Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's similar (ish), but I think unfortunately the comparison distracts from your core point and observation.

Musk Inc. is, in essence, a privet equity company. He raises a fund, and invests it along with his own cash into a business he knows well, and with which he believes he can disrupt the status quo.

He's very hands on, understanding all the important core details, setting culture, and pushing hard. But he also delegates to experts he brings in to run his businesses.

It's obviously not the same as PE, but there are distinct similarities. With each of his companies he clearly can't take an active role all the time, but what his team are experts at is identifying the areas he needs to be on top of, and they will quite literally fly him in for it. It seems to me it's always the start of something, be it a new company or project. He will be there 24/7 getting it off the ground, but then hand over to lieutenants to run.

It's a formula that seems to work again and again. We're (well those of you in the US) are in for an interesting time over the coming year as he has a new project to kick start.

I agree with you, yet in a somewhat different way.

He is an investor investing in science fiction. This isn't even implied, he comes out and says it again and again.

I'm reminded of xerox parc's "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" and I think that's his philosophy.

As to "businesses he knows well" I do not agree. He didn't go into electric vehicles, rockets, robots or neural interfaces as "business he knows well".

Just read about musk going to russia to try to get a launch vehicle going and coming back insulted and frustrated. So he broke down the problem and learned how to solve it.

Also "Private Equity" has a connotation of rent seeking nowadays, like "buying all dentists and monetizing to extract profit".

I don't see him that way philosophically. I see him as a pure creator, not a rent seeking wealth extractor.

With Twitter/X he definitely did act like a PE firm with deep cuts and a simplified operating model (eg. no moderation.)

Although strangely he destroyed the revenue model at the same time, which is something a PE firm would be careful to avoid.

I see twitter as sort of frustration thing, like hyperloop.

With hyperloop - he was frustrated by the way high speed rail was being handled in california, and hyperloop came into being as his cost + engineering sort of optimization. But with hyperloop he wasn't forced to buy it.

With twitter he just got in too deep and had to buy it.

(though I probably don't know enough about the details of twitter and could be wrong)

I’m curious why this is being downvoted (seems to hit the nail on the head)

Well, it's certainly how Musk likes to market himself.

12 children, 3 billion dollars companies, "advising" the government on cutting millions of jobs", yet he is "very hands on"

And hundreds of tweets per day.

don't forget his diablo IV streams

Seriously though, if he's primarily in a delegation mode these days, good for him, I think he's earned it

Bias disclosure: I feel like I could be a Musk if I actually had zero laziness and a few extra connections. We are similar in intelligence and interests and worldview (other than his edgy tweets of the last 1-2 years)

A temporarily embarrassed Elon Musk

Don't let your dreams be dreams.

It’s not being downvoted due to any inaccuracy, but rather the implied positive sentiment about Musk’s involvement with the government.

A more pessimistic view might be: Musk’s businesses have technological advantages but are financially over-leveraged. Their present success relies on heavy government subsidies while their future success depends on complete privatization of government functions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com