You won't be saying that after he gives you a neuro-implant thing!
Elon Musk's epic bacon adventures
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
I agree. It forced other companies to produce electric cars, even cheap ones though. No one was talking for electric cars before Tesla.
I mean, Elon Musk might be a total prick (which he seems to be) and also influence the world for the better (which his work at Tesla has done). They are not necessarily incompatible. Not unlike how Karl Marx was probably a nice person, and significantly influenced the world for the worse.
I think that making the system work better for the majority of the people should be the goal, end of the story. The inequality problem if it gets solved as a byproduct of it, fine, but I do not see it as a goal in itself. Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be grand if everyone gets twice as much wealth even if that means that Bezos and Musk become trillionaires. The inequality here would increase, but everyone would be better off.
Not saying that this is what is happening, that is really not the case. In the last 50 years, the purchasing power of the bottom half has been stagnant (I believe based on the study you check, it has increased 1% or so yearly) while the ultra-rich have become significantly richer. I also do think that fixing the inequality problem might actually also improve the lives of the majority, which if true, is a goal worth pursuing. As I said a million times though, I do not think that it is as simple as 'taxing more the billionaires'. If I thought it was that easy, I definitely would have supported such measures considering that a) I think that improving the lives of the majority is the goal; b) I am not a billionaire and with an extremely high probability I won't ever be one.
Surely we've always been a capitalist society though by and large? Haven't democracy and socialism been the key factors in driving improvement in the standards of living? When we started educating people better productivity improved and the pace of technological change increased. I would say that's surely a bigger factor than whether traders could buy and sell shares by the microsecond.
Great. Now that you agree with virtually everyone else in this thread, what exactly is the debate ?
How can that be done. Which was the debate since this thread changed from Elon Musk's latest tweet to the topic of capitalism.
The topic is still very much Elon Musk and why its inherently unhealthy for any society to have massive amounts of capital hoarded by a handful of elites and away from the hundreds of millions who could use it to improve society - healthcare, infrastructure, education and more could easily be funded with taxation schemes that bring some of the capital back to the rest society. Its neither complicated nor controversial.
@Revan what are you talking about? no one produces electric cars for cheap. They are still expensive. And more importantly, people were aware of electric cars long before musk came along. You’re just pushing made-up pr talking points that don’t mean anything.
The biggest thing? Nah, I'm sorry but the push the Chinese have made on driving down the costs in things like solar power and battery storage have been way bigger contributing factors. Can't say I like him but Xi Jinping has done way more for climate change than Musk despite also being arguably the world's biggest polluter.
I will say that Musk is almost uniquely gifted at exploiting silly investment fund tech money and using it to do worthwhile or interesting things. He has the same fundraising / excitement generating ability as Steve Jobs but is marginally less of a terrible bastard. On the other hand, such investment decisions being put in the hands of a few such inadequate, childish people is one of the great flaws of capitalism - if the same money was able to be invested in a large number of smaller companies and research bodies we'd probably have got a lot further along the path by now. The current financial system is pretty good at scaling a small number of ideas quickly but less so at developing the ideas in the first place.
Most car companies are going full electric within 2030. Electric car prices are falling down, in fact there are already cheaper electric cars.
People were aware of electric cars before same as people were aware of internet before the nineties, or aware of smart phones before iPhone. Yes, they were aware of that. And there it ended.
I have to disagree. The research done by the megacorporations is far more qualitative than from the smaller research bodies. At least in the field I am working, so maybe I am extrapolating (though it is the same for quantum computing and space exploration for example).
Xi Jingping might have a claim when China starts polluting a bit less. They are by far the world's biggest releaser of Co2 and that has increased during Xi's mandates.
There isn't just one system of the last 200 years though. That's an overly simplistic view.
European social democracies are better than modern American capitalism and modern American capitalism is a little better than the pure laissez-faire capitalism of 140 years ago. So America is hardly the best model to follow at this stage of evolution. We should be focusing on improving upon European social democracies and implementing them around the world not rah-rahing some overly reductive view of "capitalism". Also, we care about how much the 2% own because it directly affects how the rest of us live with things like healthcare and purchasing power for instance.
European social democracies wouldn't exist in the first place, and Europeans would be speaking Russian and having a photo of Vladimir Putin in their bedroom, if it wasn't for American's system and consequently the defense that the US provides to Europe.
it is easier to do things right when someone is doing some things for you. And anyway, there are more people from European social democracies that leave for the US, than the other way around. So the US must be doing something right, I guess.
You’re just making this up. No car manufacturers agreed to producing cheaper cars. That is a losing business strategy. They will happily come up with a way to squeeze more $$ out of it. As to your latter point, it didn’t end there reVan.
Last edited:
Man, this is just an ignorant view of history that you hear from Fox News.
In short, if it wasn't for massive public investment (IE not laissez-faire capitalism and not even modern US capitalism) under Roosevelt the US wouldn't have had a strong enough foundation to have been able to win WWII. The Manhattan Project was another massive public investment. It wasn't "capitalism" that won WWII for the US, it was public investment on a grand scale. Capitalism had bankrupted the US and left it in the Great Depression. Had capitalism been left to its own devices, you'd be worshipping a photo of Adolf in your German university. Oh and let's not forget a lot of prominent capitalists at the time (like Henry Ford) loved the Nazis and would have welcomed them with open arms. It was massive public investments and redistribution of wealth that prevented the Axis from winning WWII. So really, based on your own criteria, it wasn't laissez-faire capitalism that saved the world and thus, it isn't the greatest system the world ever invented.
Also, your immigration argument is because Europe still has more strict immigration policies and America has an educational problem with learning other languages so the vast majority of Americans couldn't immigrate to Europe even if they wanted to. Personally, I'd move to Europe in a second if it was possible. I feel trapped in the US sadly.
Last edited:
I know it's not easy when a bunch of people are quoting you, but this is such an incredibly deluded post.
There are electric cars right there that costs upper tens, e.g., Seat, VW, Skoda.
It became clear that the demand for electric cars is increasing, so the car companies had either to adjust to the reality, or do a Nokia and die. So in many aspects, Tesla is like Apple when it comes to Smartphones. Just that car companies didn't do a Nokia or Blackberry and not fight back.
I do not think that I ever supported a laissez-faire capitalist approach.
it is absolutely true that Europe has not enough defense capabilities and is dependent on the US (consequently, their system) when it comes to defense.
I do not think this is true at all. The US has much stricter immigration policies than most European countries. If you are outside of EU, I am quite confident that it is easier to come to the EU than to come to the US legally. The process of legally immigrating to the US is quite a bit longer than to most EU countries.
Also, it is not that it is US vs EU. The last time I checked and posted the data here, there were more people from virtually every EU country living in the US, than the other way around.
Demand amongst whom? rich people? tech douchebags with money to burn? no ordinary person is thinking about buying the next Tesla or whichever electric car. These are mostly for upper-middle-class folks and even then it is a push to say there is a huge demand.
Then why every car company is fully switching to producing only electric cars (or 70%+) within this decade?
Did you not read my full post? That only happened because of massive public investment not seen on a scale in America over the last 50 years not because of "capitalism."
The bold is 100% not true. It's far easier for Europeans to come to the US than the reverse. Otherwise, I'd already be living in Europe. It's way harder for an American to move to the UK than the reverse.
Because the govt is incentivizing them and wants them to stop destroying the planet even further. If car companies had their way, they will never stop whatever they are doing. American cities are a mess mostly because of car manufacturers, to begin with.
We were talking if US's system is better or EU's one. My point is, there wouldn't be an EU without the US 'protecting' the EU in the first place.
That's interesting if true. I'll guess it is anecdotal, but I know a shitload of people from my country who went to EU rather than the US cause easier. I also lived in 3 EU countries in addition to the US, and US migration policies are a bitch. And when it comes to taking your SO with you, it is almost trivial in EU countries and a nightmare in the US.
Why the government did not do so before Tesla proved that you can have electric cars? Maybe they just weren't aware of the climate change, I guess.
Again, comfortably leaving out the govt subsidies part. Just PR talking points that mean nothing.
But that is the job of the government. Otherwise, why take taxes in the first place if it does not help. So the government is just doing its job.
Tesla served as a catalyst for all this though. I mean, sure, you can hate Musk as much as you want, and I totally agree that he is a prick. However, what he has done with Tesla has totally been revolutionary and a very high net positive for society. Even if Tesla stops existing from today.
And my point is that your argument is so reductive and missing out on facts that it's meaningless.
In short, the only reason there is a EU and the modern US is because of massive public investment not because of capitalism. You just repeated a famous Fox News one liner from the last 25 years without looking into it deeper.
A longer answer is that you have reduced system to "capitalism" and the last 200 years without understand how the last 200 years has not seen just one system but many systems. For one thing, the modern US was built on the back of slavery. From a pure economic point of view, slavery was quite efficient (free labor). It's also obviously cruel, inhuman, racist, and has a huge human cost. But it's efficient economically. The US also industrialized with a version of laissez-faire capitalism that also had massive human costs and treated workers like cattle whose lives were dispensible. These were the versions of American capitalism that led to the Great Depression.
America wasn't able to win WWII because of capitalism but rather because it desperately pivoted to tons of socialist programs (IE public investment) to try to save the dying country. Roosevelt's massive public investment and socialistic programs are what won WWII. So your Fox News one-liner isn't a valid argument.
I know dozens of people that have had far easier time coming to the US from Europe and Asia and Australia than vice versa. You are an EU citizen so you don't experience how much more of a bitch UK and European immigration policies in general are that a US citizen experiences. It's 100% true that its harder for a non-Commonwealth US citizen to get to Europe than vice-versa. Plus people in Europe, LA, Asia speak English at a far higher rate than the US citizens speak any other language which compounds the difficulty.
So immigration is not a valid argument for which system is better.
Did you watch the video I posted on the previous page regarding government financial support for Tesla ?
I'll cue it up for you.
Come on. He doesn’t pay taxes like most people. But is happy to take a handout and crown himself as king dildo. Like I said, stop parroting pr talking points that mean nothing. It’s weird and cultish.
They did at some point didn't they?
Honestly, I stopped reading after you mentioned Fox News. I mean, I am not an American, I do not live in the US, I have voted center-left/left in all my life, I do not watch Fox News, or to be fair, any other US TV. Why should I even do so?
Also, as I said, I am not an EU citizen, so I had to go over the bureaucracy of 3 EU countries and the US. US was the toughest, Switzerland was the easiest, Germany and Italy in between.
I never had any doubt that the US gave money to Tesla, I mean it has been public knowledge forever. It also was money very well-spent. It probably should also not have gone there for free, instead, the government should have been a shareholder (and then sell their shares to the public after their IPO).
It's been reported that Bezos keeps around 5% of his wealth in cash reserves, that's a good 8-10 billion on any given day. The article below pegs him around 16-billion in cash reserves.
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/jeffrey-p-bezos/?sref=xTkgnLSf
Mark Cuban also keeps a large percentage of cash reserves and limits his market investing to a handful of select investments.
Then learn some history because repeating a common right-wing talking point that is easily disproven by learning some history of the US before WWII.
I'll summarize again for you since you still neglect the overall point: The only reason there is a EU and the modern US is because of massive public investment not because of capitalism. America wasn't able to win WWII because of capitalism but rather because it desperately pivoted to tons of socialist programs (IE public investment) to try to save the dying country. Roosevelt's massive public investment and socialistic programs are what won WWII.
And you're clearly an exception rather than the norm on immigration because even a quick Google shows Switzerland is much harder to immigrate to than the US:
https://visaguide.world/tips/hardest-countries-to-immigrate-to/
Some proper weird Elon Musk fan boys in here. Probably republicans and tories too
For that reason I’m out.
For that reason I’m out.
When that's reported, it doesn't really mean what people interpret it as. The FDIC only insures up to 250K. When its said Bezos and Cuban keep money in "cash reserves" what they really mean is that they have private bankers in super-secure liquid investments like treasury bills and CDs so they can write a check instead of using their credit line but its not like they are sitting on a pile of cash (like a drug cartel).
They've lowered the price of solar and wind for the whole world, not just for China. He's also finally getting tough on the local governments to stop building new coal plants so you'll see China's emissions drop in the next few years (I think they're due to peak in 2030 sadly but let's see).
I'm not sure what you mean by qualitative but I work in renewable energy and Bosch's influence on our product has been good in some ways (scaling up manufacturing) but average to bad in others (developing good products). Our other majority shareholder has certainly provided a massive cash influx and potential market penetration but they are by and large a very low skilled company overall. Basically both of them in slightly different ways and to slightly different degrees demonstrate what I've been saying about capitalism being great at scaling up an idea with traction, but not great in terms of driving innovation or improving the quality of work. A lot of engineering these days is basically churn it out by the bucket load at mid-market price and feck off early.
I'm not sure forcing Elon to sell 99% of his TSLA stock would be a net positive for society. Stock would tank, plenty of passive index investors would get fecked, and other than punishing Musk it woulnd't solve much. You can deal with extreme concentration of wealth by imposing an adjusted gross income tax, a punitive inheritance tax (say 80-90%), tax cap gains at higher rates, removing offshore tax havens from global finance, taxing stock buybacks etc.
I'm surprised this Bernie shtick is still getting mileage after all these years, the guy is the worst demagogue in American politics.
I agree with @Revan that taxing unrealized cap gains is dumb, illegal and could only come about by a progressive left that is ideologically fixated on a confiscatory way of running the country. They hate "Elon" and "Bezos" and literally wrote a bill that primarily affects tech Billionaires (i.e. Democrat donors) and leaves intact the Kochs for example (Koch Industries is privately held!) who've been the bogeymen of the left for decades and wreaked so much havoc and evil in America from pollution, to climate change denying, to Citizens United etc, etc.
Anyhoo, I don't think this 'billionaire tax" has any chance of becoming law, because you can't pass a bill that specifically targets 500 or 1,000 people, not with this conservative Supreme Court. Bernie knows that, Wyden knows that too - yet they can't seem to come up with creative ways to craft a passable bill because they're not interested in actually increasing Federal tax revenues, they're interested in ideological warfare, in remaining relevant and keeping those $10 donations flowing.
Indeed!
By the way, didn't France impose a wealth tax on people making over 1MM EUROS a year and scraped it after a couple of years because wealthy people started immigrating out of France and the tax revenue lost was greater than the new revenue tax that was introduced?