It’s easy to miss a quiet revolution in a world dominated by the noisy chaos of Twitter threads, AI clickbait, and influencers slinging collagen gummies.
In my notes right now there's a lot of discussion about Substack's recent comments regarding Elon Musk and "free speech." He's not exactly the thinking person's figurehead right now. Do you think Substack will survive their bad rhetoric? I don't think people will buy that they are fundamentally principled rather than economically driven, especially with their past experience and investor roster. Calling profit driven decisions an ideologically minded inquiry is becoming a really bad look.
Great comment, though, respectfully, saying Elon Musk is "exactly the thinking person's figurehead right now." is a subjective opinion. While people don't like his style, it can't be refuted that he built not one, but many of the most innovative and successful companies of the 21st century, worked his way into the U.S. federal government to influence the White House, and orchestrated influence over just about everyone in the world. Like it or not, his impact will last for centuries.
I can't name many people in history who have accomplished as much... Rasputin, Da Vinci? And if you want to assert that those accomplishments don't require unusual mental capacity, we'll just have to agree to disagree right here.
"thinking" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics, morals, or profit / philanthorpy. Which is not to say I'm judging Elon Musk in any way in this regard, I'm just pointing out that I disagree that he's not a thinking person's figurehead, even if people don't like him, he decisions, or his accomplishments. They aren't related.
One might justifiably argue as an analogy, that he's playing chess at a Grand Master level, economically and socially. That doesn't mean anyone likes or agrees with the outcomes.
Where I would debate you more directly, is what seems to be our respective positions on profit motivation. As an economist, we study the fact that all humans (all living things) are driven by profit, be that storing fat, accumulating wealth, or appeasing our dopamine levels, our GOOD need to profit in the cause of all innovation and improvement in the world.
You can that it's not good when it's financial profit (wealth) and you're welcome to that opinion, but history and economics would prove that you're wrong. What humans don't like is unreasonable wealth accumulation, fraud, theft, or in some other way, how we *feel* that someone is undeserving or not sharing their wealth. Profit (wealth accumulation) is what drives down costs, funds government, pushes for efficiency or optimization, pushing for invention, and creates jobs.
If (when) people or organizations lack the profit motivation, they are inherently less impactful, less successful, less innovative, and less efficient.
There are of course, circumstances where this is required: government and certain philanthropic endeavors that the private market won't support. We're accepting that these entities need to exist and that they will be inefficient, but the alternative is to go without. That said, the reason they have resources to work with is because of others' profit motivation and the creation of wealth.
When you propose that it's a bad look, what do you suggest everyone do that's better? Explain how that will work out holistically.
one of the insidious way discrimination works is that people in power demand that people with grievances offer solutions to the problems that they name, when in fact it's the people in power who must first agree to the grievance.
also thinking is ALREADY holistic. thinking includes reflecting on the body and the impact action have on the body (the personal body, the body politic). it's only the profit margin that asks thinking to be cut off from the body.
so being smart does not make you thoughtful. elon musk is an impulsive child who likes to use intimidation, manipulation, rhetoric, black and white thinking and distorted lies to get more candy. maybe it's only mothers who can see through his games.
to your statement: I can't name many people in history who have accomplished as much i would say: EVERY SINGLE MOTHER I'VE ever known has accomplished already so much more than this man ever has. when you say humans are driven by profit that's not my experience. sorry it's yours.
this is, in fact, the lies about money that i'd suggest we THINK ourselves out of. spend one day with a secure child and you'll see that people are driven by laughter, by fun, by connection and intimacy. THOSE are the values that ought to be our commodities.
Point being, the post was wrong. It asserts that people with wealth and connections are more likely to be successful at the entrepreneurship, because they have more darts to throw.
It sounds right but it's misleading.
People with power, wealth, or control, don't make the best entrepreneurs and innovators, it just makes them better at the game being played.
It's the people with grievances who change the game.
i agree. it's just that you challenged my asserting that Substack has a bad look by asking me to have the solution. Ok, i take the bait. Moderate content just like the people in the world have to do every day? Put pressure on your payment processor to not take money from hate speech? Stop saying you're making a "new economy" with a CMS system? Ask Marc Andreeson to step down and tell the community why and ask them to pay something for Substack to replace his investment? Make a new web browser that is the social layer of the web that Marc Andreeson always meant to release but conveniently didn't? I don't know, that's the end of my list.
I see that you sidestepped my notes about Elon musk so I'll count my points there.
You'll count your points? This isn't an argument to win, it's a discussion of perspectives. At least, as far as I'm concerned.
Respectfully, I don't wade into discussions trying to learn and be helpful, when people resort to insults. I respect your opinions of Elon Musk as yours but I don't see any value in spending my time trying to talk about him or anything related if you view a successful adult as an "impulsive child."
I'm a father of 3 so also, I don't appreciate a conversation that presumes things about me, such as needing to spend a day with a secure child, to what, gain perspective? Well, I have it, thank you.
We can agree to disagree, I get it, you don't like him, and you think his accomplishments are on par with most people. Cool. We disagree.
I think you just don't like that my ideas (above) are spot on and that I'm a woman. Otherwise you would have addressed them, since you asked for them in the first place. So now you see why people don't bring their ideas to powerful people, since they won't engage with ideas they can't personally benefit from.
In my notes right now there's a lot of discussion about Substack's recent comments regarding Elon Musk and "free speech." He's not exactly the thinking person's figurehead right now. Do you think Substack will survive their bad rhetoric? I don't think people will buy that they are fundamentally principled rather than economically driven, especially with their past experience and investor roster. Calling profit driven decisions an ideologically minded inquiry is becoming a really bad look.
Great comment, though, respectfully, saying Elon Musk is "exactly the thinking person's figurehead right now." is a subjective opinion. While people don't like his style, it can't be refuted that he built not one, but many of the most innovative and successful companies of the 21st century, worked his way into the U.S. federal government to influence the White House, and orchestrated influence over just about everyone in the world. Like it or not, his impact will last for centuries.
I can't name many people in history who have accomplished as much... Rasputin, Da Vinci? And if you want to assert that those accomplishments don't require unusual mental capacity, we'll just have to agree to disagree right here.
"thinking" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics, morals, or profit / philanthorpy. Which is not to say I'm judging Elon Musk in any way in this regard, I'm just pointing out that I disagree that he's not a thinking person's figurehead, even if people don't like him, he decisions, or his accomplishments. They aren't related.
One might justifiably argue as an analogy, that he's playing chess at a Grand Master level, economically and socially. That doesn't mean anyone likes or agrees with the outcomes.
Where I would debate you more directly, is what seems to be our respective positions on profit motivation. As an economist, we study the fact that all humans (all living things) are driven by profit, be that storing fat, accumulating wealth, or appeasing our dopamine levels, our GOOD need to profit in the cause of all innovation and improvement in the world.
You can that it's not good when it's financial profit (wealth) and you're welcome to that opinion, but history and economics would prove that you're wrong. What humans don't like is unreasonable wealth accumulation, fraud, theft, or in some other way, how we *feel* that someone is undeserving or not sharing their wealth. Profit (wealth accumulation) is what drives down costs, funds government, pushes for efficiency or optimization, pushing for invention, and creates jobs.
If (when) people or organizations lack the profit motivation, they are inherently less impactful, less successful, less innovative, and less efficient.
There are of course, circumstances where this is required: government and certain philanthropic endeavors that the private market won't support. We're accepting that these entities need to exist and that they will be inefficient, but the alternative is to go without. That said, the reason they have resources to work with is because of others' profit motivation and the creation of wealth.
When you propose that it's a bad look, what do you suggest everyone do that's better? Explain how that will work out holistically.
one of the insidious way discrimination works is that people in power demand that people with grievances offer solutions to the problems that they name, when in fact it's the people in power who must first agree to the grievance.
also thinking is ALREADY holistic. thinking includes reflecting on the body and the impact action have on the body (the personal body, the body politic). it's only the profit margin that asks thinking to be cut off from the body.
so being smart does not make you thoughtful. elon musk is an impulsive child who likes to use intimidation, manipulation, rhetoric, black and white thinking and distorted lies to get more candy. maybe it's only mothers who can see through his games.
to your statement: I can't name many people in history who have accomplished as much i would say: EVERY SINGLE MOTHER I'VE ever known has accomplished already so much more than this man ever has. when you say humans are driven by profit that's not my experience. sorry it's yours.
this is, in fact, the lies about money that i'd suggest we THINK ourselves out of. spend one day with a secure child and you'll see that people are driven by laughter, by fun, by connection and intimacy. THOSE are the values that ought to be our commodities.
Any chance you caught the Hacker News post from years ago, that became popular for comparing entrepreneurship to a game of darts? I just reposted it as a Note here, to share, https://substack.com/profile/10262012-paul-obrien/note/c-90063088
Point being, the post was wrong. It asserts that people with wealth and connections are more likely to be successful at the entrepreneurship, because they have more darts to throw.
It sounds right but it's misleading.
People with power, wealth, or control, don't make the best entrepreneurs and innovators, it just makes them better at the game being played.
It's the people with grievances who change the game.
i agree. it's just that you challenged my asserting that Substack has a bad look by asking me to have the solution. Ok, i take the bait. Moderate content just like the people in the world have to do every day? Put pressure on your payment processor to not take money from hate speech? Stop saying you're making a "new economy" with a CMS system? Ask Marc Andreeson to step down and tell the community why and ask them to pay something for Substack to replace his investment? Make a new web browser that is the social layer of the web that Marc Andreeson always meant to release but conveniently didn't? I don't know, that's the end of my list.
I see that you sidestepped my notes about Elon musk so I'll count my points there.
You'll count your points? This isn't an argument to win, it's a discussion of perspectives. At least, as far as I'm concerned.
Respectfully, I don't wade into discussions trying to learn and be helpful, when people resort to insults. I respect your opinions of Elon Musk as yours but I don't see any value in spending my time trying to talk about him or anything related if you view a successful adult as an "impulsive child."
I'm a father of 3 so also, I don't appreciate a conversation that presumes things about me, such as needing to spend a day with a secure child, to what, gain perspective? Well, I have it, thank you.
We can agree to disagree, I get it, you don't like him, and you think his accomplishments are on par with most people. Cool. We disagree.
I think you just don't like that my ideas (above) are spot on and that I'm a woman. Otherwise you would have addressed them, since you asked for them in the first place. So now you see why people don't bring their ideas to powerful people, since they won't engage with ideas they can't personally benefit from.