Is Elon Musk the greatest visionary or the greatest snake oil salesman of our age?

[tim]

Care to expand a bit on that? I am interested.

Read (reread) the thread, and there are plenty of his examples of his fucking tooliness

 

[Saul Goodman]

My opinion... As we say in Ireland... He's some man for one man.

 

[weltweit]

Read (reread) the thread, and there are plenty of his examples of his fucking tooliness

If you were that familiar with the thread yourself you would know that I have been reading and commenting on it from page #1.

I am interested in FridgeMagnets views, which is why I asked him to elaborate.

 

[tim]

If you were that familiar with the thread yourself you would know that I have been reading and commenting on it from page #1.

I am interested in FridgeMagnets views, which is why I asked him to elaborate.

Which is why I edited to insert 'reread'

 

[elbows]

Oops.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s crusade to discredit the press in the wake of negative reporting hit a snag on Saturday when he recommended an article on The Knife as an “excellent” analysis of the media’s response to his trolling. The Knife, it turns out, is a rebranded version of The Knife of Aristotle, the outlet memorably profiled in Paste last year under the straightforward headline, “The Knife of Aristotle Isn’t Just a Fake “Fake News” Site—It’s a Cult.” The site is affiliated with NXIVM, the suspected sex cult whose leader Keith Raniere was arrested in March and charged with a laundry list of crimes ranging from forcing his followers to have sex with him all the way to literally having them branded. (Smallvilleactress Allison Mack—also facing criminal charges for her alleged involvement with NXIVM—seems to have recruited for them on Twitter.) Musk quickly deleted the tweet, but the internet never forgets:

Slate’s Use of Your Data

 

[kabbes]

If you were that familiar with the thread yourself you would know that I have been reading and commenting on it from page #1.

I am interested in FridgeMagnets views, which is why I asked him to elaborate.

Despite all the "living in a simulation" stuff I don't think he's particularly crazy - despite being the CEO of Tesla he's about 1% as eccentric or visionary as Tesla was, or even much of an inventor (he does have four patents but they are not exactly astounding ones).

He entered Silicon Valley aristocracy from getting in early with PayPal and now he can pretty much get money for anything. It's not like it's his personal genius that powers any of these companies - they're full of engineers that do that - but he is definitely a good businessman and entrepreneur, for what that's worth, which is a lot of money for him.

Whereas back in the 21st century, She took on Tesla for discrimination. Now others are speaking up. 'It's too big to deny'

Yeah. Extraplanetary colonisation without at least serious genetic modification is Victorian colonialist fantasy tbh. This idea that we can just fly to the moon or Mars and live there like if we'd gone to a different part of the Earth is so absurd.

It does tie in quite well with a lot of the transhumanist/posthuman stuff though.

Click the up arrows in each quote to see the context surrounding each view.

HTH

 

[elbows]

Mumbles some half-baked pun about the three Musk e-tears.

 

[weltweit]

Click the up arrows in each quote to see the context surrounding each view.

HTH

Thanks kabbes but I have read the thread and seen FridgeMagnets posts that you referenced, I am assuming there are more issues than these for FM to decide Musk a complete tool anyhow it will be interesting to see if FM responds.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Click the up arrows in each quote to see the context surrounding each view.

HTH

Thanks kabbes but I have read the thread and seen FridgeMagnets posts that you referenced, I am assuming there are more issues than these for FM to decide Musk a complete tool anyhow it will be interesting to see if FM responds.

I mean there are endless reasons to think he is a tool and a dangerous tool: the attempted privatisation of space and diversion of public funds, the attacks on unionisation, the very dubious “lying press” stuff recently with a hint of anti-semitism... it seems he’s accelerating. Maybe towards escape velocity.

Not that he’s the worst person in the world or even the worst tech billionaire (Bezos and Amazon are worse) but I think I find him particularly irritating as I feel an expectation that as a geeky type I’m expected to find him charmingly eccentric and aspirational and ignore all the malign political stuff. He’s managed to ruin launching shit into space, for God’s sake.

I don’t hate him personally though because it’s just another illustration of what happens when you allow wealth and influence to be concentrated to these insane degrees. Obviously people use it to increase their own wealth and perpetuate the system that produced it.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Here’s another’s example of toolery: https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-idea-of-excellent-journalism-comes-from-an-a-1826358023

Coming from just some random tool on the internet it wouldn’t really matter but when someone that rich says they’re going to do something about the press it does actually mean something. Not being able to do even do the basic level of research not to look like an idiot in public is not a good sign for the opinions in private.

But again the problem is a situation where people can have significant impact on the lives of others just based on their own dumb and selfish ideas. He could pay for attacks on groups he doesn’t like (a la Thiel), he could fund people who say things he likes - there are many instances of the rich doing this, it hardly needs explaining. Even if you think he deserves reward for his business activities, what about making electric cars and rockets makes you someone qualified to make decisions about how the press operates and the information the public gets?

 

[weltweit]

I mean there are endless reasons to think he is a tool and a dangerous tool: the attempted privatisation of space and diversion of public funds, the attacks on unionisation, the very dubious “lying press” stuff recently with a hint of anti-semitism... it seems he’s accelerating. Maybe towards escape velocity.

You take note of every negative, which is fine, it is easy to misunderstand written communications especially on twitter, I doubt he is anti-Semitic, rather I expect that - you know who owns the media - quip was intended to be tongue in cheek, playing to the conspiraloons rather than meant as written.

Not that he’s the worst person in the world or even the worst tech billionaire (Bezos and Amazon are worse) but I think I find him particularly irritating as I feel an expectation that as a geeky type I’m expected to find him charmingly eccentric and aspirational and ignore all the malign political stuff. He’s managed to ruin launching shit into space, for God’s sake.

How has he ruined it? Surely with his reusable rockets he is making it affordable, which NASA never did?

I don’t hate him personally though because it’s just another illustration of what happens when you allow wealth and influence to be concentrated to these insane degrees. Obviously people use it to increase their own wealth and perpetuate the system that produced it.

If he hadn't got lucky with his stake in paypal we wouldn't have heard of him and he wouldn't be able to do these things he is up to, but at least he is doing things that arguably need to be done, how would you prevent individuals getting rich through canny or lucky investments? and would that even be a good idea?

 

[tim]

Nobody canny would invest in any of his companies at the moment. Anyway, it is good to know that he is an ironic antisemite

 

[redsquirrel]

You take note of every negative, which is fine, it is easy to misunderstand written communications especially on twitter, I doubt he is anti-Semitic, rather I expect that - you know who owns the media - quip was intended to be tongue in cheek, playing to the conspiraloons rather than meant as written.

Christ. Guess that must the case here too? You utter mug.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

how would you prevent individuals getting rich through canny or lucky investments? and would that even be a good idea?

This is the underlying point. We can dick back and forth about the specifics of what he does but, given what money is and what it can do in society, _nobody should be that rich_ or even approaching it.

 

[8ball]

This is the underlying point. We can dick back and forth about the specifics of what he does but, given what money is and what it can do in society, _nobody should be that rich_ or even approaching it.

Do you have a limit in mind?

 

[weltweit]

This is the underlying point. We can dick back and forth about the specifics of what he does but, given what money is and what it can do in society, _nobody should be that rich_ or even approaching it.

How could you achieve this? taxes perhaps? certainly the likes of Bill Gates are obscenely rich, does it make it ok that he is now giving back? Should it be up to the individual billionaire to give back on their own terms? or should they be taxed such that redistribution is organised by governments? And would governments do a better job even?

It could be a motivation to do something with wealth to have a 100% death duty, but it would likely just cause migration unless it was global which it isn't going to be.

 

[8ball]

How could you achieve this? taxes perhaps? certainly the likes of Bill Gates are obscenely rich, does it make it ok that he is now giving back? Should it be up to the individual billionaire to give back on their own terms? or should they be taxed such that redistribution is organised by governments? And would governments do a better job even?

It could be a motivation to do something with wealth to have a 100% death duty, but it would likely just cause migration unless it was global which it isn't going to be.

Might cause a lot of inward migration given the kind of healthcare, roads, schools etc. we could afford.

 

[weltweit]

The reason I tend to give Musk the benefit of the doubt, is because I tend to admire people who start businesses that create employment for the rest of us, a rest of us who, for one reason or another, don't start businesses. After making so much money from his paypal stake he could have lazed on the beach for the rest of his life, but he didn't.

And what he is doing is also part of why I give him the benefit of the doubt, electric cars - as long as electricity is suitably generated will be better for the environment than petrol or diesel, unless hydrogen fuel cells do come along to spoil his gamble - reusable rockets reduce the cost of putting stuff into space which is desirable and I am sympathetic to his ideas on moon bases and trips to Mars because it has to come and why not now? And large scale batteries to enable integration of reusable energy sources into the grid what is not to like will we all not need this?

There are negatives, and FridgeMagnet you have been eloquent in explaining them, I don't disagree with them, Tesla should have a union, and whether anyone should be as rich as this is a question probably above my pay grade.

As to Tesla and their plans, as far as I can see at the moment, massively over valued as it is, it is struggling to produce enough cars to cover its costs, I think Musk and his team have vastly underestimated how challenging it is to produce complex products at production volumes. Tesla has no history of mass production, while traditional car makers have generations of experience, and this could bring them down, or at least burst the bubble for their investors.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Maybe I’ve spent too long on here but “super rich people shouldn’t be able to run the rest of society on vague whims of their own and/or for their own profit” isn’t _that_ radical is it?

The thing is that being super rich intrinsically lets you do that. So you could change how money works in society, or you could not let them get that rich, or something else. I’m easy.

 

[8ball]

Maybe I’ve spent too long on here but “super rich people shouldn’t be able to run the rest of society on vague whims of their own and/or for their own profit” isn’t _that_ radical is it?

There are a whole bunch of James Bond films which hang their entire plot on this premise.

 

[weltweit]

Maybe I’ve spent too long on here but “super rich people shouldn’t be able to run the rest of society on vague whims of their own and/or for their own profit” isn’t _that_ radical is it?

But do they run society? Take Gates as an example, extremely rich, and I am using Windows 10 as I type this, but I am also using Apache Open Office at home rather than spending money on MS Office (although I have Office 365 at work) how much does Gates (did gates) run society? arguably much more than Musk does!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There are a whole bunch of James Bond films which hang their entire plot on this premise.

The Elon Musk/Bond villain comparison is not one that’s escaped being made.

 

[redsquirrel]

The reason I tend to give Musk the benefit of the doubt, is because I tend to admire people who start businesses that create employment for the rest of us, a rest of us who, for one reason or another, don't start businesses.

I really don't know where to start with this.

 

[weltweit]

I really don't know where to start with this.

I guess it might depend on whom you rely for your own employment?

 

[redsquirrel]

I guess it might depend on whom you rely for your own employment?

No, no it doesn't.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But do they run society? Take Gates as an example, extremely rich, and I am using Windows 10 as I type this, but I am also using Apache Open Office at home rather than spending money on MS Office (although I have Office 365 at work) how much does Gates (did gates) run society? arguably much more than Musk does!

Microsoft relentlessly lobbied and bribed governments around the world to get their software used in public education - though Google is now a lot better at this. I’m sure that there were many planning and economic decisions based on the interests of Microsoft too; Ireland is a place that comes to mind. (Amazon now does this ruthlessly in the US.)

And yes Bill Gates still has a vast amount of influence on the world, way beyond any of us, because of the amount of money he has, and he is using it, and I don’t remember anyone voting for him.

 

[magneze]

How could you achieve this? taxes perhaps? certainly the likes of Bill Gates are obscenely rich, does it make it ok that he is now giving back? Should it be up to the individual billionaire to give back on their own terms? or should they be taxed such that redistribution is organised by governments? And would governments do a better job even?

It could be a motivation to do something with wealth to have a 100% death duty, but it would likely just cause migration unless it was global which it isn't going to be.

Yes, an accountable government will do far better at redistribution than an unaccountable billionaire, in general.

 

[weltweit]

Yes, an accountable government will do far better at redistribution than an unaccountable billionaire, in general.

One has to ask then, why are they not doing it? not just here but across the world?

Apple, Amazon, Google, Costa etc etc, they all seem to run rings around tax regimes.

 

[magneze]

One has to ask then, why are they not doing it? not just here but across the world?

Apple, Amazon, Google, Costa etc etc, they all seem to run rings around tax regimes.

See Fridgemagnets answer above.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It’s almost as if people and groups benefiting from absurd concentrations of power use it to perpetuate and enhance their position