I don't want this to be mistaken for a low-effort quip, I mean what I'm about to say: it really increasingly sees like Elon Musk is on drugs. There's a confidently delusional quality to his decision-making that seems familiar to me, as someone who's had the misfortune of knowing several uncontrolled addicts. That cited WSJ article is seeming more and more credible to me.
The scary part is when you realize how many public figures in politics and economy have that same overly confident and delusional character. i have the growing feeling a huge part of the troubles in the western world comes from drug use in people in power positions.
I think it's more like being overly confident and delusional is a prerequisite for being a successful politician, whether you use drugs or not.
I mean, how else are you going to convince people to vote for you? You need two things: a vision for a better future (hence "delusional"), and confidence that you can achieve it.
Nah, my theory is you're seeing run-of-the-mill brash business dealings with the unusual characteristic of being broadcasted publicly.
You wouldn't accuse the same of CEOs from more 'boring' companies because we only get exposed to the results through sterile PR communication, despite the fact the same candid conversations still happen.
> The controversial CEO took to his social media platform X to say that unless he is awarded another 12 percent of the company, which would give him ownership of 25 percent of Tesla, he would be "uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics."
Where his "discomfort" is "I don't want to do my job (at least with respect to AI, i.e. FSD, I'm willing to give him a pass on robotics, which is only because I feel that most non-Stans see it as vaporware) unless I'm given 92% more equity than I currently have."
It seems empty -- I guess he can work on generative AI and Robotics at another company (probably better he does so). But can he actually stop or obstruct FSD at Tesla?
If I was an investor in Tesla, I think I'd want him to start a separate company for those other tasks and then invest separately.
I wonder if Tesla's institutional shareholders see Tesla's foray into robotics as a money-losing distraction that drains precious company resources to serve no other purpose than to have bragging rights.
If any major shareholder does, Musk's threats seem to be a way to invite him to pursue his pet projects with his own money.
I think this is a game of hot potato being played. TSLA is overpriced. When that bubble bursts the finger of blame is going to go all over the place. Elon is positioning himself to say "See, you should have incentivized me do more ai and robotics." And if the board actually buys that line, he gets back all the money he lost in Twitter.
It takes some audacity to say "I alone can maintain Tesla's absurd PE ratio."l Especially after doing what he did to Twitter's valuation.
He seems to want both, and also a change in voting power would be illegal per the article:
"Musk then went on to say that he would like a dual-class voting structure similar to the one at Facebook that gives CEO Mark Zuckerberg control of that company but which would be an illegal restructuring post-IPO."
13 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 38.3 ms ] threadI mean, how else are you going to convince people to vote for you? You need two things: a vision for a better future (hence "delusional"), and confidence that you can achieve it.
You wouldn't accuse the same of CEOs from more 'boring' companies because we only get exposed to the results through sterile PR communication, despite the fact the same candid conversations still happen.
> The controversial CEO took to his social media platform X to say that unless he is awarded another 12 percent of the company, which would give him ownership of 25 percent of Tesla, he would be "uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics."
Quite the threat.
If I was an investor in Tesla, I think I'd want him to start a separate company for those other tasks and then invest separately.
I wonder if Tesla's institutional shareholders see Tesla's foray into robotics as a money-losing distraction that drains precious company resources to serve no other purpose than to have bragging rights.
If any major shareholder does, Musk's threats seem to be a way to invite him to pursue his pet projects with his own money.
It takes some audacity to say "I alone can maintain Tesla's absurd PE ratio."l Especially after doing what he did to Twitter's valuation.
Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook shares have more voting power than regular shares. It sounds like Musk wants a similar setup.
"Musk then went on to say that he would like a dual-class voting structure similar to the one at Facebook that gives CEO Mark Zuckerberg control of that company but which would be an illegal restructuring post-IPO."