Maybe.. or maybe people with larger stakes in public companies can have more of a say in the policies of those companies. For all you know right now, he may start trying to change the company from within for the better..
Do you have a 401k? YOU may even be a partial owner of Twatter or FB or Google, etc.
In any case, if you have any sort of investments like this, chances are that you are investing in a company that goes against your values.
I personally don't have an opinion of Musk one way or another yet. He may simply be a dude who likes what he does and just tries to make money..IE, a normal capitalist. He very well be neither "good" or "bad".. he just "is".
Let's face it, he's rich enough to be able to tell the world just what he thinks about any given subject and face no real repercussions (much like Trump and a few others on the planet). IE, what we call "fuck you money".
Given this, I don't think he's necessarily a "bad" guy. I do appreciate that someone with a voice like his has been calling out bullshit where he sees it. And he has done this many times.
Do I agree with every idea or initiative he has? No, I don't. The neuralink shit I find problematic and scary. Starlink is cool and could be used for good...it could also be used for evil... but then so can EVERY OTHER PIECE OF TECH ON THE PLANET. Same goes for nuclear power, cars, guns, etc. etc.
I think it's wise to outsource space tech to the private sector. As we all know, the government is wasteful AF with our money..NASA is no different than any other bureaucracy in this regard. I don't like that many companies overbid on things and then get paid way too much, either.
So I am not saying I know what the solution is to that particular problem, but in general I think private sector does a better job and is more cost-effective..therefore, the lesser of two evils perhaps.
Yes. When you own more of the company, specifically shares with voting rights (there are different classes of shares for each company), it gives you a number of board seats, which in turn gives you more influence to effect the direction of the company (gotta have the numbers to sack existing management). <
Money talks, and bullshit takes the bus to Inala.
I’m just saying..
It’s like that pro-Trump guy who apparently bought CNN…none of us are saying “he’s a shill” for having done so because everyone’s expectation is that he’s going to clean that shit out..
I’m just asking, why aren’t we waiting to see what EM does before attributing any particular motive or ideology to him? 🤷♂️
He’s said and done some things that make me say “hell yeah” and some things that have made me say “hell naw”..
But overall, I have a fairly positive opinion of him because I think generally speaking he’s a smart, reasonable, just man.
He could prove me wrong and change my mind at any moment. But this particular thing (buying twitter shares) doesn’t necessarily qualify in of itself.
Again, I think neuralink is some bullshit..just because of the negative possibilities/consequences…but I have to also admit there are some positive possibilities for healthcare.
But I don’t view him as some wicked asshole who is building shit with world domination/slavery in mind. I think he’s got the creativity of a pre-teen who reads a lot of comics and the money/smarts/drive to actually pull some crazy shit off.
In other words, I don’t view him as being analogous to Bill Gates or a Rothschild…at least not yet.
Ye shall judge them by their fruits. <
(post is archived)