15 ms·
> 250 years ago George Washington His wealth was mainly in very illiquid land. A lot of it was near worthless unless US won the war since it was beyond the lin
by wqaatwt 2y ago
> 250 years ago George Washington
His wealth was mainly in very illiquid land. A lot of it was near worthless unless US won the war since it was beyond the line drawn by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and white settlers were generally banned from settling there.
Otherwise like many landholders back in the day he was semi-broke and had limited access to cash.
Of course after the war of course he was both compensated for his expenses and got “his” land in Ohio (more or less)
- sigmoid10 2y agoWell, most of Elon Musks assets today are also not cash and highly dependent on the federal government going his way on key issues. He's certainly not dumb doing what he does if his goal is to get richer and more powerful. But unlike 200 years ago, we can watch live how that stuff plays out.
- wqaatwt 2y ago> certainly not dumb Perhaps but IMHO it’s a very high risk strategy and I doubt it’s necessarily optimal if more wealth is his primary goal (as opposed to his other seemingly highly megalomaniacal ambitions..) So far his actions haven’t really been that beneficial for Tesla (of course its sales growth might have significantly slowed down even if he stayed out of politics). SpaceX can only make that much even if it gets to appropriate the entire budget of NASA. Also at the end of the day his and Trump’s relationship might fall apart any day.
- hnfong 2y agoAny risk Elon's taking is peanuts compared with George Washington taking on the world's leading colonial power...
- wqaatwt 2y agoI wouldn’t necessarily go as far as directly comparing Musk and George Washington. But I suppose there are some parallels [if we take the more cynical] perspective. Both were willing to take on significant risk to upend the established socio-economic order primarily for the benefit of their respective social classes (wealthy landholders and tech-oligarchs). But yes, confiscation of all his property and even the gallows (fortunately or unfortunately for everyone else) is not a risk Musk is facing yet.
- VladStanimir 2y agoAnd its not like confiscating his property would do much. Like most billionaires his wealth is almost entirely stocks which while theoretically liquid would loose most of its value if you tried to sell it all at once.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jonplackett 2y agoWhen you’re that rich you aren’t motivated by more money. He’s motivated by power, and the fear of power being taken away.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y agoThat doesn't seem likely to me as I don't see how someone can get to be that rich without being incredibly motivated by more money. Surely a normal person would get a few million and decide that they had more money than they'd ever need? But yes, likely motivated by power too.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoMoney and power are the same thing.
- sharemywin 2y agoonly in a corrupt system.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoIn every system. The whole point of money is you can use it to get what you want. The whole point of having power is that you can use it to get what you want. They are the same thing if not completely interchangeable. You can use money to buy power and you can use power to accumulate money.
- cykros 2y agoYou can use money to buy things people are willing to sell. You can use power to get people to do they would not otherwise do. Generally, if money is able to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, there needs to be some sort of duress, or corruption. People who are content with what they have don't resort to prostitution or otherwise compromising their principles for money. Those who are held under crippling debt, or who come to have no principles, are much more inclined to do so. Power is more subtle, and it is related to money, but no, they're not the same thing.
- wongarsu 2y agoI doubt money has been Elon's primary motivation for at least the last 25 years, possibly longer. He is seeking approval and recognition, maybe power. His love for Mars might go beyond the recognition he gets from it. But Money is just a gateway to all of these things, and in a way a byproduct.
- like_any_other 2y agoFor comparison, the war with Iraq (a far less formidable opponent than the globe-spanning British Empire) cost the US-UK alliance $1.1 trillion [1]. Musk's net worth is $353 billion [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk
- bigfatkitten 2y agoGeorge Washington didn't have Lockheed Martin's hand in his pocket. Wars were much cheaper when all you needed were men, horses and small arms.
- sigmoid10 2y agoAnd when you didn't have to fight the war on the other side of the planet.
- tempfile 2y agoBritain and America are not exactly close...
- sigmoid10 2y agoDid any of the founding fathers intend to bring the war to Britain?
- philipov 2y agoAnd that's the primary reason that Britain lost the war. The war was much more expensive for the British than for the Colonists, and became even more expensive once France joined. The British didn't lose because they couldn't keep fighting, but because the cost of the war grew to be higher than the expected value of winning. It was also expensive for the French, and that cost helped bankrupt the state, which led to the French Revolution. One of many causes.
- vkou 2y agoHistorically soldiers have been just as happy to be paid in land as they were in cash. Owning people is the easiest way to become wealthy. Owning land is the second-easiest.