#investing #elonmusk #uspolitics
Fatal mistake. There will be an inevitable falling out of the Trump / Musk marriage of convenience. Nobody can stand next to Trump without getting a knife in the back.
My investment advice: short #TSLA. Everything Trump touches turns to shit.
@CheapPontoon keep in mind that the reason Musk is supporting Trump is in part because he's already had a knife in the back.
The whole Trump thing is based on bringing down a system that people feel has betrayed them. It really is about tearing down, not building up. And so at this point Musk has felt so spurned by the status quo that he might as well join in the table flipping.
So inevitable falling out isn't much of a threat for him. Yeah, Trump's going to screw him over, and I bet he knows that very well, but the powers that be are already screwing him over, so he might as well try to be screwed over by someone different in case it leads to something better down the road.
Trump is a system of a failed system, not a cause. It was entirely foreseeable. We should have, and we should, focus on fixing the system so that people don't resort to folks like Trump.
Elon Musk is the world’s richest man. He controls 2/3 of the satellites in orbit. He casually purchased one of the world’s most important social media networks. He extracts vast wealth from the workers he controls and from the publics of states with which he has signed parasitic service contracts. He violates immigration, labor, drug, and electoral laws without consequence.
The idea that “Musk has felt…spurned by the status quo” is so trivially absurd that it’s hard to believe you’re doing anything but churning out low-rent propaganda for some employer. Who would seriously and unironically believe this? The entire global status quo exists to service him and his reactionary preferences.
@HeavenlyPossum @CheapPontoon @volkris
Agree with much of what is said in this thread. The question is why Elon thinks the system is evil/broken because it sometimes creates some obstacles. In the end he he has created en enormous wealth within this system. As a very public CEO it would be wishful thinking to expect everyone will worship you. His current actions alienates a great part of his loyal supporters through a decade++.
Musk hasn’t created anything. He has captured revenue streams, but he does not actually make anything.
@HeavenlyPossum @volkris @CheapPontoon Any way you look at it, both SpaceX and Tesla was high risk companies. Both are now industry leading, which are both impressing and frightening at the same time,
And Musk built neither of them. He simply owns them.
@HeavenlyPossum @volkris @CheapPontoon This is abvoiusly not true. He did not found Tesla, but the achievement of making an EV maker a success is quite astonishing. Every new car manufacturer for almost 100 years have failed before that.
He did not make anything. He used wealth inherited from an apartheid emerald mine to purchase control of the labor of other people, lobby for regulatory capture, and con investors via an inflationary asset bubble. Musk has never built anything or usefully labored in his life.
@HeavenlyPossum @volkris @CheapPontoon This is an outright lie. Please stop it. It feeds the disinformation machine.
I have said nothing but the truth.
@HeavenlyPossum @CheapPontoon @dagb @volkris I think the disagreement is from the idea that ‘putting money into’ is equivalent to ‘actually making something’. Musk did NOT make anything, he put money in to stuff, and engineers made things.
Take SpaceX, which actually did some revolutionary engineering. Musk started it to try and live on mars. He’s a billionaire dipshit. It’s successful because he’s kept far the fuck away from ‘making things.’
@True_Heresy I mean the history shows that's factually incorrect. @HeavenlyPossum @CheapPontoon @dagb
@volkris @HeavenlyPossum @CheapPontoon @dagb Great point. Apart from the part where what I said were literally facts from history.
@dagb @True_Heresy @volkris @CheapPontoon
Imagine thinking that Elon Musk is capable of building anything but an asset bubble.
@HeavenlyPossum I mean, the factual record shows that he did.
Imagine knowing history.
@True_Heresy @CheapPontoon @volkris @dagb
The factual record shows that Musk inherited apartheid emerald wealth which he used to purchase stakes in other people’s lucrative endeavors and, later, a series of scams, parasitic government contracts, asset bubbles, and regulatory capture.
@HeavenlyPossum so if you think about it none of that has anything to do with anything I said.
@dagb @CheapPontoon @True_Heresy @volkris
I thought about it and it turns out I’m still right
@True_Heresy @volkris @CheapPontoon @dagb
In the sense that Musk has literally not once in his life done anything productive or useful. Ownership is not productive.
@HeavenlyPossum thinking your mind of anything you consider productive.
Chances are it involved some resource that somebody owned.
YES ownership is productive. Ownership directs resources toward productive uses where otherwise they would be lost in the chaos of uncertainty as to where they would go.
It's just economically illiterate to say that ownership is not productive.
Resources being owned is not what makes them productive. Unowned resources are just as productive as owned ones. (Air is typically regarded as unowned, and it's productively irreplaceable because one can't produce without air to breathe.)
Ownership is the right to direct resources, but a resource can be directed to a productive or unproductive use. Productivity lies not in the right but the use.
@HeavenlyPossum @True_Heresy @CheapPontoon @dagb @slowenough
@CheapPontoon @slowenough @True_Heresy @volkris @magitweeter @dagb
To phrase this a little differently, ownership is a right to interfere with someone else. Capitalism is predicated on owners’ right to interfere with non-owner’s self-sustenance, guaranteed by state violence, which is the process by which capitalists extract rents.
We can see this most clearly when we consider non-tangible and non-rivalrous capitalist property, like trademarks and copyrights. In these cases, there is literally no substance that can be directed; all the capitalist can do is threaten to interfere with someone else to extract rents. It’s private ownership distilled to its purest essence—a person with a gun threatening you for enjoying a work of art of a piece of music unless you first pay rents.
@HeavenlyPossum Well that's not true at all.
It's the exact opposite.
Ownership is a right not to be interfered with. Ownership only comes up when somebody is trying to interfere with your dictate over some property. You're not interfering with them, they are interfering with you.
That is the fundamental aspect of ownership.
@magitweeter @dagb @CheapPontoon @volkris @slowenough @True_Heresy
Nope! You’ve got it backwards. See for example: the slave owner’s claim to a right to interfere with the departure of an enslaved person, or the feudal lord’s claim to a right to interfere with the homesteading by a peasant of the manor’s fields.
There is no intrinsic, metaphysical relationship between you and something—some matter, some idea, whatever—that you claim as your property, only a social relationship that entails your claim or right to interference with anyone else’s use of the object of the property claim.