Ah... the ruminations of those that believe they are The Elect chosen to confiscate and spend other people's money to given them purpose and meaning rather than, they themselves, doing anything real or productive to make their own money to give away.
Yes, we have a great big problem with corporate consolidation, but it isn't Musk and Ellison. Those two titans of industry actually produce things of value. If you want to go after the destructive money, see Wall Street. But then Wall Street is a big political donor, especially to the looting professional Democrats... so that won't happen.
Can Francis Fukuyama tell us why Jeff Bezos ( owner of Washington Post), George Soros ( funder of anything and everything left), Pierre Omidyar funding Intercept and a whole media company, DNC funding scores of influencers and journalists, etc. etc are NOT a threat our democracy? So its only a threat when Republicans fund platforms? ( And I didnt even mention Vaccine Bill Gates who funds the Guardian and God knows what else).
Did he say they weren't? Or would you have preferred an article that listed every billionaire and the different ways they threaten democracy? Might have become a bit boring.
Do you really believe Bezos to be a Democrat and that Soros funds EVERYTHING on the left? This sounds a bit like conspiratorial paranoia.
Don't you think we should be celebrating how much of Gates's wealth he has given away to help prevent/reduce death from infectious disease in countries that are generally ignored by big pharma (and now the US, that, by shutting down USAID, has shown it would rather let children in these countries die - very Christian of them)?
If you hadn’t noticed, Tesla’s valuation has nothing to do with Musk’s genius, if any. It has to do with his celebrity. That fact is kind of disgusting. But once you accept it as fact, the actions of Tesla’s board make a good deal more sense. They just want the stock price to go up, and that’s not possible without him. A return to rational valuation would be ruinous.
Gatsby’s most celebrated lines about the very wealthy feels resoundingly true: “They were careless people … They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
> 1. It strains credibility that this is possible!
> 2. It's offensive to be so Ayn Rand as to believe this!
> 3. Maybe if he needs this, he shouldn't be CEO!
This feels like lame bickering lacking economic analysis of any kind. I don't really care what you believe would be outrageous if it's true; I care what IS true and what we SHOULD do. I liked when you got close to "what we should do", but didn't like that it was marred by ideological "Ayn Rand's beliefs aren't correct" beliefs
The scrollbar made this look longer. I finished the piece and it didn't get much better, with grumpy claims that individuals can't possibly make us rich, only social values.
Do I want appreciable shares of our media to be controlled by individual people? Hell no.
Do I think that individuals cannot possibly positively affect the nation? Also "hell no"
Ah... the ruminations of those that believe they are The Elect chosen to confiscate and spend other people's money to given them purpose and meaning rather than, they themselves, doing anything real or productive to make their own money to give away.
Yes, we have a great big problem with corporate consolidation, but it isn't Musk and Ellison. Those two titans of industry actually produce things of value. If you want to go after the destructive money, see Wall Street. But then Wall Street is a big political donor, especially to the looting professional Democrats... so that won't happen.
Can Francis Fukuyama tell us why Jeff Bezos ( owner of Washington Post), George Soros ( funder of anything and everything left), Pierre Omidyar funding Intercept and a whole media company, DNC funding scores of influencers and journalists, etc. etc are NOT a threat our democracy? So its only a threat when Republicans fund platforms? ( And I didnt even mention Vaccine Bill Gates who funds the Guardian and God knows what else).
Did he say they weren't? Or would you have preferred an article that listed every billionaire and the different ways they threaten democracy? Might have become a bit boring.
Do you really believe Bezos to be a Democrat and that Soros funds EVERYTHING on the left? This sounds a bit like conspiratorial paranoia.
Don't you think we should be celebrating how much of Gates's wealth he has given away to help prevent/reduce death from infectious disease in countries that are generally ignored by big pharma (and now the US, that, by shutting down USAID, has shown it would rather let children in these countries die - very Christian of them)?
If you hadn’t noticed, Tesla’s valuation has nothing to do with Musk’s genius, if any. It has to do with his celebrity. That fact is kind of disgusting. But once you accept it as fact, the actions of Tesla’s board make a good deal more sense. They just want the stock price to go up, and that’s not possible without him. A return to rational valuation would be ruinous.
Bullshit.
How so?
Musk is only a celebrity because if his business genius.
Sorry; I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm. My sincere apologies if I misunderstood.
His celebrity IS his business genius.
Gatsby’s most celebrated lines about the very wealthy feels resoundingly true: “They were careless people … They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
"This is not the behavior of an institution-builder, but of a self-centered narcissist."
That's the nub of the matter, isn't it? An immensely influential man has got heedless behavior hard-wired into his personality.
This piece opens very lamely.
PARAPHRASING FALSELY:
> 1. It strains credibility that this is possible!
> 2. It's offensive to be so Ayn Rand as to believe this!
> 3. Maybe if he needs this, he shouldn't be CEO!
This feels like lame bickering lacking economic analysis of any kind. I don't really care what you believe would be outrageous if it's true; I care what IS true and what we SHOULD do. I liked when you got close to "what we should do", but didn't like that it was marred by ideological "Ayn Rand's beliefs aren't correct" beliefs
The scrollbar made this look longer. I finished the piece and it didn't get much better, with grumpy claims that individuals can't possibly make us rich, only social values.
Do I want appreciable shares of our media to be controlled by individual people? Hell no.
Do I think that individuals cannot possibly positively affect the nation? Also "hell no"