I think the major problem a lot of people have with Elon's behaviour is not that he is behaving in an "entrepreneurial" way, but that he appears to be in the middle of a hypomanic episode and has nobody around him who has the ability or balls to tell him he's acting irrationally. And I say this as someone who is bipolar and has them on a regular basis. Most people (who manage their mental health conditions responsibly), have a group of people they trust to rein them in when they start going batshit. This usually involves things like taking away their bank cards so they don't spend all their money, dissuading them from making any major, life altering decisions, noting when you're lying to yourself and others, and attempting to point out that possibly behaving like a self aggrandising megalomaniac is not particularly healthy.<p>It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that. Most of us when we go hypo will end up blasting through our savings, screwing around (literally) and generally pissing off all around us by behaving in a self centred and irrational way, but ultimately the damage we do is limited mostly to ourselves. Elon on the other hand has spent billions on a company, apparently on a whim, probably during another episode, that he later regretted and tried to get out of, again presumably when he came down, and now appears to be taking a series of increasingly irrational and destructive decisions that are affecting the lives of many. To be honest, I think it's kind of sad to watch.
Article suggests the lack of ownership by the managerial class corrupts incentives, and that owner-operated companies will win out due to an alignment between company management and long term strategy.<p>Interesting to see how that's going for Facebook, Twitter.
>Managers, consciously or unconsciously, are more likely to create invisible problems to justify their job. Or worse, they prevent real problems from being solved in order to preserve their scope. They are incentivized to do so: If someone is in charge of a problem, and that problem is solved, they no longer have a job.<p>It should be secondary if Musk is more like a manager or an entrepreneur. The question is whether he personally can make Twitter better or not.<p>There come mixed signals from his other investments but it stands out that he questions existing procedures within industries. As such, despite all the negative decisions, it is quite likely that he can lift Twitter's roadblocks. It could as well be Twitter that is the globally dominating social network.
This class analysis seems overcomplicated. What makes Musk's leadership "entrepreneurial capitalism" as opposed to managerialism? Musk is a member of the PMC! You may consider him a more competent, assertive, and unorthodox manager, at best, but he is still a manager. And as his control solidifies, is he going to make all of the management decisions still? No, he will institute likely handpicked managers who he entrusts. Who are ultimately still members of the managerial class.<p>When HN preaches the benefits of founder-led companies, it does not claim that founders are a different class from other types of CEOs. More hands-on and with more personally invested, sure. But are all founders truly different from the managerial class? That seems to be more of a management style than anything. And founder-led companies are often less than successful- just ask Dorsey himself. Was he PMC? Was he not an entrepreneur capitalist when he was CEO of Twitter the second time around? This is all a lot of half-baked analysis to claim that one set of presumably more able management and an older ossified set of management are two entirely different classes of people.
Is this the James Burnham who really wanted to use biological and chemical weapons in Vietnam? The James Burnham who thought Germany and Japan would win world war II? The James Burnham who was so blinded by his ideology that he couldn't see a way for the USSR to survive past WWII? Who was so paranoid he thought that China and the USSR never split up? The James Burnham whose ideas about the managerial revolution have been refuted and thrown away by modern scholars?<p>And how is this in any way related to Musk's absolutely insane antics at twitter? In no way at all. The article also suggests that Musk is good because twitter used to be owned by the Saudis, but forgets that Musks purchase was funded by the Saudis.
It somehow manages to say nothing and contain pretty garish misrepresentations at the same time.<p>The blogpost also uses a lot of 4chan/libertarian dog whistles: "normie", "marketplace of ideas", references to Ayn Rand for petes sake.<p>Honestly, what a load of drivel.
The guy is a dickhead, simple as that. Let’s not forget when he called that cave diver a pedo!<p>I won’t be giving any business associated with him any time or money.<p>I really don’t know why people worship him so much.
Lmao. What about Trump then? Elon doesn't represent anything now that I think of it. How many people from Elon's companies does anyone know of? He has successfully squandered all credit. Guy's the best tool in the world for taking everyone on a ride