Burnham, Elon, and the Revenge of Entrepreneurial Capitalism
eriktorenberg.substack.com
eriktorenberg.substack.com
It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that. Most of us when we go hypo will end up blasting through our savings, screwing around (literally) and generally pissing off all around us by behaving in a self centred and irrational way, but ultimately the damage we do is limited mostly to ourselves. Elon on the other hand has spent billions on a company, apparently on a whim, probably during another episode, that he later regretted and tried to get out of, again presumably when he came down, and now appears to be taking a series of increasingly irrational and destructive decisions that are affecting the lives of many. To be honest, I think it's kind of sad to watch.
Seems like normal behaviour for him, he's often in the news for being a dick, just as much as he is for his entrepreneurial ventures.
SBF was a huge Democratic Party donor and he's not escaping severe criticism because of it, even if the NYT and some other outlets might've gone easy on him. The court of public opinion is still severely against him.
It’s how politics works in the US. If you’re on “our team” your faults are overlooked. On the “other team”? Clearly unfit for your position.
And the fun part is they’ll often make such comments the same day.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
And the Republicans do the same thing on different issues - talking about wasteful spending and then turn around support wasteful spending themselves.
It’s hypocritical and unsurprising most voters don’t believe anything politicians say.
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
there was interference in the election (hacking) Republicans have pushed for voter suppression "fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi) voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
It’s hypocritical.
More on the topic, the things you listed as responsible management are all removing agency from the person and treating them like children because otherwise you can’t be trusted. Imo being responsible is learning to manage your own issues as an adult.
How can you say that with such certainty? Maybe he’s not listening to them. Same for Kanye. A lot of people spoke with him about his condition. Did that make any difference?
Real example about Musk: a lot of people told him to not start SpaceX. Did he stop? I’m glad though he did not.
I condemn that
They said "willing or able"
I was referring to this part - “It's quite clear”
Interesting to see how that's going for Facebook, Twitter.
So I not sure if managerialism vs industrialist is the right divide here. But there is some divide that makes Elon owning Twitter more notable than Blackrock owning it for some reason.
SpaceX gets government contracts, yes, but no more than Boeing or Lockheed Martin. You can also argue they give a lot more value for the public money they do get, relative to the industry incumbents.
Similarly, any other car company that had bothered to make a viable electric car could have cashed in on the regulatory credits. In fact Toyota, the biggest car company in the world, was doing this for a decade with the Prius, until they dropped the ball on going full electric.
It should be secondary if Musk is more like a manager or an entrepreneur. The question is whether he personally can make Twitter better or not.
There come mixed signals from his other investments but it stands out that he questions existing procedures within industries. As such, despite all the negative decisions, it is quite likely that he can lift Twitter's roadblocks. It could as well be Twitter that is the globally dominating social network.
Unlike Facebook, they don't seem to experiment. Facebook tries to offer everything that people want from a social network, when it sees other social networks doing it first. If Twitter becomes like SpaceX or Tesla, it could be Twitter that is doing things first.
When HN preaches the benefits of founder-led companies, it does not claim that founders are a different class from other types of CEOs. More hands-on and with more personally invested, sure. But are all founders truly different from the managerial class? That seems to be more of a management style than anything. And founder-led companies are often less than successful- just ask Dorsey himself. Was he PMC? Was he not an entrepreneur capitalist when he was CEO of Twitter the second time around? This is all a lot of half-baked analysis to claim that one set of presumably more able management and an older ossified set of management are two entirely different classes of people.
And how is this in any way related to Musk's absolutely insane antics at twitter? In no way at all. The article also suggests that Musk is good because twitter used to be owned by the Saudis, but forgets that Musks purchase was funded by the Saudis. It somehow manages to say nothing and contain pretty garish misrepresentations at the same time.
The blogpost also uses a lot of 4chan/libertarian dog whistles: "normie", "marketplace of ideas", references to Ayn Rand for petes sake.
Honestly, what a load of drivel.
I was expecting perhaps a new and savage Bo Burnham musical takedown of Space Karen . . . instead it was fantastical Rand-esque fanfic salivating over some notion of überMuschk.
Possibly it's just the combo of crypto-fascist vibes and the use of juvenile terms like "normie" that triggers some 4chan detector in my brain.
I won’t be giving any business associated with him any time or money.
I really don’t know why people worship him so much.
People treat him like he's a Henry Ford but he's more of a Kim Kardashian (except Kim has some actual talent). He really just wants attention and fame, most of his success is built by other people and he's just made very visible stunts to get the media to focus on him.