Elon Musk is a moron of the highest order

[ideologyhunter]

I'm not sure he's a moron. I think there are other issues. For instance, his support staff revealed that he often takes hours to log into certain sites. He gets hung up on the I Am Not a Robot page.

 

[thebeave]

I'm not sure what the appeal is for having space launch vehicles be a government agency. Seems like his private company has created a product that is at least as good, more reliable and innovative than anything the gubmint has done.

the “gubmint” paid for most of that rocket development though.

Most of it? Not sure about that. NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6 billion dollar contract in 2008 when they were struggling, which allowed them to finish Falcon 9 development, but I don't think its clear that contract accounts for "most of that rocket development". Citations?

At any rate, it sounds like money well spent. From SpaceX-Wikipedia

In 2022, SpaceX's Falcon 9 also became the world record holder for the most launches of a single vehicle type in a single year. SpaceX launched a rocket approximately every six days in 2022, with 61 launches in total. All but one (a Falcon Heavy in November) was on a Falcon 9 rocket.

Both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are certified to conduct launches for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) As of 27 November 2024, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have been launched 415 times, resulting in 412 full mission successes, one partial success, and one in-flight failure. In addition, a Falcon 9 experienced a pre-flight failure before a static fire test in 2016.

Congressional testimony by SpaceX in 2017 suggested that the NASA Space Act Agreement process of "setting only a high-level requirement for cargo transport to the space station [while] leaving the details to industry" had allowed SpaceX to design and develop the Falcon 9 rocket on its own at a substantially lower cost. According to NASA's own independently verified numbers, SpaceX's total development cost for the Falcon 9 rocket, including the Falcon 1 rocket, was estimated at $390 million. In 2011, NASA estimated that it would have cost the agency about $4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes, about ten times more. In May 2020, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine remarked that thanks to NASA's investments into SpaceX, the United States has 70% of the commercial launch market, a major improvement since 2012 when there were no commercial launches from the country.

And yet, he is a moron of the highest order because of his crappy poetry.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not sure what the appeal is for having space launch vehicles be a government agency. Seems like his private company has created a product that is at least as good, more reliable and innovative than anything the gubmint has done.

the “gubmint” paid for most of that rocket development though.

Most of it? Not sure about that. NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6 billion dollar contract in 2008 when they were struggling, which allowed them to finish Falcon 9 development, but I don't think its clear that contract accounts for "most of that rocket development". Citations?

At any rate, it sounds like money well spent. From SpaceX-Wikipedia

In 2022, SpaceX's Falcon 9 also became the world record holder for the most launches of a single vehicle type in a single year. SpaceX launched a rocket approximately every six days in 2022, with 61 launches in total. All but one (a Falcon Heavy in November) was on a Falcon 9 rocket.

Both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are certified to conduct launches for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) As of 27 November 2024, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have been launched 415 times, resulting in 412 full mission successes, one partial success, and one in-flight failure. In addition, a Falcon 9 experienced a pre-flight failure before a static fire test in 2016.

Congressional testimony by SpaceX in 2017 suggested that the NASA Space Act Agreement process of "setting only a high-level requirement for cargo transport to the space station [while] leaving the details to industry" had allowed SpaceX to design and develop the Falcon 9 rocket on its own at a substantially lower cost. According to NASA's own independently verified numbers, SpaceX's total development cost for the Falcon 9 rocket, including the Falcon 1 rocket, was estimated at $390 million. In 2011, NASA estimated that it would have cost the agency about $4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes, about ten times more. In May 2020, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine remarked that thanks to NASA's investments into SpaceX, the United States has 70% of the commercial launch market, a major improvement since 2012 when there were no commercial launches from the country.

And yet, he is a moron of the highest order because of his crappy poetry.

I don’t think Musk is a moron. He is cunning and innovative and ruthless.

According to your link, The cost of development of Space X was about $400 million and it received 4 times that amount in a gov’t contract. Whether that was money well- spent is one tjing but it seems bleeding obvious the development was largely gov’t funded.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Looky here. No one is a moron who loses $200 billion of his treasure.
I mean, no one is a moron who builds up a treasure of $323 billion.

 

[Elixir]

And yet, he is a moron of the highest order

Correct. Otherwise known as an idiot-savant.

because of his crappy poetry.

No causal link has been established or alluded to. His crappy poetry could just as easily be … what it is; a manifest outcome of his condition.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not sure what the appeal is for having space launch vehicles be a government agency. Seems like his private company has created a product that is at least as good, more reliable and innovative than anything the gubmint has done.

the “gubmint” paid for most of that rocket development though.

Most of it? Not sure about that. NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6 billion dollar contract in 2008 when they were struggling, which allowed them to finish Falcon 9 development, but I don't think its clear that contract accounts for "most of that rocket development". Citations?

At any rate, it sounds like money well spent. From SpaceX-Wikipedia

you are correct. Sorry. The early development wasn’t government funded, though once the company showed substantial promise they started getting contracts, which helped further development.

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

 

[thebeave]

I'm not sure what the appeal is for having space launch vehicles be a government agency. Seems like his private company has created a product that is at least as good, more reliable and innovative than anything the gubmint has done.

the “gubmint” paid for most of that rocket development though.

Most of it? Not sure about that. NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6 billion dollar contract in 2008 when they were struggling, which allowed them to finish Falcon 9 development, but I don't think its clear that contract accounts for "most of that rocket development". Citations?

At any rate, it sounds like money well spent. From SpaceX-Wikipedia

you are correct. Sorry. The early development wasn’t government funded, though once the company showed substantial promise they started getting contracts, which helped further development.

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

That we agree on. I put him in the category of "eccentric". The guy has 12 children by three women, and has given them some strange, unpronouncible names. His push for humans living on Mars is IMHO, not grounded in reality. And most of all, his having dated Amber Heard shows a serious lack of judgement.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And most of all, his having dated Amber Heard shows a serious lack of judgement.

Most of all? Not what Musk has said about The Asshole?
Quote: "If Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it."

 

[Elixir]

And most of all, his having dated Amber Heard shows a serious lack of judgement.

Most of all? Not what Musk has said about The Asshole?
Quote: "If Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it."

Yah, that’s either moronic or demonic.

 

[Elixir]

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

Musk is an extreme case. He’s reeeeal smart about some stuff, and way out to lunch on others. Similar to a smarter Trump.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

Musk is an extreme case. He’s reeeeal smart about some stuff, and way out to lunch on others. Similar to a smarter Trump.

He's technically smart, but he has no heart, and he's greedy as well. How many billions of dollars is enough? it's frightening that our country is about to be run primarily with a bunch of greedy billionaires, who don't know a thing about government, other than how to exploit it for their own purposes.

 

[Elixir]

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

Musk is an extreme case. He’s reeeeal smart about some stuff, and way out to lunch on others. Similar to a smarter Trump.

He's technically smart, but he has no heart, and he's greedy as well. How many billions of dollars is enough? it's frightening that our country is about to be run primarily with a bunch of greedy billionaires, who don't know a thing about government, other than how to exploit it for their own purposes.

Yes, it is frightening. Almost makes me wish I was as oblivious as a trumpsucker to the pain The Felon intends to - and likely will - inflict upon this Country and the world

 

[Swammerdami]

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

Musk is an extreme case. He’s reeeeal smart about some stuff, and way out to lunch on others. Similar to a smarter Trump.

Musk has publicly stated that he has Asperger's syndrome, which is now considered part of the autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

When I was very young, "autism" was associated with extreme psychosis and apparent idiocy, but now it's recognized as a broad spectrum. I was (still am?) autistic; when I was young I could do some surprising mental tricks, like Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. Despite 99.99+ percentile performance on some tests and contests, I was very shy and had an inferiority complex through 1980. By 1982 this had mutated into a superiority complex! (But for several months circa 1981 I may have seemed relatively normal.)

I know a young sought-after (but extremely autistic) programmer who has moved to Thailand. He mentions his autism early-on when making a new friend. Otherwise people would be astounded by his demeanor ("What the F**K???")

 

[bilby]

I don’t think Musk is a “moron” but I do think that just because a person is smart in some ways doesn’t mean they are smart in all ways.

Musk is an extreme case. He’s reeeeal smart about some stuff, and way out to lunch on others. Similar to a smarter Trump.

He's technically smart, but he has no heart, and he's greedy as well. How many billions of dollars is enough? it's frightening that our country is about to be run primarily with a bunch of greedy billionaires, who don't know a thing about government, other than how to exploit it for their own purposes.

Once a person has a few hundred million dollars, there really isn't anything they can't have if, as, and when they want it. A person with three hundred million dollars in the bank is no less able to get stuff, or to obtain personal services, in most respects, than a person with three hundred billion. They can drive the latest supercar, fly around by private jet, holiday anywhere in the world on a superyacht, etc., etc.

Now, to own a private jet, and a superyacht, and these other trinkets outright (so that they can sit idle for the fifty weeks a year that you are not using them), you might need far more than 300 megabucks; A yacht and a jet will set you back a gigabuck or so, and you're going to need some cash to cover running costs. Maybe you need 30 billion, to get sneering rights over the mere hectamillionaire on his rented yacht on the next private island. But you are into seriously diminishing returns here; Having a thousandth of Musk's wealth is not a notable hardship, and a tenth of his wealth is basically indistinguishable from his actual wealth. He recently lost over half of his net worth, but it hasn't changed his life any.

So why does anyone want a thousand times, a hundred times, or even ten times the most absurdly generous definitions of "enough"? Why, if you can have anything, do you need to be a thousand times richer again? Well, the one thing that hyper-wealth can buy, that mere mega-wealth may not, is political power. Political power comes not so much from ones spending power, as from ones ability to outspend any rival; It's unimportant how much money you have, as long as it's more than your rivals have.

So that's the reason; It's not greed, as such - or at least, not greed for material wealth or the local power that comes with employing servants and lackeys. It's about running the country, (or better still, several countries).

Which is far less irrational than the mere pursuit of the number one spot on the Forbes Rich List. At least, for a given value of 'rational'.

But then the question we are left with is: What was the point of overthrowing feudalism, if we are just going to let some new kings and emperors take over the running of our countries? Why, as a society, would we allow or accept the acquisition of vast political power and influence by people whose names never appeared on any ballot paper, and whom we cannot vote out of their position of power if, as, and when they abuse that position?

As a society, we can choose to rise up and guillotine (or hang, or shoot) these new aristocrats, just as we did the old ones. But that takes a lot of suffering to inspire, and the aristocrats themselves don't much like it, so it's a lose-lose result - and one which is rapidly eroded, as yet another clique of hyper-wealthy wannabes will arise as soon as conditions permit.

Much better to cut them down to size before the great mass of people are sufficiently disgruntled as to massacre them. If we cap their wealth at just a few hundred times the average, and take everything above that cap in taxes and spend it on infrastructure, education, healthcare, and to support those in poverty to get out of poverty (or at the very least to be well enough provided for as to not cause a huge problem for the rest of us), then it's a win-win. The rich get to keep their yachts, jets, and heads; The poor get opportunities and the education and infrastructure to exploit those opportunities; And the world gets to be governed by and for the many, rather than by the few.

But the revolution could be centuries away, so if you are Musk, there's really no reason not to pursue the influence that comes with being right at the top of the race up the wealth ladder, no reason not to kick down those below you, and no reason to stop trying to become richer still, in order to continue to wield political power greater than that of lesser hectabillionaires.

Trump wants stuff, but quite likes power. Musk wants power, but quite likes stuff. The rest of us would do well to limit the amount of either that anyone (including, bur certainly not limited to, these two clowns) can accrue.

 

[Elixir]

It's about running the country, or better still, several countries.

Bingo.
Now they have the USA by the throat, and they will not be letting go any time soon.

Much better to cut them down to size before the great mass of people are sufficiently disgruntled as to massacre them. If we cap their wealth at just a few hundred times the average, and take everything above that cap in taxes and spend it on infrastructure, education, healthcare, and to support those in poverty to get out of poverty (or at the very least to be well enough provided for as to not cause a huge problem for the rest of us), then it's a win-win.

I think the '50s model accomplished the desired effect. In 1955 CEOs were making around 20x average worker pay. Top tax rate was 91%. America was Great (if you were white).
The LAST thing these maggots really want is to Make America Great Again like it was back then. All they really want to retrieve from the past when millionaires were oppressed, is the racism that was so much more widely accepted.
The oligarchs worldwide are competing to be declared an elite - a fucking TRILLIONAIRE.
A fucking MILLION MILLION.
Enough is enough,. and it has been for far too long. They have literally too many weapons at their disposal now for a good old fashioned Bastille Day to succeed.

 

[bilby]

They have literally too many weapons at their disposal now for a good old fashioned Bastille Day to succeed.

Not really. The reason that revolutions succeed is not that the peasants are better armed than the armies that the aristocrats have to protect them; It's that the armies are themselves made up of peasants, and when life gets shitty enough, they stop defending their nominal masters.

The wealthy don't wield their own weapons, for the same reason that they don't mow their own lawns, or vacuum their own carpets.

For the soldiers and cops who actually do the fighting, simply staying in their barracks or police stations and not resisting the rampaging mob is enough. The revolution goes faster if the soldiers and cops join in on the rebel side; But mere non-intervention prevents the security forces from splitting into factions and causing a more bloody and protracted civil war.

The reason a revolt won't succeeed now is that the cops and soldiers, and their families and friends, aren't suffering enough to get them to stand down in the face of an uprising.

Things have to be really, really bad, before the security forces stop protecting the aristocracy. And of course, because the security forces are central to the success of any revolt, and because they have most of the weapons, they tend to demand power in the aftermath of the deposing of tyrants - and so revolutions often create tyrannical police states.

Revolution is a lose-lose, because inevitably the people with the ability to bring sufficient force to bear as to win a revolution, are a terrible choice to run a replacement government. And are only very rarely smart enough to recognise that and relinquish power to the ordinary people that they initially represented (or at least supported over their old bosses).

The handful of truly effective revolutions in history (in terms of the ultimate goal being the empowerment of middle class citizens over aristocrats) have resulted from weakness and/or division amongst the victors.

The US revolutionaries had to continue to keep the public on their side, because they weren't strong enough to keep the British out without that support. So they wrote a constitution that empowered the citizens (or at least those who owned land; The empowerment of working class men wouldn't be a thing until Marx, and wouldn't be a serious contender for influence until the Great War).

The English revolution and regicide in the 1640s deposed the king, and effectively put the Army of the New Model in charge; After a decade and a half of living in a police state, the people (landowners) were OK with bringing back the king, albeit with seriously reduced powers.

Most revolutions result in totalitarian states, at least in the short term; How long those totalitarian states persist is a function of how much power the middle classes have. In the Communist revolutions of the twentieth century, notably in Russia and China, and in the French revolution contemporary with the American one, the post-revolutionary totalitarians took great pains to destroy the middle class, as they saw the threat that class posed to their police state.

The English revolutionaries underestimated the danger posed to their military junta by their peers*, stopped killing people after they had dealt with those at the very top, and had their revolt overturned.

The Americans had the benefit that their aristocracy were an ocean away; the middle class revolutionaries needed the support of their neighbours, and didn't need mass executions to wipe out their oppressors (and as the French and Russians demonstrated, once you start with mass executions of 'the rich', it's easy to keep the momentum going into mass executions of the middle classes too...).








* and even more so their commons

 

[Elixir]

The wealthy don't wield their own weapons, for the same reason that they don't mow their own lawns, or vacuum their own carpets.

The problem with modern armaments is that now, one loyalist with a machine gun can mow down an army of peasants in a minute, should they gather “illegally”.

 

[bilby]

The wealthy don't wield their own weapons, for the same reason that they don't mow their own lawns, or vacuum their own carpets.

The problem with modern armaments is that now, one loyalist with a machine gun can mow down an army of peasants in a minute, should they gather “illegally”.

That was already true in 1918, but it didn't save the Tsar.

 

[Elixir]

The problem with modern armaments is that now, one loyalist with a machine gun can mow down an army of peasants in a minute, should they gather “illegally”.

That was already true in 1918, but it didn't save the Tsar.

Not quite as true.

 

[Elixir]

The problem with modern armaments is that now, one loyalist with a machine gun can mow down an army of peasants in a minute, should they gather “illegally”.

That was already true in 1918, but it didn't save the Tsar.

Not quite as true. Targets are harder as well.