Hello, friends,
Elon Musk, co-founder of what we now know as PayPal, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, is a bloviating bullshit artist who constantly oversells his innovations and overpromises customers, investors, and governments across the world. And, according to a recent account by The New York Times, which interviewed former employees, “[Tesla] may have undermined safety in designing its Autopilot driver-assistance system to fit its chief executive’s vision.” Let’s not forget that he spread nearly as much coronavirus misinformation as then-president and superspreader Trump.
Musk has liberal critics (Fareed Zakaria), leftists critics (nearly everyone but here is just one) and rightwing critics (Bret Stephens, for one, who has actually called Musk “the Donald of Silicon Valley.”). Well, now it’s my turn for what he recently said about government and capital allocation. Here is a short clip of what The Elon said:
Musk also assailed the Build Back Better bill, passed by the Democratic House, which is badly needed. Musk asserted that the government has demonstrated a poor ability to allocate capital and that the government should leave capital allocation to capitalists, essentially. A full bore takedown would require discussing what money is;what “capital” is; and how governments often engage in risky research and development projects that wind up leading to market creation. Moreover, one must understand the essential nature of the public sector as qualitatively and categorically different in purpose then the private sector. Ok, I will say more about the last two points briefly.
In her must read book, economist Mariana Mazzucato in The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Private Sector vs Public Sector Myths (2013) carefully explains how innovation works and just how often and how successful governments, and the U.S. government in particular, has been as an “entrepreneurial state.” In chapter 4 Mazzucato details four successful examples of the U.S. entrepeneurial state: the Defense Advanced Research Project (DARPA), Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, and the National Nenotechnology Initiative. In summation, she writes, “The [U.S.] has provided early stage finance where venture capital ran away, while also commissioning high-level innovative private sector activity that would not have happened without public policy goals backing a strategy and vision” in all types of fields and areas. The very existence of roads and the interstate highway system (and their maintenance) are a function—a creation—of federal laws: the first federal law was the Federal Road Aid Act of 1916 and, more recently, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 literally created the interstate highway system that car-based societies—whether ones based on the internal combustion engine or batteries—need to exist.
So my critique is not pointing out the hypocritical nature of Musk whose largesse is largely if not entirely due to U.S. federal law in terms of tax policy, regulations, legislation, and the history of industrial policy. That critique was made by Zakaria and Stephens. “Would Tesla be a viable company without the subsidies? Doubtful. When Hong Kong got rid of subsidies last year, Tesla sales fell from 2,939 — to zero,” levels Stephens. Though it is worth quoting Zakaria who does a great job of summarizing the hypocrisy:
“Three of Musk’s endeavors, Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity, would probably not exist if not for federal support. Tesla owners — like me — have for many years received generous tax credits and incentives from the federal and many state governments. In 2010, after a global recession when Tesla was a fraction of the size it is now, the company got a $465 million loan from the Energy Department, which gave it a desperately needed shot in the arm. The state of Nevada gave Tesla a $1.25 billion tax-incentive package to build a battery factory there.”
My critique strikes deeper: we do not need billionaries and their billionairespeak; in fact, they and it are detrimental to society not just politically but also culturally. They are like a permanent source of misunderstanding and obfuscation. The entire way we think about innovation and “genius” needs to be discarded. Would we have had Trump without the myth about him as a “successful business man” coupled with our religion of greed? Musk must know better regarding the history of his company. And his economic illiteracy or iniquity is toxic, dangerous, and boring. He is simply espousing boring old Reaganism which is one metonym for the current political-economic regime that got us in this big disaster to begin with. Musk is a smart man who knows many things. lol. Fine. And I’m not qualified to debate his expertise in all things technology, though The Wall Street Journal reporter, Tim Higgins, who wrote a book on him, is skeptical even there, as the co-hosts of the Majority Report Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland, discuss here:
What I am certain about is Musk is wrong about is his fixation on hyperindividualism and his commitment to the automobile, even if his commitment to electric vehicles (EVs), in theory, is better for the planet in terms of carbon pollution. (Though EVs require 6 times more minerals than conventional vehicles which, at this point, if they scale, will require a historically unprecedented experiment which will become the world’s “largest mining operation.”) We need high speed rail. We need to move beyond car culture and personal automobile ownership. He is also wrong in his understanding of what has actually happened up to this point in terms of the history of the state and economic innovation and capital allocation.
There are no billionaries without government currency to begin with. There is no capital without laws that literally define what capital is and is not; same holds for any class of assets. There are no lone geniuses who innovate and excel without institutional and societal support. That is not to say that people aren’t intelligent on their own or talent isn’t real or something. However, it is to say that, yes, “it takes a village.” I could go on: Tesla and SpaceX are corporations which wouldn’t exist without the backing of the state and the very existence of corporate law. In other words, corporations cn’t exist without the state. This is basic Political Economy Reality 101.
Elon Musk is Elon Musk because the state, in fact, prioritizes people like him. There is no Elon Musk or Tesla without massive government subsidies, contracts, and public universities teaching STEM students, to start. Then there are global mining conglomerates that share a duopoloy of force alongside and sometimes above governments that provide the raw materials for capitalism.
And there is no wealth or wealth creation without a government, a court system (these are public, too), and a trusted government-backed currency alike. In fact, government is precisely the actor which can sustain spending and development for the purpose of “de-risking” the private sector and to help make new technologies and industries “mature.” Musk is wrong about capital allocation and wrong about his hyperindividual foci and goals. Innovation is social and requires “social network[s] of knowledge,” as Mazzucato (2013, 72%) puts it.
Don’t be fooled by Elon Musk.
- Patrick M. Foran
Very interested in your thoughts
World
Has a crime been committed, what do you think.
shawn
Feb 24
Although you would never know it if you watch corporate media its all coming apart now. The evidence surrounding the vaccine efficacy, media censorship VAERS data, VAERS data coverup and much more is emerging from the shadows.
Now the question is does the concept of Noble Truth justify the terrible price paid by the innocent victims.
Aid agencies are reporting 150,000.000 tertiary dead(not confirmed) due to lockdowns and corporate driven management of the pandemic(opinion).
Early in 2020 some very brave and innocent doctors/scientists testified and informed the American Congress and the CDC/FDA/WHO of alternatives. Doctors of renown, heavily credentialed and experienced in their fields, doctors that had the scientific weight to demand attention.
Looking rearward it seems clear now the corporate strategy did not include any alternate form of attack but the highly profitable gene therapy incorrectly called vaccine. Hence the need for the Noble Truth narrative.
In Canada, cars lined up for PCR testing which we now know/believe was over cycled, to drive the numbers(only my opinion)
Imagine what this pandemic would have looked like if, as an example caplets of Ivermectin were made available at the same time as the drive in PCR program. I am told Ivermectin is so safe the dosages can be approximate. Lets say each PCR tester had a selection of caplets for 100 - 150 lbs 150-200lbs 200 -300lbs etc.. just given as prophylactic. Instead of what actually happened, go home let it develop and if to the point of serious symptomology go the hospital.
Another band of techs specialize in nursing homes distributing ivermectin in roughly the same manor. Possibly at the same time delivering nasal irrigation devices/products and basic training to the staff. Depending on the size of the home a nasal wash every 2nd-3rd day, would that have helped. How many seniors would have been saved dying alone and terrified. Did you have a senior die alone.
Was this a crime or just bad management
Shawn663