It undermines their credibility when they can't get a simple fact correct. If an article led with "the earth is flat", it may not relate to the article but it nevertheless makes me less likely to believe the rest.
1) It's not incorrect just because there may be other ways of calculating wealth. 2) It doesn't matter if he's actually 1st, 3rd, or 10th in terms of wealth. Him being literally the richest is not a necessary assumption or premise of the rest of the article.
"Can the SEC stand up to this random rich person" doesn't quite have the same punch as the current title. It's a hook to get you to read it, which is apparently something they do. This is a practice you should not reward with attention, in much the same way as you should not give a lot of attention to pets doing bad things.
a) The point is, it's not a "random rich person", and we all know it's not. He's not some random guy with 200m net worth. He one of the richest and most powerful tech entrepreneurs in the world. Like among the top 5 in that category.
b) The rest of us can accept the incentive structure that induces publications to write clickbaity titles like adults, rolling our eyes, and seeing judging the article on its merits. The publications aren't going to miss your attention anyways.
Okay, that makes sense. But I mean semantically speaking if it was the second richest or even the tenth richest person, doesn't really matter. The question is whether the SEC can go up against an insanely rich entity.
I get it though, the title was click bait.
The point I was making is, this guy doesn’t work so he can afford to take a vacation. And he certainly doesn’t let other people work for him so that he can sleaze off at the beach. That’s a strawman argument, and I just can’t see how it applies here.
> Elon works a lot. Show me one pic of him on vacation.
You literally used this as an argument.
Also, I don't think the problem is how much Musk works. If you ask me at the CEO level working "so hard" shows you don't really understand basic delegation techniques. He does work really hard to project the image he's working hard - I'll give you that.
Also, no matter how hard you work you will never make billions off solely just your work. Ain't gonna happen. At some point you need to start exploiting people.
I did use it as an argument. And you kind of one. I literally I have not seen these photos. Though, it seems he was there for just over 24 hours. Notification by duration, but ok, it’s Saint Tropez.
And you’re right, of course. The amount somebody works really is meaningless.
I did use it as an argument. And you kind of won. I literally I have not seen these photos. Though, it seems he was there for just over 24 hours. Notification by duration, but ok, it’s Saint Tropez.
And you’re right, of course. The amount somebody works really doesn‘t mean a thing. After all, it‘s his own decision. And besides, most people do want to be useful. I mean, why are you here on HN discussing viewpoints with strangers? That‘s a kind of work, isn‘t it?
As you say, there are good ways of working and bad ways. And there are certainly tasks that would deserve getting done much more than others. Which is yet another reason why the mere amount of „sweat“ can rarely be a measure for how much „good“ a person is doing.
Show me the person brushing her teeth without anybody working for her. The phone I am typing this on was made by other people. So that one’s wealth depends on other people’s work isn’t the moral question, is it? It would be a question if it was forced labor. And perhaps would also be a question if a person‘s wealth was merely inherited, or if the person had come into this position in a way which was not open to other people as well.
The SEC is a weak organization that can barely figure out the issues that surround shorting non-existent shares. Whatever "justice" seething liberals think would happen from a fine is literally cheaper than him paying the $1b backout fee.
I swear the amount of useless drivel that goes around in a "journalists" head is fever dreams. Elon is apparently the equivalent of Satan and his purchase of Twitter is the "end of democracy" when Trump being president was the "end of democracy". Any speculation or forcing of various branches of government to stop the purchase of Twitter is just petty and begs the question just how valuable Twitter is to the political left.
There has been this whole ongoing debate over the last few years as to of we've transitioned from a democratic society to an autocratic one ruled by the rich like Musk, etc.
It's interesting to me to think back to my history lessons and all the big industrial revolution companies, and their downfall. There was a time where nearly all the steel in the US and a large part of the world was controlled by one man. From the coal to the iron ore to the rail cars. Same with meat, same with so many other things.
At that time it would have seemed impossible to unseat those unbelievably powerful and rich men and companies would be taken down I the way they were.
Perhaps we're about to live through a similar time in history.
“Can an arm of the world’s most powerful government stand up to an individual whose lifetime net worth is what that government spends in a few months?”
It sure seems like they ought to be able to, yeah. But they've been pretty spineless about Musk's repeated violations. And their actual enforcement power is pretty weak relative to Musk's wealth, which is the criticism the headline is making.
37 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 84.7 ms ] threadForbes publishes the "rich list" but it explicitly excludes royal families, oligarchs and many other sources of wealth/power
b) The rest of us can accept the incentive structure that induces publications to write clickbaity titles like adults, rolling our eyes, and seeing judging the article on its merits. The publications aren't going to miss your attention anyways.
2) Working hard means little. You can dig holes in the ground all day long.
3) Value is created by finding an unmet market for the labor that is available. It’s knowing where to dig that makes the digging valuable.
https://pagesix.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-and-girlfriend-nata...
That's not to say he doesn't work a lot, but come on...
You literally used this as an argument.
Also, I don't think the problem is how much Musk works. If you ask me at the CEO level working "so hard" shows you don't really understand basic delegation techniques. He does work really hard to project the image he's working hard - I'll give you that.
Also, no matter how hard you work you will never make billions off solely just your work. Ain't gonna happen. At some point you need to start exploiting people.
And you’re right, of course. The amount somebody works really is meaningless.
And you’re right, of course. The amount somebody works really doesn‘t mean a thing. After all, it‘s his own decision. And besides, most people do want to be useful. I mean, why are you here on HN discussing viewpoints with strangers? That‘s a kind of work, isn‘t it?
As you say, there are good ways of working and bad ways. And there are certainly tasks that would deserve getting done much more than others. Which is yet another reason why the mere amount of „sweat“ can rarely be a measure for how much „good“ a person is doing.
Edit: Spelling.
I swear the amount of useless drivel that goes around in a "journalists" head is fever dreams. Elon is apparently the equivalent of Satan and his purchase of Twitter is the "end of democracy" when Trump being president was the "end of democracy". Any speculation or forcing of various branches of government to stop the purchase of Twitter is just petty and begs the question just how valuable Twitter is to the political left.
It's interesting to me to think back to my history lessons and all the big industrial revolution companies, and their downfall. There was a time where nearly all the steel in the US and a large part of the world was controlled by one man. From the coal to the iron ore to the rail cars. Same with meat, same with so many other things.
At that time it would have seemed impossible to unseat those unbelievably powerful and rich men and companies would be taken down I the way they were.
Perhaps we're about to live through a similar time in history.
Yes, NPR.