The Tesla Board of Directors was easily manipulated into giving Musk far more equity options than he deserved. If anything, Musk's continued involvement in Tesla is more of a detriment than asset. The only thing Tesla have in their favor right now is the adoption of their charger connection for which they will receive royalties. However, this may not translate to the EU as they often go in a different direction (non-adoption of proprietary Apple connectors).
I am certain not to read Issacson's book on Musk as I view it a waste of reading time.
I think Isaacson having written Jobs' biography can't be overstated as a rationale for Musk hiring him, and I imagine Musk had some contractual rights of review.
I don't imagine Isaacson was busily hiding esoteric takedowns in bootlicking prose, but I also imagine that the tension between Musk's behavior vs. having been contracted to write a hagiography led some of the _sotto voce_ signaling to the reader.
I'll give you a hint. To write a "biography" about a person like Musk, it's necessary to insert your nose where the sun does not shine. The view from there is not very all encompassing.
Probably the author suffered from the Stockholm effect when doing a biography:
"Stockholm syndrome, psychological response wherein a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands"
It is true, that while hate clicks are a thing, hate book purchases are much less of a thing. So Musk fanboys are the overwhelming bulk of the potential book audience.
Hate clicks imply hating the writing itself, not the subject. There would be a big audience, imo, for a frank expose of Musk. Even something more objective would appeal to fan boys and critics alike.
The New Yorker takedown of Musk this week shows that Musk has captured the Pentagon:
'....One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”'
I think that capture of Isaacson would seem to be like buying a bag of chips after the meal he made of the Five-Sided Funhouse.
P.S. Lot of resonance between this bio of a detestable over-powerful techbro and Michael Lewis' ballyhooed forthcoming book about Sam Bankman-Fried. Hate to see Michael potentially jumping the shark (between this and his current defense of the Tuohy family of "The Blind Side" fame). Walter... I have read and profited from some of his stuff, but he has made a deal with, well, at least a minor but up-and-coming demon here.
I thought it was impossible to be unfair to Elon Musk, but our host is being a bit unfair. Legal determinations are a fair weighing of admissible evidence, not a search for truth. It's perfectly possible for a client to believe something in good faith, but a lawyer to tell them that they cannot convince the court of it. This is especially true where fraud is alleged, since courts know that fraud is easy to allege and hard to prove. It's also very common in employment discrimination cases, which often hinge on intent.
Not that I believe that Elon Musk is capable of good faith. But then again, the veracity of my belief likely cannot be proven in court.
Regarding EM's value to the US government, here is an interesting article from Foreign Affairs. Elkin's article has to do with the history of Charter corporations, such as the role of the East India Trading Company to the British Empire as well as its boundaries:
"Scholars have long debated the significance and lingering impact of these imperial-era firms. Some analysts, focusing on profit and scale, see present-day corporate behemoths as contemporary manifestations of chartered companies. Others see the largest of them all, the East India Company, as even more powerful: one BBC writer saw it as “the CIA, the NSA, and the biggest, baddest multinational corporation on earth,” whose power, much like that of a company such as Meta, went virtually unchecked for years. Chartered companies often existed beyond the reach of state regulation and in many ways functioned as states in their own right, with their own forms of sovereignty. Their legacy extends to contemporary tensions between hefty multinational technology corporations and the countries that struggle to restrain them."
So Elon Musk has substantial value to the US Government, particularly to the cause of war -- Ukrainian and future wars, in this case, at the level of Starlink. What do you do with a man with peerless abilities when the stakes are so high. Btw, Starlink is now servicing Japan. So convenient...
'"The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia. More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”'
The Tesla Board of Directors was easily manipulated into giving Musk far more equity options than he deserved. If anything, Musk's continued involvement in Tesla is more of a detriment than asset. The only thing Tesla have in their favor right now is the adoption of their charger connection for which they will receive royalties. However, this may not translate to the EU as they often go in a different direction (non-adoption of proprietary Apple connectors).
I am certain not to read Issacson's book on Musk as I view it a waste of reading time.
I think Isaacson having written Jobs' biography can't be overstated as a rationale for Musk hiring him, and I imagine Musk had some contractual rights of review.
I don't imagine Isaacson was busily hiding esoteric takedowns in bootlicking prose, but I also imagine that the tension between Musk's behavior vs. having been contracted to write a hagiography led some of the _sotto voce_ signaling to the reader.
Very interesting. Thanks much...
I'll give you a hint. To write a "biography" about a person like Musk, it's necessary to insert your nose where the sun does not shine. The view from there is not very all encompassing.
:-)
Probably the author suffered from the Stockholm effect when doing a biography:
"Stockholm syndrome, psychological response wherein a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands"
Or, perhaps this is a way you sell books.
It is true, that while hate clicks are a thing, hate book purchases are much less of a thing. So Musk fanboys are the overwhelming bulk of the potential book audience.
Hate clicks imply hating the writing itself, not the subject. There would be a big audience, imo, for a frank expose of Musk. Even something more objective would appeal to fan boys and critics alike.
The New Yorker takedown of Musk this week shows that Musk has captured the Pentagon:
'....One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”'
I think that capture of Isaacson would seem to be like buying a bag of chips after the meal he made of the Five-Sided Funhouse.
P.S. Lot of resonance between this bio of a detestable over-powerful techbro and Michael Lewis' ballyhooed forthcoming book about Sam Bankman-Fried. Hate to see Michael potentially jumping the shark (between this and his current defense of the Tuohy family of "The Blind Side" fame). Walter... I have read and profited from some of his stuff, but he has made a deal with, well, at least a minor but up-and-coming demon here.
I thought it was impossible to be unfair to Elon Musk, but our host is being a bit unfair. Legal determinations are a fair weighing of admissible evidence, not a search for truth. It's perfectly possible for a client to believe something in good faith, but a lawyer to tell them that they cannot convince the court of it. This is especially true where fraud is alleged, since courts know that fraud is easy to allege and hard to prove. It's also very common in employment discrimination cases, which often hinge on intent.
Not that I believe that Elon Musk is capable of good faith. But then again, the veracity of my belief likely cannot be proven in court.
Regarding EM's value to the US government, here is an interesting article from Foreign Affairs. Elkin's article has to do with the history of Charter corporations, such as the role of the East India Trading Company to the British Empire as well as its boundaries:
"Scholars have long debated the significance and lingering impact of these imperial-era firms. Some analysts, focusing on profit and scale, see present-day corporate behemoths as contemporary manifestations of chartered companies. Others see the largest of them all, the East India Company, as even more powerful: one BBC writer saw it as “the CIA, the NSA, and the biggest, baddest multinational corporation on earth,” whose power, much like that of a company such as Meta, went virtually unchecked for years. Chartered companies often existed beyond the reach of state regulation and in many ways functioned as states in their own right, with their own forms of sovereignty. Their legacy extends to contemporary tensions between hefty multinational technology corporations and the countries that struggle to restrain them."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/merchants-leviathan-east-india-company-empire-incorporated
So Elon Musk has substantial value to the US Government, particularly to the cause of war -- Ukrainian and future wars, in this case, at the level of Starlink. What do you do with a man with peerless abilities when the stakes are so high. Btw, Starlink is now servicing Japan. So convenient...
'"The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia. More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”'
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule
If the courtier is also a canary, then it gets interesting, right?