To everyone bashing ACO's statement about Musk:
And?
Because others are complete and total berkeleyups and are not doing anything to advance society doesn't mean that someone that is quarter-assing their way towards the advancement of society is an icon.
Hell, as much as a heel as J.K. Rowling turned out to be, she donated enough money to take her from a billionaire to a millionaire. She has that part right.
Luke 12:48
If you think Musk is "quarter assing" it, you are seriously not paying attention. The guy is going wide open throttle on multiple fronts, and his current wealth is a result of getting serious stuff done. If you just watch Twitter and read Jalopnik's clickbait snark, you're missing out on what's really going on.
If you want to see what quarter assing looking like, compare Bezos at Blue Origin vs Musk at SpaceX. One is a rich guy playing with stuff and getting nothing done, one is a guy who's doing things nobody thought was really possible.
We need more of the SpaceX Musk. It's like it's a different person than Tesla/Twitter Musk. I think that's because of Gwynne Shotwell and because people aren't as personally invested in rockets the way they are in their preferred car brands so there's less personal ire.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
That's not entirely true, Bezos is working around the clock to bring back company towns with their company stores. Frankly I'm surprised he hasn't bought his way into being allowed to pay Amazon employees with Amazon bucks instead of dollars yet.
Although, what wound up happening with Musk and the UN, when he offered to donate $6 billion to feed the hungry around the world IF the UN could detail how the money would be spent?
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Different perspective, but Bezos is zero assing for sure.
However Musk is paying a lot of very smart people to advance his businesses. His businesses benefit society, but only after he pockets the money from them. Thats his businesses, I have no problem with them.
I'm talking about Musk. I'm talking about giving to society. Last year he put just under $6billion in a DAF. Literally no one outside of Musk and the DAF knows if that money has been used for charitable donations or if it is another tax loophole (as DAFs often are.)
For stuff he has done that can be traced and verified, a couple years back he donated $50 million to St Jude, also $30mil to various Texas school districts. Another 20 mil here, 30 there. Bunch of Tesla shares randomly.
And thats great. But for someone that just spent $3 billion to get onto the board of directors for a company he has been feuding with? Thats nothing.
In fact, considering how much he spent on Twitter, you're right. Quarter assing isn't correct. I'm gonna drop that down to Sixteenth assing.
Repeatedly violating SEC rules and regs, misleading the stock market multiple times, advancing COVID and vaccine misinformation, Musk isn't advancing society. Hes a wrecking ball.
And thats literally the last thing I'm gonna say in this thread about Musk and how much he isn't doing.
I think one of the fundamental disconnects in how people view Musk is how they interpret his motivations. Is he in business to make lots of money? Or does he have a strong goal and is working towards it, and the businesses he builds to get there happen to be highly valued because they're getting things done? Ie, is the money the point or is it a byproduct?
I think it's the latter. SpaceX specifically and clearly is focused on one thing, and in working towards that one thing has had to change the way that industry works. It's an enormously valuable company but they're not chasing the easy money, they're bootstrapping the next generation. Tesla as well to some extent, but since it's a far less function-driven market there are more distractions like "ooo, let's put on crazy doors and let's make it make farting noises on demand". But still the goal remains, to stop burning fossil fuels while driving around and cut down on road deaths - the latter is what gets people really riled up and is the least successful part of the project for sure.
The effects of those two companies are the benefit to society even if none of the money (which is mostly paper, not real) get donated to (insert cause here). JK Rowling wrote a few books, that doesn't really change the world or have any lasting benefit other than to some publishers and moviemakers. And the profits are real, not based on stock prices. So her contribution to society would have to take some other form than the thing that made the money in the first place.
Bezos did change the world as well, for better or worse. But his motivation was money money money. He is a harder guy to admire.
You'll need to log in to post.
