Yes, he’s done well to force electric car markets forward.
And as stated above I really like his idea of making all SM users prove that they are a real person, and deleting all the bot accounts.
I just don’t know what to make of him overall as the new Twit in Chief; because I know very little about him.
My comment is based largely on his flagrant use of social media for his own ends. For example he has used Twitter to influence the price of cryptocurrencies of which he and Tesla own large amounts. He has so far escaped prosecution for this and other incidents but I suspect he has more nefarious intentions in wanting to own his chosen social media platform.
He may well have moved things on in the electric vehicle industry, but it was going to happen anyway, with or without Tesla. If he gave a **** about the environment he wouldn’t be involved in private space travel - or cryptocurrencies for that matter. I think he saw the chance to make a lot of money and grabbed a slice of the EV market when the time was right. He was successful in that, fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves that it was an act of social responsibility.
It’s not just for his own gain, it’s for the gain of his company and investors. Some of his Tweets are to forewarn or soften the blow of the inevitable. I can’t think of anyone like him in the investor world, but there again I’m not an expert.
Good points.
But is Musk even in the worst half of the super rich?
His Twitter deal makes him a much more influential person and now we will see what he’s really made of.
Is there a difference?!
Like ChrisSU, my dislike of Elon Musk as an individual has nothing to do with my political meanings.
For me, one incident and the behaviour of Elon Musk during the well reported Thailand cave rescue event says everything to me about Elon Musk’s character. His description of the rescuer as “that pedo-guy” was completely unforgivable and not a comment that anyone with the remotest sense of decency would have made!
The fact that he was acquitted of defamation in a court case in the US is irrelevant. Imagine that the term had been used by the other party in the case to describe Musk, and Musk had brought the defamation case against him in the US courts. Do you think for one minute that Musk would have lost the case?
How can it be irrelevant? That’s where the case was brought by the diver seeking a quite frankly ridiculous and, to my mind, much more “offensive” $190m in damages. It was a “playground” tit for tat argument instigated by the diver’s unprovoked comments to CNN. He saw an opportunity to cash in and rightly failed.
OK, I’ll suggest to Elon that he forgets about Twitter and buys Naim instead.
(Lights blue fuse and stands well back)
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.