Reidy Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Brook has recommended this, and I pass it along with a second: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-thinks-ayn-rand-071948623.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall Jon Letendre and tadmjones 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyBoombatz Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 On 3/11/2025 at 8:29 PM, Reidy said: Brook has recommended this, and I pass it along with a second: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-thinks-ayn-rand-071948623.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall Musk is not in any way a James Taggart looter. Musk is the opposite. He most certainly does not agree that the government be in the business of allocating capital. But as long as it is, he is going to get every advantage he can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted March 16 Author Report Share Posted March 16 What makes me hesitant is that you could justify any mixed-economy move as the decision of an innocent victim forced to go along. Does it exclude anything? Can you give me an example (it needn't, at this point, be a principle) of any decision that can't be excused this way? Tesla's need for subsidies and bailouts says to me that the market didn't want it. Musk had the option of admitting this and moving on to some other venture; his company wouldn't even be there without government help. You say that Musk isn't Taggart. This presumably means that Taggart crossed some line that Musk did not, thus making Taggart guilty but leaving Musk the innocent victim. What exactly were Taggart's decisions that led you to this conclusion? SpookyKitty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 Musk has talents that are above and beyond the Taggart types, but what muddies the water is not only the subsidies but also his admission that China has electric cars that are far less expensive than Tesla and, without tariffs, would make Tesla go out of business. Respect of Liberty is not a moral value to Musk, even though he does prefer a "smaller" government. There is a de facto collusion of business and government, a crony capitalism that he does not see as problematic. Once the democrats take over, they will bring in their Soros types to help enlarge everything with their IT organizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrovore Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 The idea of separating state and economics is not widely known at present, much less widely held. I suppose it is possible to be a successful entrepreneur without ever coming across the idea. It is also very easy for the government to distort the economy in various ways and then for an entrepreneur to figure out a legal way to make money off the distortion. That may be what Elon Musk has done. He did not create the distortion in the first place. (However, he might find himself wanting to maintain it.) If the US cannot beat China, the problem is probably self-sacrificial regulations, and the proper solution is to get rid of them. Tariffs will not improve the situation; they will only force people to pay the full price of the regulations even if they order from foreign countries that don't have them. One can only hope that tariffs make the case for deregulation more urgent. VinnyBoombatz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 There are a few things that make Musk different from James Taggart, two of the bat are fiction and nonfiction lol. Secondly or tangentially Musk's children's children would be a more congruent match. JT was flawed because Rand made him flawed in a universe where no change for that disposition was possible. If EM is flawed it is because he made himself flawed in a universe where he can change/remake his disposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyBoombatz Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 17 hours ago, Reidy said: What makes me hesitant is that you could justify any mixed-economy move as the decision of an innocent victim forced to go along. Does it exclude anything? Can you give me an example (it needn't, at this point, be a principle) of any decision that can't be excused this way? Tesla's need for subsidies and bailouts says to me that the market didn't want it. Musk had the option of admitting this and moving on to some other venture; his company wouldn't even be there without government help. You say that Musk isn't Taggart. This presumably means that Taggart crossed some line that Musk did not, thus making Taggart guilty but leaving Musk the innocent victim. What exactly were Taggart's decisions that led you to this conclusion? Taggart helped organize the government policy that created the looting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyBoombatz Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 10 hours ago, necrovore said: The idea of separating state and economics is not widely known at present, much less widely held. I suppose it is possible to be a successful entrepreneur without ever coming across the idea. It is also very easy for the government to distort the economy in various ways and then for an entrepreneur to figure out a legal way to make money off the distortion. That may be what Elon Musk has done. He did not create the distortion in the first place. (However, he might find himself wanting to maintain it.) If the US cannot beat China, the problem is probably self-sacrificial regulations, and the proper solution is to get rid of them. Tariffs will not improve the situation; they will only force people to pay the full price of the regulations even if they order from foreign countries that don't have them. One can only hope that tariffs make the case for deregulation more urgent. Why not just benefit from China's willingness to work harder for less? Why not let America take advantage of the lack of regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 (edited) China's willingness? What does that mean in the context of 'free trade' and the 'trader principle' as they apply to individual action? Edited March 16 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.