this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
317 points (77.6% liked)

Technology

59352 readers
6488 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo64 162 points 11 months ago (4 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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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 29 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

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

[–] echo64 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, thats being an evil, good businessman. Worked in favour of the business. Tech workers need to unionize to protect from the business people.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months 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 3 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] echo64 3 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months 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 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months 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

[–] thallamabond 2 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

fair, my apologies, thought you were the original commentator

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] echo64 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months 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

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] Fishytricks 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Sarcasm doesn’t travel well through text.

[–] TheGrandNagus 8 points 11 months ago

Yeah right. Sure it doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Wasn't sarcasm, some are that gullible

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Just have to lay it on thicc