this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
285 points (77.4% liked)

Technology

73496 readers
3166 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 146 points 2 years ago (3 children)

He isn't a "really good business man", everything he's made is built on a foundation of lies. Eventually, it'll collapse or be saved by socialised systems for being too big to fail. Musk is a con man, not a businessman. He's just made a living out of conning investors and the public alike.

[–] TheEntity@kbin.social 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I don't know, it sounds like the definition of a business man. Not one I'd admire, but not unlike lots of other business men.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

No, businessmen do business. Steve Jobs did business, he figured out markets, created markets based on what his business could provide. That's actual business.

A grifter, a con man, is not a business man, they wear the skin of one to fool people like yourself into buying into the con. Looks like it works.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Steve Jobs also conspired with his competitors to underpay their staff. Staff as in the people that helped him do business and make billions

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Right? At least Elon doesn't have to conspire to underpay his staff.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

created markets based on what his business could provide.

As much as I loathe musk, this is exactly what Starlink is. It's a company founded solely to buy the product SpaceX is making, because other people couldn't buy enough.

Of course, Starlink is floating almost entirely on venture capital, but that's how Amazon got started too.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Here's the rub. Starlink is not and can not be profitable without venture capital and subsidies. It exists to funnel money away from taxpayers. It's a con built on lies like the rest. At least some people get to benefit from this, unlike people sold overhyped cars and promises of Mars colonies, but that's changing with price hikes and service degredations too.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

can I get a source on the math for this? I haven't heard that before

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What math do you want? The cost of launching infinite space ships forever is more than what subscribers pay. The satellites fall down in about a year and new ones need to be launched. The subscribers would have to pay for every single rocket launch. Right now American tax payers do.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can't cover rocket launches?

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It seems Starlink A) isn't getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.

On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don't understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Alright, this doesn't support your argument. That is a counter example that SpaceX ISN'T receiving subsidies. Anything else? I do appreciate the discourse though

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't make an argument, I just provided primary source facts.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

fair, my apologies, thought you were the original commentator

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist is better than your evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist!!!!

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My point is that one is a greedy, evil businessman. The other is a greedy, evil conman.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

But only if you draw a very careful line around definitions, what musk does is very standard capitalist business and what jobs did is very much the behaviour of a classic conman. Apples whole business strategy is straight out the carnival con artist playbook, you'll find all the same tricks at any market stall