Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[PJL]

But so many people cannot accept that a terrible human CAN accomplish something amazing, even when the evidence is right in front of them. This is such a perfect example of pure cognitive dissonance.

If a terrible person can accomplish something amazing, then he/she is no longer terrible.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am entirely certain that if Musk was not such an asshole, and was a properly progressive, liberal nice guy, 95% of the people in this thread dismissing SpaceX/Tesla would be perfectly happy talking about what a brilliant business man he is, and how great SpaceX is, and what amazing things he has done for climate change awareness and EVs.

I mean I guess I'm in the 5%? I've been a stock investor for over 35 years, the stock fundamentals have never been sound on Tesla, which lead me to conclude people were investing in that stock for things beyond the fundamentals. It is fairly easy to see it was "investing in Musk hype." That is not a knock on Musk, if you can become a megabillionaire by PT Barnuming lots of investors into pouring money into a car company that lost money every quarter for most of a decade, that is a skill. It isn't saving the world, it isn't being Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla or Thomas Edison (the people Musk wants to be associated with in people's minds.)

It should be recognized though that when you have made a company attain some moderate level of success entirely through hyping up investors, it is entirely reasonable to be dubious of that person's claims of grandiosity--particularly when they are not backed up by evidence. This is a guy who has made over $200bn by convincing people he is the second birth of Thomas Edison without actually inventing anything or even most of the time operating businesses in the green.

SpaceX is a murkier matter because it is not a publicly traded company, I have had some long discussions about SpaceX with a friend in that industry and he is always careful to note that we actually don't know exactly what cost savings, in what phases, of the build, launch, and recovery process SpaceX has achieved. We also know that Musk has made specific claims around these lines since at least 2014 without ever showing his work or backing it up with evidence. That in and of itself leads one to be at least a little skeptical that SpaceX is the major financial success it is portrayed to be.

Going back to Tesla--there is no particular reason for me to be "cheering them on." Mass movement of consumer automobiles to EVs is not, as far as I can tell, any particular noble or great thing. It will be a very minor net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, because of the fact most Teslas will be powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels and because the actual manufacturing and resource extraction processes that make lithium ion battery EVs possible create significant environmental harm at scale. And finally the consumer light vehicle contribution to global emissions is so small to begin with, that Musk is basically touting himself as a world savior over a minor net reduction in a sub-10% category of emissions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To me Musk is very reminiscent of the Steve Jobs phenomenon 15 years ago. I don't think any reasonable person would contest that Steve Jobs was a tremendous businessman. What people objected to were the "greater claims of generalized genius", which were very common around Jobs and are very common around Musk. Lots of people literally think Musk sits in his modern day Menlo Park tower and invents everything Tesla or SpaceX are doing, just like they thought Jobs literally invented the smartphone or the ideas behind it (ignoring that companies like Palm and even Microsoft had phones as far back as 2004 that would have satisfied the definition of smartphone--and ignoring the major success that was Blackberry.)

[Berkut]

Anyone who thinks Musk invented the rockets SpaceX develops is dumb though. So what?

[grumbler]

The comparison of Musk to Edison is very apt.  Edison also would have people believe that he invented the things his company made.  Edison made money, not light bulbs.

[crazy canuck]

I am entirely certain that if Musk was not such an asshole, and was a properly progressive, liberal nice guy, 95% of the people in this thread dismissing SpaceX/Tesla would be perfectly happy talking about what a brilliant business man he is, and how great SpaceX is, and what amazing things he has done for climate change awareness and EVs.

I am not at all surprised you are certain.

[DGuller]

I just find it funny that because you all don't like him, you have to then turn around and claim he is just lucky, or didn't actually do anything in business that really is impressive.

Since I was the one who mentioned luck, I guess it's aimed at me.  I did not claim that he is just lucky, I claimed that he is lucky.  One reason he got so incredibly rich is that he took reckless risks, and before his companies hit it big he was perilously close to bankruptcy for a long stretch of time.  Being lucky does not preclude one from being good.

The thing with getting lucky on the way up is that you tend to rely on your luck continuing, because you're not recognizing it for what it was.  That makes you susceptible to sudden falls from grace, when you make one reckless bet too many.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The comparison of Musk to Edison is very apt.  Edison also would have people believe that he invented the things his company made.  Edison made money, not light bulbs.

Except it isn't, right? Thomas Edison started what was essentially the first industrial research laboratory that produced any number of important inventions, and then he made a lot of money on commercialization of electricity. Technologically and even in terms of engineering there is not AFAICT anything innovative in Teslas other than maybe some of their in cabin car software. The battery technology, with minor engineering improvements, is the same lithium ion batteries everyone is using. The concept of a battery powered car is at least 100 years old--including previous working models. The idea of starting with a luxury line first was not even something Tesla was first at--there were several other companies trying the same thing.

SpaceX I've already gone over, mind that they weren't even actually reusing most of their rockets until very recently, and they have been very opaque on how much and what they were doing to lower launch costs outside of reusability. They also consistently have overstated how much they could reduce launch costs--which are again opaque because they are a private company.

Edison literally developed the first investor owned electric utility, and there is substantial evidence to suggest his innovations were key at both the timing and pace of electrification in general. Musk has made no contributions anywhere close to that. It shouldn't be controversial to say what someone has and hasn't done.

Anyone who thinks Musk invented the rockets SpaceX develops is dumb though. So what?

Well but that's exactly what people are talking about, that Musk overhypes himself. And then you roll in saying "well if he was a liberal you wouldn't be saying that." That's just not true, it's a bad take.

[grumbler]

Except it isn't, right? Thomas Edison started what was essentially the first industrial research laboratory that produced any number of important inventions, and then he made a lot of money on commercialization of electricity. Technologically and even in terms of engineering there is not AFAICT anything innovative in Teslas other than maybe some of their in cabin car software. The battery technology, with minor engineering improvements, is the same lithium ion batteries everyone is using. The concept of a battery powered car is at least 100 years old--including previous working models. The idea of starting with a luxury line first was not even something Tesla was first at--there were several other companies trying the same thing.

SpaceX I've already gone over, mind that they weren't even actually reusing most of their rockets until very recently, and they have been very opaque on how much and what they were doing to lower launch costs outside of reusability. They also consistently have overstated how much they could reduce launch costs--which are again opaque because they are a private company.

Edison literally developed the first investor owned electric utility, and there is substantial evidence to suggest his innovations were key at both the timing and pace of electrification in general. Musk has made no contributions anywhere close to that. It shouldn't be controversial to say what someone has and hasn't done.

Except that Edison didn't do those things, people who worked for him did.  He just took the credit, like Musk.

SpaceX, at Musk's direction, has developed an entirely new way of approaching launch vehicle R&D and it has been wildly successful.  Maybe Musk shouldn't get the credit for that, like Edison shouldn't get credit for developing an entirely new way of approaching R&D for electrical systems, but you can't judge them by different standards just to make Musk look bad.

I will say that Edison didn't let success turn his head the way Musk has.  Edison knew which lane he was swimming in.

[Berkut]

I just find it funny that because you all don't like him, you have to then turn around and claim he is just lucky, or didn't actually do anything in business that really is impressive.

Since I was the one who mentioned luck, I guess it's aimed at me.  I did not claim that he is just lucky, I claimed that he is lucky.  One reason he got so incredibly rich is that he took reckless risks, and before his companies hit it big he was perilously close to bankruptcy for a long stretch of time.  Being lucky does not preclude one from being good.

The thing with getting lucky on the way up is that you tend to rely on your luck continuing, because you're not recognizing it for what it was.  That makes you susceptible to sudden falls from grace, when you make one reckless bet too many.

No argument from me - I assume for anyone like Musk or Gates or Jobs there are a thousand just like them who just didn't get the break at the right time to hit it big. 

It's like any incredible talent or vision though - you have to have the talent to have the chance to hit it big like that. Combined with timing and a lot of luck.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Except that Edison didn't do those things, people who worked for him did.  He just took the credit, like Musk.

SpaceX, at Musk's direction, has developed an entirely new way of approaching launch vehicle R&D and it has been wildly successful.  Maybe Musk shouldn't get the credit for that, like Edison shouldn't get credit for developing an entirely new way of approaching R&D for electrical systems, but you can't judge them by different standards just to make Musk look bad.

I will say that Edison didn't let success turn his head the way Musk has.  Edison knew which lane he was swimming in.

He did not do them personally, but his organization did them. What I'm saying is not only is Musk not inventing electric cars or rockets, his companies also aren't doing things as important as Musk says they are. Edison's companies were.

[Berkut]

I think SpaceX is most certainly doing things, or at least trying to do things, as important as anything Edison did.

There are fair criticisms to be made about whether or not they are REALLY doing the things they claim I suppose - but Otto yours is the first person I've seen make significant claims that SpaceX's accomplishments so far are something of a shell game.

Not disputing it (I simply don't know), but if it is true, then surely that shell game cannot last much longer. In fact, I am not sure how it could have lasted as long as it has - if it costs them a lot more to put cargo into space then they say, then how do they remain solvent? 

[grumbler]

He did not do them personally, but his organization did them. What I'm saying is not only is Musk not inventing electric cars or rockets, his companies also aren't doing things as important as Musk says they are. Edison's companies were.

Edison didn't invent the light bulb, either.  Like Musk with launch vehicles, he simply made them commercially viable on a large scale.  I'm certainly not going to get into an argument over whether you think Musk's companies aren't doing things as important as Musk says.  You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but that is an opinion, not an argument.

[crazy canuck]

Except it isn't, right? Thomas Edison started what was essentially the first industrial research laboratory that produced any number of important inventions, and then he made a lot of money on commercialization of electricity. Technologically and even in terms of engineering there is not AFAICT anything innovative in Teslas other than maybe some of their in cabin car software. The battery technology, with minor engineering improvements, is the same lithium ion batteries everyone is using. The concept of a battery powered car is at least 100 years old--including previous working models. The idea of starting with a luxury line first was not even something Tesla was first at--there were several other companies trying the same thing.

SpaceX I've already gone over, mind that they weren't even actually reusing most of their rockets until very recently, and they have been very opaque on how much and what they were doing to lower launch costs outside of reusability. They also consistently have overstated how much they could reduce launch costs--which are again opaque because they are a private company.

Edison literally developed the first investor owned electric utility, and there is substantial evidence to suggest his innovations were key at both the timing and pace of electrification in general. Musk has made no contributions anywhere close to that. It shouldn't be controversial to say what someone has and hasn't done.

Except that Edison didn't do those things, people who worked for him did.  He just took the credit, like Musk.

SpaceX, at Musk's direction, has developed an entirely new way of approaching launch vehicle R&D and it has been wildly successful.  Maybe Musk shouldn't get the credit for that, like Edison shouldn't get credit for developing an entirely new way of approaching R&D for electrical systems, but you can't judge them by different standards just to make Musk look bad.

I will say that Edison didn't let success turn his head the way Musk has.  Edison knew which lane he was swimming in.

Edison belongs to a period of time in which historians described to the great man of history thesis. Most people have moved on from that way of viewing the world.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right--I actually think the popular view of Edison is a big overstatement of his importance. But no--I don't think low-cost rocket launches and making "one car company among many" that sells EVs is somehow as important as electrification. Let's just stipulate Musk and Edison both get "equal personal credit" for the achievements of their respective countries.

Space launch stuff is mostly nerd food, I can probably name 50 things more important to the lives of earth's humans than cheaper space launches, most of which do not get 1 50th the press as space.

In 2021 around 600,000 EVs were sold in the United States. In China around 3.3 million were sold. I think putting things into a matter of scale maybe help understand Tesla's role, even if you think the deployment of EVs is a huge moment for humanity (I actually do not, I think it is an incremental improvement over ICE vehicles in most contexts--the most important virtue of EVs is it decouples pump fill up prices from the global commodity of oil which is more of a political view than humanitarian or environmental.)

Not disputing it (I simply don't know), but if it is true, then surely that shell game cannot last much longer. In fact, I am not sure how it could have lasted as long as it has - if it costs them a lot more to put cargo into space then they say, then how do they remain solvent?

So serious question--how much time or effort have you invested in reading about the specifics of SpaceX's claims and how they hold up to scrutiny? Or are you, like most people, consuming space-enthusiast media that is designed to boost support for all space related activities in general, with a heavy focus on "cool things" like big rocket launches? It would be unsurprising if you haven't done the legwork that you would stumble upon deeper level analysis of a man's business when that man has made specific efforts to create a cult of personality around himself.

Notable in this effort is how Musk has erased the very names of the men who founded Tesla and came up with all of its foundational ideas from the official history--even going so far as to somehow christen himself as a "retroactive" founder of the company, despite not owning it until many years after it was founded.

It isn't accidental that a casual Musk fan is unaware of the work people have put into reporting on the many ways he distorts the truth.