1,000
3.00Also in some sense, anyone deserve to be rich, but no one deserve to have millions time more than a some blue collar worker. This thing about rich people deserving as much as they have, is just capitalist propaganda.
@ShakedKoplewitz overall his current net worth is about 200B. At a rough estimate slightly more than half of it is irrationally inflated assets like Tesla hype or private companies that haven't marked to market since their downturn, and another chunk of it is stiffing his employees or contractors which should be reduced (both in itself and for not capturing negative externalities). So overall probably somewhat less than half is legitimate, and his true contribution is in the ballpark of 75b or so.
My thinking has evolved on this topic, though I would now answer, "No he only deserves $83 billion."
$100 billion? Legally yes, he won that money
Ethically, maybe half of that should be, "taxed," because of conflict minerals, so put that at $50B
Historically, probably back up to $100B because key improvements in renewable energy transportation were made.
Average that out, $83 billion.
@PatrickDelaney I don't see any hydrogen fuel-cell cars for that renewable energy transportation. Batteries are a dirty business. He's kinda one of the reasons why hydrogen has not succeeded yet. He only gave Tesla a bunch of money, selling it as his, and ripping over the founders.
Setting aside the framing issue--which seems more about whether the current system for allocating income/wealth is appropriate--yes, Elon absolutely deserves it from a contribution to humanity POV.
SpaceX, Tesla, Paypal, X, and his ever-growing portfolio of ventures, him as a positive inspiration for entrepreneurs, etc. make this an easy, resounding YES. SpaceX and Tesla on its own would produce far greater than $100B in excess economic benefit, tax savings, climate benefits, etc. And the problems that Elon is solving is far harder than Jobs with the iPhone, which revolutionized the world. But with the iPhone, it was more design than technical innovation as the early models pretty much just sourced everyone else's tech. And the industry was heading in that direction already, with many big players potentially filling the iPhone role if Jobs didn't get there first. To quantify, if Jobs were to have created 5 years of early advancement for humanity, Elon would be 8-10 w/ Tesla and more with SpaceX.
And when you take market factor into account, you could also make a strong case for the morality/merit of outperforming the norm. Generally, it's better to judge people against the prevailing standard of the time for merit, morality, etc. And Elon easily outperforms 99% of Billionaires. In fact, many consider him one of the greatest innovator and business leader of our time.
If you’re asking if Elon having $100B in wealth is deserved, I don’t think that’s the right question. His billions in net worth come from the market value his enterprises provide. Elon Musk does not have all that $100 billion dollars to go spend on yachts and mansions even if he wanted to; it’s not just a pile of cash in a big vault somewhere.
To put it another way, Elon doesn’t have hundreds of billions because he wants it that way, but because that’s what the economy tags to his impact.
Elon Musk's wealth primarily stems from the market value of his companies, reflecting the significant value his products and services provide to consumers. Without the tangible benefits these offerings deliver, his net worth would be considerably lower.
Why should he not deserve to own his shares in his companies just because they have greatly appreciated in value?
Relevant tweet from Paul Graham.
@Tux Almost all politicians only play zero-sum, so for them to understand constructivism is almost impossible
@Tux A quick google suggests that Musk owned 20% of Tesla in 2022, and 42% of SpaceX. Do you believe that these numbers are approximately proportional to Musk's contribution to the positive impact of these companies?
@dph121 I believe Elon invested nearly all his money in both companies and both also nearly went bankrupt. It seems like the extreme risk of loss would justify a significant amount of equity.
Here’s an excerpt from an article I think is relevant. I did skim Wikipedia, and it seemed to suggest the version of events is accurate.
“Musk is not one shy of failure: in 2008 both Tesla and SpaceX were on the verge of bankruptcy. Musk was faced with the choice of either splitting his remaining funds between the two companies, or focusing all resources on one company or the other. He decided to split his resources and keep both dreams alive. This risk was gargantuan and almost disastrous. The weeks leading up to Christmas were extremely difficult for the two companies and spelled impending failure. However, on Christmas Eve, in the last hour of the last day for the final investing round regarding Tesla funding came through at about $20 million. Without this funding Tesla would have soon gone bankrupt. Even with this good fortune, Musk’s SpaceX was still in question. It had recently suffered 3 failed launches that nearly crippled the company.”
@dph121 > Do you believe that these numbers are approximately proportional to Musk's contribution to the positive impact of these companies?
Yes.
@dph121 Yes, because the founder, visionary, leader, executive plays the most disproportionate and impactful role for any organization--whether corporate, institutional, government, religious, etc.
With almost any other leader at the helm, Tesla and SpaceX would have bankrupted long time ago. And there are many companies that are being managed to stagnation or dysfunction by the average CEO types.
While I agree many CEOs are way overpaid, and current setup of capitalism has anti-competitive, winner-take-all, and negative externality issues, Elon truly is an exceptional CEO, innovator, and leader. In whatever world where capitalism worked better and more efficiently, he'd still be an exceptional innovator.
@Tux
> Elon Musk's wealth primarily stems from the market value of his companies, reflecting the significant value his products and services provide to consumers.
This is just completely false, do you really think that bitcoin, or any tulip mania like that, is reflecting the value bring to the consumer ?
The profit of the enterprise can be considered to reflect the real added value (but even this is completely false), but the price of actions is mostly just speculation, people buy them because they think they will be able to sell it higher, or because they think the enterprise will work (which is already two different things), it is very obvious with bitcoin, it has nothing to do with how much value you bring to the world, in fact, you can be rich while destroy a fucking lot of value.
@dionisos that doesn't sound consistent with your previous post. I mean, what do you even mean by "value"?
@BrunoParga If you think than having studied economics imply you should have a particular position on the subject, I think you are overconfident.
By value, I mean, the increase in well-being and the reduction of suffering. You can have another definition of what it means, like the fulfillment of preferences, but I think my argument would work here too.
@dionisos do you equate moral good with economic value?
Also, studying a subject definitely means you shouldn't hold some positions about it.
@BrunoParga No, the economic value is whatever the most interested person is ok to pay for something. The moral good is what is important.
@dionisos so you claim that your first comment above is correct if you substitute moral good for economic value?
that is a very bold take
I don't think this is very bold at all.
> What is your general political stance, if I may ask?
My stance is that we should choose the system which maximize moral utilitarian values, and for this, we should have a system aligning moral value with economic value.
And I think a lot of people, think the capitalist system do this, and I think they are just wrong.
And some people don't even care, they are thinking of the system as moral in itself, and not as a mean, and I think they are deeply, deeply wrong.
@dionisos I asked if you were talking about moral value rather than economic value, you replied "no, I'm talking about moral value rather than economic value"; instead of "no" that should have been "yes", since you were talking about the thing I asked if you were talking about.
I'm fairly confident English is not your native language - it isn't mine either. It might be the case that the verb "to substitute", which I used, has an opposite syntax as it does in your language - you substitute a new tire for a flat one, not the other way around.
@dionisos that is not quite an answer - I'm asking what you think is right, not what you think what other people wrongly think.
@BrunoParga
> that is not quite an answer - I'm asking what you think is right, not what you think what other people wrongly think.
Ok, I think what is right is a system which doesn't make us waste our resource on stupid things, but instead on ending poverty and industrial farming.
@dionisos what do you think of moral uncertainty? Sounds like the definition of "stupid things" depends on that, and so do the means to ensure economic production is morally aligned.
Also, to be clear, does your opposition to factory farming apply only to livestock or does it extend to crops? Would you reverse the Green Revolution if you could?
@BrunoParga
> what do you think of moral uncertainty?
I think this is a great concept, but it doesn't imply moral complete ignorance.
> Also, to be clear, does your opposition to factory farming apply only to livestock or does it extend to crops?
No it doesn't extend to crops, it is about animal well-being (or more precisely, the lack of it, it is about the torture of sentient beings).
@dionisos there is such a thing as moral overconfidence...
In any case, do you have any concrete ideas for how to replace the entire world's economy?
@BrunoParga
> there is such a thing as moral overconfidence...
Yes, I don't think I am overconfident, I don't think I am very bold if I think people having billions and doing what I think are very stupids projects, while others are hungry, show a deep failure in the system.
> In any case, do you have any concrete ideas for how to replace the entire world's economy?
Yes, but I think this is actually hard. I think any ideas on this subject should first go through some simulations to see if we aren't missing something obvious, then some local testing, and then some cautious more general implementation.
And I didn't have any simulation on any of my ideas, and I know they are maybe just complete bullshits (I don't think they are, but I think I should be cautious).
But doesn't mean the idea that people having the same amount of money they bring as value to the world is not also complete bullshits.
[comment retracted]