 2y ago
This is how the world works, sadly. We only hear about this because Elon Musk is famous.
renegade-otter 2y ago
I am normally NOT the person who wants to see people not make as much money as they [legally] can, but we see how much of a wrecking ball a person-state can really be. It's made worse by the fact that isolation makes them literally detached from reality. COVID completely broke some billionaire brains as it was adding to their loneliness. How long before they start forming their own armies to cause geopolitical havoc?
jreddy 2y ago
this is why china doesn't have more than ≈ 10 billionaires and stopped jack ma from controlling more than he already does through media/financial ventures

tryptophan 2y ago

I typically like Elon about 70% of the time, but I need to agree here. I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence.

orwin 2y ago
He always had it? Money give influence naturally. I've listened to a history podcast about the robber barons and how following the backlash and dismantlement of the Standard oil, industrialist started buying articles, sometime even newspapers to sell their stories, and in the US, it worked wonderfully. You still have the brand "Quaker" that was born at the time, and probably a dozen other, where they manipulated their own famillial history to build an image, and hide the fact that children died in their mine or that they just had 20 redneck strikers killed. It's not as bad today, but building a personal brand by buying puff articles, fondations. Buying goodwill and influence was always present since at least that time (Honestly, Berkshire Hathaway made at least some of its money on WB reputation, so tech billionaires are not the only kind of CEO who do it)
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > He always had it? Money give influence naturally. Not as much as he has now: he was famously frustrated by the California state government's Covid lockdown mandates, and was pretty powerless against them. That frustration is probably what led him to buy influence in the Trump campaign,and later administration. Money can take you so far, political power will take you further for imposing your will on others. The "Shock-and-awe"/blitzkrieg strategy is another force-multiplier. By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I'm not going to be as extreme as saying "california has integrity". But California was wise to prioritize its people over a robber baron who's just mad his cars weren't selling. He probably still couldn't buy off CA to this day. Switching to a side of fellow billionaire politicians was simply a way to be among his own people, with similar levels of empathy for the working class. >By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot. I think long term someone is going to shut down his shenanigans for good. Maybe even Trump himself will throw him under the bus. But I do wonder how deep he can get and what his consequences are. Like, could he simply leak government data to Russia/China and only get away with a fine? He's not military, but Court Mashals have given the death sentence over much more mild causes.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    " By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot." This is a risky strategy if it is later determined that Musk broke laws with DOGE and is arrested and convicted.
    - munificent 2y ago
      The strategy has worked just fine for Trump for the past decade.
    - packetlost 2y ago
      Until he's pardoned by the president.
    - all_usernames 2y ago
      lol. Trump has immunity, and can also pardon
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        Musk can be convicted AFTER Trump isn't president.
mattmaroon 2y ago
He founded (for some definition) the two most impressive American corporations of the century and tweeted a lot to build a direct connection to people.
- lightbendover 2y ago
  You may be referring to PayPal as one of those companies, but in case you’re not: Elon did not found Tesla.
  - Fnoord 2y ago
    He didn't found PayPal either. He founded X.com, and they happened to merge with Confinity who owned the brand PayPal. Confinity existed before X.com (and had better brand recognition with PayPal), and if Musk would've had it his way, PayPal as brand wouldn't exist post-merge; it would have been called X.com.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I said "for some definition" because according a legal settlement he made with the others, he did found it.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  What’s impressive about Tesla? It’s already being outcompeted by companies in China, losing market share, and the other manufacturers are catching up. Besides that, he’s pissed off the demographics most likely to buy Teslas. It’s not like most Trump voters are buying EVs
  - diogocp 2y ago
    > What’s impressive about Tesla? The fact that it's worth more than all the other automakers combined. > the other manufacturers are catching up Re-read what you wrote, and consider how preposterous it is that automakers founded more than a century ago are now "catching up" to a company that sold its first car in 2008.
Trasmatta 2y ago
He spent $44 billion on his own personal propaganda machine, and then used even more money to purchase the US presidency
- fastball 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Slow_Hand 2y ago
    Whether he was serious about buying Twitter or not, he put himself in the position where he was legally required to complete the offer to purchase. Nobody forced him into that blunder.
    - fastball 2y ago
      I didn't say anyone forced him to make the original offer.
  - hypothesis 2y ago
    Huh? Some magic mushrooms forced him to make a bid to buy Twitter? Give the guy some agency!
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Who knows what prompted him to make the bid. The judges forced him to follow through on it when he was trying to get out of it.
      - asadotzler 2y ago
        do you understand how bids work?
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        "Bid" was hypothesis's word, not mine, so whatever "gotcha" you think you're springing on me, send it elsewhere. Yes, I know how bids work, at least approximately. It wasn't a bid in the strict sense. It was an offer to buy, which Twitter accepted, and then Musk tried to withdraw the offer (because of too much of the traffic being bots, IIRC). The judge did not allow Musk to withdraw, because there was no such "subject to" in his offer.
jredwards 2y ago
I liked Elon until about 2018. Since then he's gradually degraded from "interesting founder" to "guy who picks fights about weird topics on the internet" to "absurdist oligarch actively working to destroy institutions which support average Americans." I certainly suspect that there were always elements of what he's become that just weren't as publicly apparent.
- m_fayer 2y ago
  I really like “absurdist oligarch”. “Rich awkward joker” also comes to mind.
  - beAbU 2y ago
    "Trolling Edgelord" comes to mind for me. It's as if all this is one big joke to him, and he gets a kick out of everyone being upset by his antics.
- akudha 2y ago
  What did you like about him until 2018? He is not some visionary or genius or even smart. Neither is/was he a decent person to deal with (read up on his PayPal days). He is however, extraordinarily ruthless and thin skinned. So what is it that you saw in him that you liked him?
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    Circa 2010 he still had the image of being an outsider and optimist instead of whatever we've got going on today.
  - creato 2y ago
    (Not OP) I liked his willingness to invest so much in exciting, lofty goals (Tesla, SpaceX). Twitter wrecked his mind. I'm not talking about buying it, I'm talking about being such a heavy user of it.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
dyauspitr 2y ago
I liked Elon 90% of the time 5 years ago. Now honestly I don’t want him to build a whites only mars base.
- electriclove 2y ago
  Do you really think it will be whites only?
  - laerus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - doodlebugging 2y ago
      I'll bet there will be lots of non-white applicants for positions as laborers helping them carry their travel bags to the launch pads.
  - bayarearefugee 2y ago
    I'm sure they will carve out exceptions for Uncle Toms like Vivek Ramaswamy, but if they get too uppity they'll be tossed out the airlock.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- moogly 2y ago
  > Now honestly I don’t want him to build a whites only mars base. I do because the Earth would be rid of him and we could maybe have at least 1 slow news day.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    This might be the worst cost benefit tradeoff I’ve heard of.
ls_stats 2y ago
>I typically like Elon about 70% of the time >I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence. then you don't know much about him
- fuzztester 2y ago
  no, rather, GP tryptophan doesn't know much about {him|her|it}self.
- enumjorge 2y ago
  Almost everything that is happening in US politics was telegraphed beforehand if you were looking carefully enough. If Musk's current level of influence and his actions are a surprise to anyone, I'd politely suggest that they augment their sources of information.
  - senordevnyc 2y ago
    Since you’re ahead of many of us, can you let us know what happens next?
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      This [1] should give you another 150 days of predictions. [1]: https://www.project2025.org/playbook/ https://www.project2025.org/playbook/
d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
[flagged]
- rorylawless 2y ago
  If pre-Musk twitter was in the hands of censorship, what is it now? By all accounts it is a bot-infested echo chamber for his own bizarre obsessions where dissent is quickly stamped out.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Whoever flagged my other comment: you have committed a crime.
- pfisch 2y ago
  Oh, I didn't realize he freed twitter from the clutches of censorship...
  - nkozyra 2y ago
    Yep, and he defeated the bots. No more bots on Twitter.
- esskay 2y ago
  Twitters got more censorship than it ever had, and what's left is a cesspool of porn, conspiracy theories, elon ass lickers and spam.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  He is breaking the law, full stop. Sorry but you don't get to do that in a Republic without consequence. Process matters when it comes to regulation, because without it you get unchecked power and tyranny.
- rurp 2y ago
starchild3001 2y ago
He's only 50% evil :)
calebio 2y ago
> I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence. memetics
oulipo 2y ago
[flagged]
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  When he's not fascing. Like maybe when he's asleep, or playing video games.
  - cglace 2y ago
    Paying people to play video games for him

mattmaroon 2y ago

[flagged]

ls_stats 2y ago
So... not wanting to have people around with enough money to buy a US president is... Marxism?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
So opposition spending $250M to win an election and then given control over government spending by that same president, while owning companies that have billions in government contracts, is Marxism? In most non-Marxist democratic countries, the above would be considered corruption.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  It's Marxism to assume that it's at all rational to limit the amount of wealth someone can accumulate. What is the alternative to unlimited accumulation of wealth?
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    If that’s the definition of Marxism, sign me up!
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  Repeating myself from another comment. The dems outspent republicans by a billion or so, so 250M didn't do much. If it did, Kamala would've won by a lot. Way more billionaires supported Kamala vs. Trump (83 vs 52).
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    The point is not how much was raised. The point is that the person who gave the most -- by far -- is now in a position to unilaterally make major decisions affecting all Americans, and other countries too (USAID).

TrackerFF 2y ago

How much of it is tied up to a criminally overvalued Tesla stock though? Sure, Tesla could go to zero and he'd still be a fabulously wealthy man, but with how things are moving - It wouldn't surprise me that he's about the fall down the ranks. Let's see how much power he has once the "richest man in the world" aura fades away.

fujinghg 2y ago
I reckon Musk is so over extended that the only reason he’s doing what he’s doing is to basically rob what he can to cover it before a bigger fish comes along and he falls off a yacht like Madoff.
- fastball 2y ago
  How do you mean? There were major loans to buy Twitter, but AFAIK Musk brought on a bunch of other people so that's not entirely on him. Other than that what is he extended into?
  - sidibe 2y ago
    His companies are supporting each other in weird ways like xAi intercepting Tesla's GPUs, xAi being separate from X which is where it's used, Boring building one of its few tunnels in a Tesla factory for ???, the employees from one working at another, etc. there's probably a lot of shenanigans going on to make each company look OK at the right times. The one that has to be somewhat transparent is looking pretty shaky
    - tim333 2y ago
      Yeah, I can't find the link but apparently a lot of the improvement in x/twitters results are due to xAi paying x to advertise.
dustingetz 2y ago
was looking for a musk margin call in 2023, no such luck, now he’s VP and markets are still fake

morkalork 2y ago

Considering the threat of his wealth and the ability to fund primary challengers against sitting senators is being used to whip their votes, I wouldn't restrict the it to just "financial" terrorist.

mightyham 2y ago
Not disagreeing with you, but just want to point out that billionaires and political lobbying groups have used funding (or the threat of funding) primary opponents to coerce congress for a long time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

zozbot234 2y ago

> He's using his enormous amount of wealth and influence as a weapon to bludgeon anyone and anything in his way. Using your "enormous amount of wealth" as a weapon means you'll be frittering away that wealth very quickly. Especially since others will be inclined to take the other side of the bet as soon as they catch on to it happening.

Miraste 2y ago
I imagine that's why he's pivoted to using other peoples' wealth.
- yubblegum 2y ago
  Gee, at some point hard to tell if Elon is not just the guy on stage for whoever holds the (purse) strings.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    Yea probably Soros and the free masons are still running the show /s
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      I mean, in this case it would be the Saudis.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    Well, people need to understand that it's not just one group of people, but an ever-evolving group of people that don't always share the same interests - but have very similar, overlapping interests - and will gladly take each other to court, but will just as gladly unite to vanquish outsiders.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> you'll be frittering away that wealth very quickly Musk’s vulnerability is Tesla. He has personally levered those shares in a way that makes him vulnerable to political retribution. (Banning cameras-only self-driving being one option. Politicising recalls being the nuclear one.)

bcrosby95 2y ago

He's just being louder about it than most billionaires.

gip 2y ago

I thought competition was exactly what business was about and how the capitalist system was functioning and financing itself? I don't condone Musk's actions but I'm not sure how he ends up as a terrorist. That looks like aggressive competition in a line of business. It's not clear how critical infrastructure or public safety would be negatively affected by his actions, therefore not sure what to think of it. PS: I do believe Musk should be subject to the federal criminal conflict of interest statute given his position in gov.

yodsanklai 2y ago

> "financial terrorist" As a thought experiment, I like to wonder what would be the maximal amount of damage to humanity an extremely wealthy person could do entirely legally. Or if not damage, just trolling. For instance, writing X on the moon or something like that.

_huayra_ 2y ago
Easy: buy media companies to sow political division and pollute the discourse, buy political influence to restrict access to open and unbiased education to ensure the populace cannot engage in critical thinking, then poison the environment in myriad ways until people in their 20s require a dozen rounds of IVF to have kids (or more likely, just giving up because of the ruinious state of inflation compared to incomes).
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Come on... endlessly wealthy and wants to do harm? There's only one real, obvious answer: Engineer a plague, or a series of plagues targeting food crops, livestock, and humans. Make something as contagious as measles that kills a third of people reliably, spread it multiple global focal points at once, and you could topple the world pretty effectively. If you attacked the economy and food supply at the same time I don't think there would be any coming back from that. It would be insane, an apocalyptic fantasy that few could afford outside of (hopefully somewhat) accountable or at least pragmatic governments. But a very rich person could afford it. And as much as information warfare is terrifying, biological warfare is much worse. I get your "it's already here" point, but lets really take the question at face value and run with it. edit: Consider that a group MUCH less wealthy than Elon Musk was able to experiment with nuclear weapons, and managed to carry out a sarin attack.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Just doing that seems like you will likely be arrested.
    - 2y ago

andrei_says_ 2y ago

I pay more taxes than Tesla.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
Tesla took on a lot more losses than you ever did, decreasing their current day tax bill, so that's a meaningless comparison.

Arkhadia 2y ago

You do realize the saudis for almost a century are way richer, more powerful, and way way way more corrupt right?

ak_111 2y ago

He single handedly also vindicated one of the most authoritarian regimes - China - in how it slapped Jack Ma as soon as he started entering politics and gaining influence beyond tech entrepreneurship.

lupusreal 2y ago
Nothing vindicates the CCP. They enact laws guaranteeing free speech and human rights, then execute their critics and sell their organs.
- ak_111 2y ago
  That's what I am saying, Musk shenanigan so bad they EVEN vindicated CCP.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    No. Musk being a shithead does not vindicate a regime that routinely practices mass murder in flagrant violation of their own Constitution (which presumably only exists as a sick joke to them.) Article 35 of their Constitution guarantees free speech, but they murder people who try it. Read the rest of their Constitution while you're at it. Even as a less than serious rhetorical argument, what you said is insane. Get a grip.
    - gotoeleven 2y ago
      No one in this thread knows what vindicated means.
    - globalnode 2y ago
      im not criticizing your opinion but can you point me to some evidence that shows they routinely practice mass murder? im genuinely curious.
      - dttze 2y ago
        He has none most likely, and if he does it’ll be some garbage sourced from Adrian Zenz.

guybedo 2y ago

I don't get what is "financial terrorism" here: He's making an offer to buy something at twice the price of the other offer on the table. I'm not sure it'd be a good deal for Musk but it looks like a good deal for the seller.

z7 2y ago
I don't understand it either. Why is Elon Musk a "terrorist"? And why is this the most upvoted post? Maybe being European limits my ability to comprehend American political rhetoric.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tekno45 2y ago
    The guy that is privately accumulating as much money as possible is trying to benefit us all?
- togetheragainor 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - HelloMcFly 2y ago
    > The American left, who hates Musk because he’s an outspoken and unrepentant capitalist (among other reasons) Ah yes, all the criticism I hear about Musk from my liberal friends has everything to do with his "unrepentant capitalism". You either have a small or very peculiar social circle. Your comment isn't technically wrong since you were thoughtful enough to add "(among other reasons)" but it almost beggars belief that you'd be serious here. Do I really have to spell out why the left hate Musk?
    - togetheragainor 2y ago

UncleMeat 2y ago

Yep. Taxing billionaires is not about generating a lot of money for everybody else. It is about limiting the power of the most powerful people. It is bad for society for people to have this much money.

Geee 2y ago

I disagree. Wealth accumulation is absolutely a good thing. Elon does good things. EVs, rockets, Starlink, Neuralink etc. This is stuff that people want. More capital is allocated to good things when the same person can manage more capital. Elon's wealth is mostly in the things he has built himself. In addition, Elon isn't even that rich, when compared to other entities, which aren't a singular person. As an example, BlackRock manages over $10 trillion of assets (that's 30x compared to Elon), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms Elon is not the richest entity in the world, and he doesn't have any special powers to bludgeon anything, like none of these large companies have, unless they do some weird market manipulation tricks (which should be illegal anyway).

lxgr 2y ago
> compared to other entities, which aren't a singular person And you're seriously arguing that that's not a pretty important difference? > he doesn't have any special powers to bludgeon anything I've seen him described in all kinds of ways, but "without special powers" is a first.
mediaman 2y ago
Using BlackRock as a comparison is really disingenuous. They're basically a Vanguard. They hold assets as trustee for the actual owners of the wealth. BlackRock and Vanguard can't wake up one day and decide to put in a bid for OpenAI because of some personal vendetta. You are confusing "assets under management" (AUM) with actual net worth. Blackrock's net worth is $43 billion, compared to $11 trillion in AUM, because 99.6% of the top-line number you chose is actually just client money. Musk, meanwhile, is around $400 billion, so you have the numbers backwards; Musk has about 10x the net worth of the nation's largest fund manager.
soared 2y ago
Elon did good things. And then it went to his head. Look at almost every tech billionaire today and how many good things they (aren’t) doing. And the argument is moot anyway - he wasted tens of billions on Twitter. If he was doing good things (true scotsman) he would’ve built schools.

innocentoldguy 2y ago

I disagree. I understand that Musk invested in OpenAI under the understanding that ChatGPT would remain open source. He has expressed dissatisfaction with the direction OpenAI has taken ChatGPT and wants to return it to its original charitable mission. He paid millions of dollars for something that OpenAI didn't deliver, so I can understand him wanting to bring the project back inline with the vision he paid for. I view Musk's decision here as a good thing that will benefit the world.

uoaei 2y ago
You may not believe this, but there is no moral quality to money, spent or otherwise. There is no mandate and no value to obeying Musk's wishes. If he wants to, he could apply legal mechanisms. The fact he's resorting to public pandering to sycophants to back him in his righteous cause suggests that he has exhausted those legal means.
BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> I understand that Musk invested in OpenAI under the understanding that ChatGPT would remain open source. This is false, but it what he tries to portray to save face. It has been shown numerous times that he was in agreement with keeping it AI private when it was assumed he would be in control of it. And specifically for safety reasons. And the only reason OpenAI took microsoft money was because Musk pulled his already pledged and budgeted funding for the company. Why did he pull funding? Because he insisted OpenAI was light-years behind Google (he was very wrong) and insisted the way to save it was to give him full control of the company (also wrong). They told him he was wrong so he got made and pulled his already pledged funding. Pledging funds for a non-profit then afterwards getting upset that they won't just give you the non-profit entity is pretty absurd.

nicoburns 2y ago

> It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. Musk is bad, but he's only really one example amongst thousands. And there aren't many examples of where this has ever been a good thing.

lend000 2y ago

Genuine question: are people genuinely against the work being done by DOGE? I am frequenting both X and HN + other liberal leaning news sources, and it's like the people in the comments are living in different solar systems. I see a post on X with receipts showing millions of dollars of pretty obvious waste and/or corruption, many involving news outlet grants and subscriptions, including names, amounts, etc. Then I see some tearjerker story about families of USAID workers on one of the beneficiary news outlets. And in the comments, people lamenting that Elon Musk's success is only due to luck and his estranged father's defunct gem mine. Or worrying Elon will use their SSN (which is already available on the dark web) to open a credit card. You're pretty smart people. Do we really think auditing government spending by a super-competent outsider is a bad thing? The last time it was done was by Clinton, btw, who managed to create a surplus (granted, the debt situation was nothing compared to today). And before that, Truman, back before hyper-partisan politics. I can't imagine the level of grift back then was anywhere close to today in our bloated budget. I'm optimistic, and I think y'all need to relax.

llamaimperative 2y ago
USAID was audited by an (actual) independent (actual) auditor in November of 2024. They recommended a review of leases and to tighten up their employee expense reporting requirements. You have no reason to believe Elon is either competent, nor independent, nor well-intentioned on any of this. No, no one is against “a more efficient government.” Obviously. No one is “pro-fraud.” Obviously. Please post specific examples of fraud that DOGE has surfaced, not just “things that were congressionally approved but I don’t like.”
- paulddraper 2y ago
  > congressionally approved You say that like it’s a good thing…
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Following the constitutionally designed balance of powers is a good thing, even when some line items appear in the budget which I personally disagree with. This is what’s known as “compromise,” or otherwise “being a fucking adult.”

teaearlgraycold 2y ago

We need an income and a wealth cap.

paulddraper 2y ago
Such an idea runs counter to the principles of individual liberty.
- latentcall 2y ago
  Maybe but it would be for the greater good, a concept probably hard for many Americans to understand by design.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    Correct.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  There should be limits on individual liberty. We don’t let every American have a nuclear bomb in their basement.

Timber-6539 2y ago

Capitalism is bad because Elon won the game. Never mind that Sam Altman is a board member of the same non-profit he is trying to sell to himself for pennies.

apothegm 2y ago
Why not both?

blitzar 2y ago

China might not have been "wrong" when they put Jack Ma back in his box.

swat535 2y ago

As an interesting thought experiment, replace Musk's with Google. Here are some recent headlines: * "Google" group makes $97B bid for control of OpenAI. * Teen on "Google's" DOGE team graduated from 'The Com'. * "Google's demolition crew. * Google's DOGE is feeding sensitive federal data into AI to target cuts Then ask yourself, if you would write the same comment, calling "Sundar Pichai", a terrorists? Why or why not?

lores 2y ago
Yes... Both would be terrorists if that's the appropriate word, it would just take a bit longer for people to call Pichai that because he hasn't defined his public image to be "Nazi edgelord" and minds need to adjust.
- kaycey2022 2y ago
  Pichai is just a bureaucrat though

distracted_boy 2y ago

This is how the world works, sadly. We only hear about this because Elon Musk is famous.

renegade-otter 2y ago

I am normally NOT the person who wants to see people not make as much money as they [legally] can, but we see how much of a wrecking ball a person-state can really be. It's made worse by the fact that isolation makes them literally detached from reality. COVID completely broke some billionaire brains as it was adding to their loneliness. How long before they start forming their own armies to cause geopolitical havoc?

jreddy 2y ago

this is why china doesn't have more than ≈ 10 billionaires and stopped jack ma from controlling more than he already does through media/financial ventures