Brand value of X is exploding

People do self-destructive things all the time. Curiously, if one tries to hold some people accountable for self-destructive behavior, like dropping out of school or becoming obese, one often gets accused of blaming the victim.

Musk has described himself as being on the autism spectrum and those close to him (from his biography) seem to agree. Shouldn’t that count for something in how we evaluate his behavior?

Why do we hold Musk accountable for saying stupid things but not the obese guy eating funnel cakes or the generational poor having babies they can’t support? Why the double standard?

Musk is probably borderline Aspergers but is almost single-handedly keeping the US space program alive and has probably done more for climate change mitigation than any other single human. Five years from now Tesla may be the only western car company capable of competing with the Chinese. Frankly I could care less what he might tweet (or whatever it’s called now).


Musk gets into stalling actions or whatever these suits are repeatedly to solve his behavioral stuff. This is just one more hair-brained idea to sue.

You might be overstating things a bit. SpaceX won a competitive bid to provide launch services to NASA. There were other bidders who may have done equally well for all we know.

Musk proved there was a market for higher end EVs. But other manufacturers have been able to work the lower end of the market for quite a long period of time now. When the smoke clears I’m not sure how big his contribution will actually be.

And if it turns out we can buy EVs from China cheaper than we can manufacture them here, then we become a little bit richer. That’s how and why trade works.


Elon Musk used the word ‘blackmail.’ Send him a dictionary. :innocent:

The Captain

1 Like


Why do we hold Musk accountable for saying stupid things but not the obese guy eating funnel cakes or the generational poor having babies they can’t support? Why the double standard?

This is by far the weakest “whataboutism” I have ever seen in the defense of the world’s richest man.

Frankly I could care less what he might tweet (or whatever it’s called now).

Thank you for sharing that for you it is all about the ends justify the means. No moral consistency. Got it.


The guy has mental health issues but has mostly overcome them to accomplish stuff of enormous value. Ask Ukraine about Starlink. Ford and GM couldn’t make a profitable sedan that could compete with the Japanese and Koreans. Then came the Model 3 and a ton of US jobs. Yeah, I’ll give him the benefit of doubt over people who have accomplished far less.

Dude, get over yourself. It’s only Twitter. George Washington owned slaves. JFK and MLK committed adultery. What Musk said on twitter is a triviality in comparison. And your statement of the “ends justifying the means” indicates you don’t actually understand that phrase. Musk isn’t making stupid remarks on twitter as a means to achieve his objective of mitigating global warming.

Al Franken had the makings of a great liberal senator. But the cancel culture folks couldn’t forgive him for doing stupid but harmless sophomoric stunts. Good move.


What does this have to do with Starlink?

What does this have to do with Ford or GM?

I guess in your opinion he could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot someone but you would excuse it because he helped make the Model 3?

JFK? George Washington?

Seriously, I have long respected your ability to defend a position but I can’t recall you ever resorting to this level of whataboutism. Your defense of Musk is utterly and completely irrational - bordering on idolatry.



Musk didn’t shoot anyone. He tweeted something stupid. I find that trivial.

Musk’s sins that we know of are far less than such heroic figures as G. Washington and his slaves, or JFK and MLK who cheated on their spouses.

I call it keeping things in perspective.


What double standard?

If an obese guy eats funnel cakes, or the generational poor have babies that they can’t support, they’ll still suffer nearly all of the consequences of their decisions. Society tries to help them, because there are externalities to their decisions as well - the obese person will certainly increase demands on the health system, and obviously the babies themselves have made no decisions to be held accountable for.

The same thing is true of Musk’s Twitter. His decision to reverse Twitter’s old policy of removing hateful conduct (and posters who regularly engage in it), in place of allowing that stuff to remain on the site (by and large) but with ostensibly reduced visibility, has consequences. If you let the toxic content and posters stay on the site, rather than removing it, you drastically increase the likelihood that the latter part of the “speech not reach” policy will fail - and that the fact that Twitter has that toxic content will make it into the spotlight. Especially if Elon Musk - the owner of the company and one of the most followed posters - personally consumes and retweets the toxic content.

There’s no social externality reasons why we should mitigate the degree that Twitter suffers the consequences of its choices. There’s no innocent third parties (like the babies of the poor) that we need to step in and protect. If Musk wants to adopt policies that increase the risk that advertising executives worry about placing ad spends for major brands on his site, he’s free to do it - but the consequences that stem from those choices are Twitter’s to bear.


Less than owning slaves? Sure, but that’s a pretty low bar to hop over.

Cheating on a spouse? That’s a personal failure. Promulgating hate speech such as anti-semitism is a much worse societal failure.

Telling your largest paying customers to self fornicate, just plain stupid.

Musk technology = idiot savant
Musk everything else = drop the savant


He clearly needs one because Musk creating a hostile environment for his customers meets no definition of blackmail. His misuse of that term is one of the specific reasons I said he’s not as smart as he thinks he is. In that same rant he went onto conclude that the public would blame advertisers for Twitter’s demise. Again, he doesn’t seem to have put much thought into this if he’s somehow hoping the public will come to his rescue.

One thing that sort of has become forgotten is the FTC already fined Twitter $150 million for violations of user privacy, and has launched another investigation for continued lack of compliance. This may be a calculated risk on Musk’s part, but I don’t see the upside.


That is all sorts of things about what you think not what Musk thinks.

He is of sound mind. No stereotypes should be applied. No disability should be applied. No social nonsense should be applied. It is not your business and your opinions are not fully formed but misinformed.

When you say he has mental health issues you have no clue. You do not know his pathology. You can only apply a dumb little label. That is not knowledge at all. Just you thinking you know something when you clearly do not.

None of us know Musk. None of us as trained professionals have sat down to evaluate him.

Just feeding the lame idea of mental health issues should be a non-starter. A complete lack of professionalism.

Musk is a big boy. He can take care of himself.

1 Like

I get you are only kidding. He is certainly not an idiot savant.

He is not an idiot either.

He is trying to make a very complex case for extreme free speech.

He “seems” to have not fully thought over how speech affects other people and outcomes. That is his limitation in all of this. It is ugly. It is very problematic for his business.

No point in saying that is autism. I see a few people here who do not think about how they affect others. I doubt they are autistic.

No one owes him squat.

1 Like

I saw a post on a FB page today: Cramer, yes that Cramer, is questioning Musk’s state of mental health. How is that for a laffer?

As for Musk’s behavior, he’s a “JC”. I have seen plenty of “JCs” over the years just as arrogant, delusional, convinced they are the center of the universe, and entitled to have everything their way.



I’ve seen two possible “smart” explanations for what he’s doing - one is shady and one is pretty forthright - though there’s no way to really know if either is correct:

Theory #1: He’s trying to get the debt on the cheap. Twitter carries about $13 billion in debt, which is still held mostly by the banks that financed Musk’s buyout. Banks don’t normally like to carry that type of buyout debt for that long. However, Twitter’s well publicized struggles have collapsed the value of that debt, so it’s hard for them to sell it. One person who might be willing to buy that debt is Musk. It would be a smart move of him to do things that crash the short-term value of the company to harm the creditors, offer to take the debt at a lower price, and then later stop doing those things. The law frowns on debtors playing those types of games, so there’s constraints - and he certainly wants to portray this as the advertiser’s fault and not his - but the courts might just treat this as an “Oh, Elon!” moment rather than violating some duty of care to the debtors.

Theory #2 - Musk doesn’t care about the economics of the social media business at all. He didn’t buy Twitter because he valued that service; he bought Twitter because it is an app that’s already installed on some half a billion phones and has a bunch of software engineers that can help him make his “X” app a reality. So if the social media service gets trashed, he doesn’t care much unless the public blames him for trashing it.



It was too easy with Musk’s involvement in AI and Crypto along with nonstop texting and his subscribing to free speech at any cost for Musk to buy X.

He walked into a cobweb of crap. He had a ton of ideas but got splashed with a cold reality that it is not worth it.

No, he is not. Not because I say so, but because his actions show he can not tolerate free speech if/when it involves him.


Anyone who ever thought Musk was a free speech advocate was duped.


@bjurasz @jerryab2

I think Musk is full of crap.

I agree with you.

It is complex because it is a failed elaborate attempt to rationalize his garbage.

The curious thing I find here is that I can see that if I have a feed which is “clean”, i.e., free of hate speech and the like, then clearly I don’t want to be shown ads full of hate and disinformation, but, if I have a feed full of hate speech and the like, am I going to mind a Disney ad … unless, of course, it is an ad for a company I am made at for some reason? And, why is that second type of person not a potential customer for Disney?

Frankly, I can’t figure out why everyone doesn’t have AdBlock Plus or uBlock Origin so that they see no ads at all.