Hacker News Reader

Comment by Workaccount2 | Hacker News Reader

>Wow, a full half of Tesla's operating income came from tax credits( around $800M of $1.6B operating income).

Totally logical for the CEO of the company to be vocal supporter of the man who wants to kill those credits.

One of the last questions on the earnings call that just completed, was what would happen to Tesla revenue if Trump wins and those get cancelled. His answer after a pause, was that it probably would have an impact...and would probably be worst for his competitors...but does not really matter because they are all into FSD....

He did say he considers the "woke mind virus" to be a bigger threat to humanity than climate change. So I think he's being consistent even if it hurts him and his shareholders.

"he's being consistent even if it hurts him and his shareholders"

That is not a luxury CEOs get. They do not have a free hand to run companies, they are hired by boards of directors who represent the shareholders. His job is to work for the benefit of shareholders, and if he can't do that then it's simply a case of firing him.

Tesla did what it needed to do: force the world towards EVs. If it dies, legacy auto and BYD will carry on. It will be a shame if Tesla dies because the board didn’t have the will to push Elon out (wrt the brand, its stationary storage business, and ~120k global employees), such is the peril of poor corporate governance.

I cancelled my Cybertruck res, and after buying four Teslas, I will not spend another dime on one until Elon is gone. Tesla is, hopefully, forced into self preservation by market fundamentals.

It seems like the current board is stacked with Musk suppoters. So things will have to get very bad before they will push him out.

> His job is to work for the benefit of shareholders, and if he can't do that then it's simply a case of firing him.

I was under the impression that the fiduciary duty was to the company/corporation. At least that's the case in Canada (2008 SCC 69):

* https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/doing-business-in-canada...

(Further, legally speaking, the shareholders are not legally the owners of a company, just another type of stakeholder.)

There's a Feynman brain virus that reshapes "fiduciary duty" as "profit for shareholders uber alles".

While institutional shareholders generally mean your boss is an excel sheet seeking profit, the only "duty" to shareholders is still "do not defraud them". They can, of course, seek to change the board though...

That is right in theory, wrong in practice. You can go to jail if you violate your fiduciary responsibility, you can also fulfil your fiduciary duties and easily lose your CEO job if you do not prioritize shareholder returns. I'm talking about publicly traded US based companies, like Tesla. This is how proxy advisory services like ISS and Glass Lewis, and board politics in general work. Tesla has defied the rules for a long time, because of the massive cred for innovation and value creation that Musk has accrued over time. That is finite.

How much room is there for interpretation though?

I mean, can Musk argue that he legitimately believes battling the woke mind virus is for the benefit of Tesla shareholders and their returns on investment and thus fulfilling his fiduciary duty?

In theory shareholders can vote pretty much as they want regarding removal and approval of CEOs.

Breach of fiduciary duty however would be if CEO intentionally defrauded then of their value (essentially, through intentional bad care for the company)

I seem to recall that there was a US Supreme Court decision stating that that is the essential purpose of a corporation. Looking for the citation, though.

“Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else.”

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,....

Can't edit anymore, but of course I meant Friedman not Feynman.

The board of Tesla represents Musk. Their actions lay this bare. They would have fired him after he attempted (and later succeeded) to extort Tesla.

If the CEO has to work for the shareholders benefit even outside the work then what about the rank-and-file? Should not all the Amazon employees be forced to shop only at amazon.com and WFM? Should not all Microsoft employees use only Microsoft software? Should all Google employees use Pixel phones and Netflix employees fired for subscribing to competitor streaming services or buying movie tickets?

I think your expectations of loyalty might be a bit exaggerated. A job is a job. Whether as a CEO or as a warehouse picker, it's not one's life.

That you, Steve Ballmer? (He used to get very upset when Microsoft employees used iPhones, apparently).

But no, _employees_ of a company do not have the same fiduciary duties towards a company that its officers do.

Officers are employees too. At what level do you make distinction?

All officers are employees, but not all employees are officers. C-suite employees are all officers at least. I’m not sure how far below that it expands.

So it's just the name of the position? Somebody with a title of "chief nutritional officer" has to live for the employer and somebody doing the same job with the title of "associate project manager" doing the same job of ordering lunches can have a life?

I mean, nothing stops you from making it into job requirements in your company, but, apparently, this is not a requirement at Tesla...

> I mean, nothing stops you from making it into job requirements in your company

What, nothing stops you making director-style fiduciary responsibility a job requirement for normal employees in your company? I'd, er, check with a lawyer before you try that one.

You might want to check with a lawyer or, at least, with Google, what does "fiduciary responsibly" mean.

> C-suite employees are all officers at least.

I'm not sure that's always or even often true, despite the 'O' in the name. You're generally mostly talking about the CEO plus directors.

The evidence does not show these directors doing anything but giving Musk a free hand. Textbook notions don't apply to Tesla.

I don't want to be like this but folks that unironically use ’woke’ makes it very easy to tell their media habits.

I'm not sure if you're passing judgement on Musk or the person you're replying to, but just for context, both Musk and Trump often use "woke" as a derogatory word.

That is a judgement on Musk and Trump. 'Woke' is a stereo type, it is used as a dog whistle rather than an accurate description of a large set of people. It is a way of 'othering' that is both very defined and yet a complete characterure.

It is one of those terms were if you were to actually find people that are truly 'woke' and respresent everything it stands for, it would be a very difficult task indeed. It is like taking the 'No true Scottsman' fallacy and tipping it on its head.

I feel I'm missing something — wouldn't "consistency" here require that the credits are due to whatever it is that he thinks "woke" is?

Woke is whatever you don’t like at the moment.

So he can’t be inconsistent.

It sure looks that way from the outside, but then I wouldn't call it "being consistent".

What I mean is if you’re against “woke” things and you define “woke” as things you’re against those two things can’t be in conflict.

I’m not saying what he (or anyone else) says today is consistent with anything else he says or has said. Just that that one statement is _internally_ consistent.

Don't worry, I got that :)

"The man who wants ... " does not have a track record of actually wanting anything but power and celebrity.

Surely, Trump wouldn't change his mind on the tax credits, just because Musk is giving so much money to his PACs at the moment

It would be immoral for Trump to offer a quid pro quo to Musk, so that couldn't be the what's happening at the moment

    "When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all his many 
    subsidized projects, whether its electric cars that don't drive long enough, 
    driverless cars that crash, or rocket ships to nowhere, without which 
    subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and 
    Republican, I could have said, 'drop to your knees and beg,' and he would 
    have done it..."

 -Trump, who Elon is currently giving $45 million / month for his campaign.

But hey, that's pocket change compared to the brand value he has incinerated on Twitter.

Ouch! It is that age old problem. Massive wealth is unelected power, and they use the wealth to influence who we get to pick and what they do. Its not guranteed to happen but it is a sizable influence.

Hopefully his investment in Trump has as much RoI as his investment in Twitter. Regardless of which way the election goes.

unelected? hundreds of millions of people have given jeff bezos money

A solid half of those have the choice of either Bezos or the Waltons

That isn't a vote for Bezo's to have power over others. That is merely a vote for the goods/services being sold.

To most people, those two things are completely separate despite actually being two sides of the same coin.

I thought this was hyperbole, but nope. Literally posted by the guy.

Same here, it's on his Truth Social page:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1086367432957...

https://youtu.be/Wm2_7j6xYDo?t=1356

This is Elon, who lies perpetually about everything. Absolutely no chance he ends up giving Trump $200 million.

Yep, he has a history of not following through with donations.

Elon is not giving Trump $45 million per month. Musk denied this in a recent interview with Peterson. He did say created a PAC though. [1]

I know it makes Musk an easy target and easier to attack when a report comes out saying he's donating $45m to Trump but seriously people need to stop believing blindly what the media says about anyone (and Musk especially) without fact-checking first. When I first saw the article about it in WSJ I was skeptical. There were 0 sources and it was sus.

"Oh WSJ said it so it must be true!"

WSJ's source: "according to people familiar with the matter." [2]

[1] https://time.com/6999003/elon-musk-donate-millions-trump-cam...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/elon-musk-has-said-he...

Ooh, Trump is going to be disappointed, he's been bragging about the $45M figure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxb-eXwcsEI

You believe everything Trump says? His staff told him that after reading business insider. They didn't even bother checking their actual accounts to see if Elon's super PAC donated $45M this month.

So you think he will take the news gracefully that he isn't getting $45M after all? LOL.

So wait, he created a PAC and donated $45 million dollars to the PAC and the pac is meant to support Trump right?

Where do you see he donated $45 million to it? Legit source please? Not WSJ "someone familiar with the matter"

Yes the PAC may support Trump but I don't think he's pumping 45 mil a month into it. WSJ put that article about it without any sources and Musk denied it.

Makes you wonder what we don’t know about the relationship.

Musk is thinking more about getting Trump elected to avoid the DOJ investigations. Seems that he is willing to sacrifice Tesla to avoid federal prosecution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com