4 ms·

Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest. You deliberately ignore the fact that all th

Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest. You deliberately ignore the fact that all the instances you listed were done through proper procurement processes, and so far, reporting does not suggest this one is. You then try to use it against someone here, amusingly. It certainly may be wrong reporting! But arguing that this is identity politics or whatever is definitely bad faith - this entire thread is full of people concerned that this is not going through the normal process, and appears to have happened after Elon complained about the existing contract, and exerted influence on the situation, despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest. So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? He should have not offered an opinion, or been involved, in any way, with anything here. That's what it means to recuse from a conflict of interest. Instead, regardless of whether the reporting about the process is wrong, he has literally offered multiple opinions and appears to be trying to exert influence. You don't need reporting for this - you can get it directly from the source - Elon himself. You also don't even have to guess or opine what it means to have a conflict of interest or what is required in this case - FAR is pretty thorough. Meanwhile, you are complaining that this is bad faith identity politics, and "wondering" why you are downvoted.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago
> So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Literally none of that has any relevance to whether it's a conflict of interest, and whether he should have recused. How do you not see that? How can you possibly, in good faith, think that "some of these contracts went well and saved money" has any relationship to whether something is a conflict of interest or not. Do you just not understand what a conflict of interest is? Or do you really think conflicts of interest don't exist if "ends justify means" or "they have the best interests of the government at heart" or something really out there like this? If so, this is a pointless discussion, and man you should take a business ethics (or conflicts of interest) class, because you don't really don't seem to understand conflicts at all. Or at the very least read the authoritative source I gave you of what a conflict of interest is for the purposes of federal contracting, that you seem to have completely ignored. The same way you completely ignored that even in your weird world of what a conflict in, in this case, he literally said he would recuse himself, and did not. Which, whether it saves government money, or whatever the heck, is definitely unethical. So overall, based on your response i'd say you are either not having this discussion in good faith, or you are so unequipped to meaningfully participate in this discussion that people are mistaking it for you arguing in bad faith.
natch 2y ago
[flagged]
natch 2y ago
What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?
- bigyabai 2y ago
  Musk is a fed now, the burden of proving innocence rests solely on his shoulders. You might argue that's unfair, but this is the table stakes for meddling in public office while also playing as executive chairman.
  - natch 2y ago
    “Meddling” hmm. Perhaps he’ll choose to be “guilty” if the alternative means more air traffic accidents, leaving astronauts stranded in space, and watching the bankruptcy of the country leave everything in shambles.
    - bigyabai 2y ago
      Perhaps he'll ship FSD tomorrow, or finally indict "pedo guy" with some form of evidence. It's somewhat besides the point.
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      People keep citing his accomplishments (for lack of a better term) as if it has any bearing on whether something else a conflict and whether he needs to recuse or not. As if to imply that because they believe he helps in the end, it makes it not a conflict for him to be involved. To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it. Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar. So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever. This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary. As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical. We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them. If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones. Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened). There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules. Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago

> So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)

DannyBee 2y ago
Literally none of that has any relevance to whether it's a conflict of interest, and whether he should have recused. How do you not see that? How can you possibly, in good faith, think that "some of these contracts went well and saved money" has any relationship to whether something is a conflict of interest or not. Do you just not understand what a conflict of interest is? Or do you really think conflicts of interest don't exist if "ends justify means" or "they have the best interests of the government at heart" or something really out there like this? If so, this is a pointless discussion, and man you should take a business ethics (or conflicts of interest) class, because you don't really don't seem to understand conflicts at all. Or at the very least read the authoritative source I gave you of what a conflict of interest is for the purposes of federal contracting, that you seem to have completely ignored. The same way you completely ignored that even in your weird world of what a conflict in, in this case, he literally said he would recuse himself, and did not. Which, whether it saves government money, or whatever the heck, is definitely unethical. So overall, based on your response i'd say you are either not having this discussion in good faith, or you are so unequipped to meaningfully participate in this discussion that people are mistaking it for you arguing in bad faith.

natch 2y ago

[flagged]

natch 2y ago

What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?

bigyabai 2y ago
Musk is a fed now, the burden of proving innocence rests solely on his shoulders. You might argue that's unfair, but this is the table stakes for meddling in public office while also playing as executive chairman.
- natch 2y ago
  “Meddling” hmm. Perhaps he’ll choose to be “guilty” if the alternative means more air traffic accidents, leaving astronauts stranded in space, and watching the bankruptcy of the country leave everything in shambles.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    Perhaps he'll ship FSD tomorrow, or finally indict "pedo guy" with some form of evidence. It's somewhat besides the point.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    People keep citing his accomplishments (for lack of a better term) as if it has any bearing on whether something else a conflict and whether he needs to recuse or not. As if to imply that because they believe he helps in the end, it makes it not a conflict for him to be involved. To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it. Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar. So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever. This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary. As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would. He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical. We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them. If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones. Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened). There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules. Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.