Musk, the World's First Trillionaire - Is He Worth It?

[Siwastaja]

Good acceleration is in fact useful and even a safety benefit, for example in overtaking on short straights on a 2-lane road.

Predictable acceleration is a safety benefit - with a car you know can't accelerate fast enough to overtake on the short straight, you just don't overtake. If one cannot control themselves and have to overtake no matter what, then leaving one's driver license voluntarily on a police station would be a good choice.

Predictability in general is good for safety; very low performance cars when driven among normal performance cars could pose safety degradation because others in traffic also make mistakes, but seriously non-performing are rare and even then the effect is small, we do have valid reasons for even lower-powered vehicles in traffic, how about bicycles.

It is however hard to dispute that excess power can be dangerous because, well, people do make mistakes.

So having a car that accelerates faster is a convenience not safety - it enables some more safe overtake possibilities. It's quickly in the range of diminishing returns, though - as said, predictability of others is important, and if one is doing some muscle car stunts which may feel like safe in isolation from pure physics viewpoint, pose risks like another driver not noticing you and doing something surprising. So anything beyond maybe 200-400 hp* in normal traffic is diminishing returns and starts to increase risk of misuse - and that includes accidental misuse even in "good hands".

*) but that depends on the mass of the vehicle. Of course those 2300kg monster SUV EVs need their 300-400hp. On a sensible lightweight sedan 200hp is already huge.

What if the car malfunctions in one way or another during the overtake, losing acceleration? That isn't some far-fetched scenario. Clutch slipping during overtaking has happened to me in two separate ICE cars. EV could have some subtle bug, maybe after Tesla's OTA update, where power stage fails at maximum peak current and enters limb mode or something. So any sensible human being leaves safety margin anyway; maybe not a huge amount, but at least some; so that one totally unexpected incident (say, a deer jumping in the front, so you have to brake in the middle of the overtake, or the mentioned clutch slip) eats that margin, but the accident is prevented. But this safety margin offsets the theoretical overtake time. So 2x more power doesn't mean half the overtake time, but maybe 5-10% shorter. Nice-ish, but... meh.

[nctnico]

Some cars (like the electric Dacia spring) are just too slow to use on the highway. Especially where it comes to entering the highway in countries with short ramps. The German automobile organisation ADAC issued a warning to not buy this car because it is dangerously slow. There really is a lower limit where it comes to safety and accelleration.

[temperance]

I agree, a car which is too slow is dangerous. But a tesla with F1 acceleration capabilities is just as dangerous because most people aren't that sensible.

[Cyclotron]

I agree, a car which too slow is dangerous. But a tesla with F1 acceleration capabilities is just as dangerous because most people aren't that sensible.

Only one Tesla model approaches that acceleration, and that's the Model S Plaid, per my understanding. MSRP ~110k USD.
An F1 car can do 0-60 in 1.6 seconds. The Plaid in 2.0.

Lucid Air Sapphire is faster than the Plaid. 1.89 seconds
Bugatti Tourbillon is a 2.0-second ICE car

The much more popular (as far as numbers) Model Y and Model 3 are in the 3-3.5 sec range, which is competitive to sports cars but not in the ballpark with an F1.
There are a lot of cars on the market that normal folks can buy that are ridiculously fast. And we haven't talked about motorcycles.

[woody]

I still vividly remember the first time in the m3 (coming from a V70) I overtook a car in front of me; I nearly took off its rear bumper. You get used to it quickly but I agree that half the power would be more than sufficient.

And no, Musk is not worth it. Nobody is worth that amount of money.

[EEVblog]

And no, Musk is not worth it. Nobody is worth that amount of money.

Ok, so what is the maximum value that you think he or anyone else is "worth"?
What is the maximum amount of wealth that someone is allowed to build though their businesses? And why?
Is it $1T?
Is it $1B?
What is the value?

Given that this is very much a quantified question, I think it deserves a quantified answer.

[wilfred]

Ok, so what is the maximum value that you think he or anyone else is "worth"?
What is the maximum amount of wealth that someone is allowed to build though their businesses? And why?
Is it $1T?
Is it $1B?
What is the value?

Given that this is very much a quantified question, I think it deserves a quantified answer.

There are several ways to answer this question.
 Yes/No is the least useful because I don't think that was the intent of the question. It is very much in the glass half full genre. For the later I have settled on is it depends on the dynamic change the level will undergo or is undergoing. If it reaches the halfway point as you fill it it is half full. If you intend to drink then it is half empty.

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing. I don't think his worth depends on the value of SpaceX stock prices. In 12 months SpaceX might be a worth vastly different amount.

Musk's value is either related to the choices he makes, Nazi salutes, waving shiny chainsaws around and achieving absolutely nothing of lasting value as a result of his participation in an ill-fated exercise in cuts in US Federal government spending. I think the savings are dwarfed by the expenditure on the middle east folly. The purchase of political influence  further diminishes my estimation of his worth. The sight of a US president performing as a car salesman on the white house grounds was shameful and Musk if not trump should have made better choices. Then there is the claim some cave rescue diver was a "pedo guy".  Even though Musk later apologised and said he meant he was only making a value judgement about the mans "creepy" looks. I don't dwell on Musk's behavior much anymore as a result of all his recent activities. I don't think he is worth it. "It" is the marker I place on Musk in terms of value.

Or, on the other hand you could focus on the value his businesses create in terms of employment and social progress to a better future and that is valid too. In that case I don't think it will be long before he is worth a lot less.

[EEVblog]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

[Psi]

It's odd, people seem to get way more aggravated from a single person with shareholder/voting majority of a $1+ trillion company compared to the same value company owned by a group of shareholders.

Despite the fact these big trillion dollar companies owned by many shareholders all have a bad reputation for constantly doing things against the public good. i.e. 'actually' bad things.  But when you ask these people why they don't like SpaceX/Elon you get something like "He's not doing enough good, he could do much more". 

Focus your hate on the big companies actually doing bad things, not on the companies doing a small/limited amount of good in your eye. Make it make sense.

[Cyclotron]

It is very likely that he'll be the first person to be worth 2 trillion given his track record.

The earlier discussions about Tesla cars being able to accelerate fast baffles me. I hear that its "dangerous". A lot of things are dangerous including my hobby in EE. Someone could say its just too dangerous and I could hurt someone.  I ride motorcycles and they are dangerous. So is surfing, skiing, and snowboarding, and so on.

I can't imagine setting a limit on what a person might be able to earn.  Folks can't separate the political views from the value proposition.
Anyone that thinks such limits or restrictions should be in place might consider that the people in power next may come for your privileges and earning capabilities.

Must is worth what his current worth is. Outside of that, its about making a decision about the value of a human. I don't know how that's done.

I need to go hide my sharp pointy stuff.

[Randy222]

The 'being flush' issue is a problem for safety though. Say a car - any car - gets into an accident and bystanders try to help but they can't figure out the non-obvious door handles.  Even if there's a mechanical linkage precious time could be lost trying to get someone out of a car if they were not familiar with the design.  Adding human cues, like a place to grab or place a finger, immediately improves the safety of the system.

What about suicide doors, or wing/scissor doors. These are no different than flush handles?

[Electrodynamic]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

A persons worth should be based on the tangible value they create which is where Musk fails imo. Most of his wealth comes from taxpayers subsidies, scams such as grossly over valuing the companies he runs and falsely representing his products. Note, tesla EV's are still not fully self driving which Musk told outright lies about to attract investment. Do you think the other automakers could get away with this BS?. The fact is, Musk doesn't run his operations like a real company it's more like a pyramid scheme based on pseudoscience.

So it's not so much Musk is worth $1TN, it's the fact he lied, cheated and paid off every politician to get to where he is.

[EEVblog]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

A persons worth should be based on the tangible value they create which is where Musk fails imo. Most of his wealth comes from taxpayers subsidies, scams such as grossly over valuing the companies he runs and falsely representing his products. Note, tesla EV's are still not fully self driving which Musk told outright lies about to attract investment. Do you think the other automakers could get away with this BS?. The fact is, Musk doesn't run his operations like a real company it's more like a pyramid scheme based on pseudoscience.

So it's not so much Musk is worth $1TN, it's the fact he lied, cheated and paid off every politician to get to where he is.

You didn't answer the question. What is the maximum that someone should be worth?

[brucehoult]

Good acceleration is in fact useful and even a safety benefit, for example in overtaking on short straights on a 2-lane road.

And for that you need the acceleratiotn rate of an F1 car?

F1 cars in fact do not accelerate from a standing start especially quickly. They are only RWD. Many very common street motorcycles can match them to 100 km/h.

750 kW of power. Did you take a calculator to calculate the losses at such redicilous power? You probably didn't. That's 2000 A at 375 V or 4 kW loss for every mOhm.

If you want I will calculate the cable requirements between a tesla running 2000 A trough a cable and a car limited to let's say 200 kW which is still about 260 hp. Anyone claiming you would need more than 260 hp for a passenger car is probably a fool. A 250 hp car would go from 0...100 in 6 sec and would only require 500 A with a battery voltage of 375 V.

The difference in I²R losses is not a small number.

Please do the calculations.

Anyone claiming you would need more than 260 hp for a passenger car is probably a fool. A 250 hp car would go from 0...100 in 6 sec

My unmodified stock Subaru Outback has slightly more than 260 HP (265) and I've timed 0-60 MPH at 4.95 seconds. Or at least the "FastR" app on my phone has. Internet says such apps using phone accelerometers are as accurate as purpose-made devices. IDK. It certainly moves anyway, though not as fast as an AWD Tesla.

[Psi]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

A persons worth should be based on the tangible value they create.

I agree, but creating value is a long game.
You get money, then you use it to do hard work which takes a long time, and then you get the return on that in terms of created value.

To work this out fairly you take the $180 million Elon got from selling PayPal in 2002 and compare that to where he is now, and what value he has created, and then you decide if that $180 million was used well.  You don't look at what he has said, you look at what he has achieved.
Starlink alone is a really amazing use of $180 million.
Assisted self driving Tesla cars, at their current state of progress, is also a really amazing use of $180 million by itself.

It's fair to bring up government subsidies, as long as you only count actually subsidies. There's a lot of fake news floating around with huge numbers that tries to include loans that were paid back, or includes the money NASA has paid SpaceX to launch rockets. While rocket launch costs are taxpayer money it's not a subsidy. Further more, if SpaceX didn't exist NASA would have paid other launch providers more money to do those same launches since Falcon9 is way cheaper due to being reusable. So those actually saved taxpayer money.

The question is, what return will the public get for the subsidies that Space X/Tesla did receive. It's too soon to tell.
Check back in 20 years. But I like the odds considering what Elon did with the $180 million

[Andy Chee]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

A persons worth should be based on the tangible value they create which is where Musk fails imo. Most of his wealth comes from taxpayers subsidies, scams such as grossly over valuing the companies he runs and falsely representing his products. Note, tesla EV's are still not fully self driving which Musk told outright lies about to attract investment. Do you think the other automakers could get away with this BS?. The fact is, Musk doesn't run his operations like a real company it's more like a pyramid scheme based on pseudoscience.

So it's not so much Musk is worth $1TN, it's the fact he lied, cheated and paid off every politician to get to where he is.

You didn't answer the question. What is the maximum that someone should be worth?

No maximum limit.  But it should exclude government subsidies and exclude share value.

[EEVblog]

No maximum limit.  But it should exclude government subsidies and exclude share value.

In which case, Elon isn't worth that much at all.

[tom66]

I would personally set an upper limit of wealth in the $10-20 million dollar range.

It's more than enough to retire very comfortably ($400-800k/yr annuity).  For comparison the salary of the US president is around $400k/yr.

Once you get above that it is just hoarding and I think the power it creates corrupts terribly.

Of course, how do you enforce this?  No easy answers.  Wealth moves easily.

[PlainName]

For comparison the salary of the US president is around $400k/yr.

That's just the base rate. Add on the kickbacks, windfalls from market manipulation, plain bribes, etc. That 400k is a drop in the slosh bucket.

[PlainName]

No maximum limit.  But it should exclude government subsidies and exclude share value.

In which case, Elon isn't worth that much at all.

Rich people are worth more than the amount of liquid dosh. They get freebies purely because they are rich, and I would guess that very few indeed pay the costs of their private jets from their own pockets. More likely it's a company perk, as would be the high-end car with chauffeur. Oh, need a new extension on the mansion? Company pays since it needs 'security' on account of they're rich and jealous low-lifes might walk past or something.

Having an absolute figure for a cap is a silly ask. Is 1500C too hot for a human? Of course it is, so what is the right 'too hot' value? That depends on many things and it's not reasonable to expect an exact figure, but we surely know that 1500C is way past it. Thus with Mush (or anyone): $1Tn is way past a reasonable top end.

Having got that out of the way, there is also the small matter of what they do with the wealth. Is it tied up doing stuff or just acccumulating in a pile? And if it's doing stuff, is it doing good stuff or accelerating the end of mankind?

Even then there is the power question. With those resources they can effectively overrule elected leaders, or simply buy their way into power. Great if you're into that kind of -ism but not so hot if you thought some kind of democracy should be in play.

So the question shouldn't be just whether Musk is worth £1Tn but whether any single person should have access to the power and resources personally that comes with that wealth. Musk has amply demonstrated that he shouldn't.

[woody]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

Sorry about reacting late, but I needed some sleep.

I fear that this will always be a bit of a political answer but I think that we should somehow maximize the amount of money / wealth an individual is allowed to amass. Does that make me a communist? Far from it. I think that without such a maximum we break our capitalist society as too much of the stuff that powers it (money, wealth, influence) ends up in the hands of too few people. We can argue about how high the maximum is, but let's start at $5,318,260. This is 10x the mean wealth of people in the US, so that should be plenty to see anyone through life comfortably anywhere on this planet.

As for the more esoteric worthiness of Musk I am divided. I feel that without him EV's would still be an idea and I like him for that. On the other hand, his strange obsession with Mars I find hard to stomach.

[nctnico]

I would personally set an upper limit of wealth in the $10-20 million dollar range.

It's more than enough to retire very comfortably ($400-800k/yr annuity).  For comparison the salary of the US president is around $400k/yr.

Once you get above that it is just hoarding and I think the power it creates corrupts terribly.

Of course, how do you enforce this?  No easy answers.  Wealth moves easily.

But you have to consider this: the companies Elon runs have a few majority shareholders and Musk being one of those. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google, etc are worth billions as well but are run / owned by a whole bunch of shareholders. I don't think there is a difference in the amount of corruption these companies instill on democracy. Just look at all the CEOs of these companies being present at the orange clown's inauguration.

It is better to have a limit on the annual turnover of a company. If it is larger, then it has to be split. Just like they did with Rockefeller's oil companies. Yes, this will still leave Musk's companies in one piece because their valuation is super inflated.

[Andy Chee]

On the other hand, his strange obsession with Mars I find hard to stomach.

If you ignore the technological challenge and just look at the psychological profile, it's not all that different to Putin (Russia), Kim Jong Un (North Korea), and Xi Jinping (China). 

Musk wants his own domain and subjects to rule over, being the Mars colony.

[JPortici]

I can't imagine setting a limit on what a person might be able to earn.

I can. It's called Anti-Trust law, created by americans nonetheless when standard oil was becoming too big and starting to have too much influence over the competition and the government itself.
That a person - not a company - is worth more than a company's GDP is wrong, and signals that many wrong things were let to happen before.

The same applies to the other coporate overlord, a couple years ago we could have had the same conversation about bezos (and we probably would if his rockets worked)

I seriously hope that spacex stock crash and burns, to a sane and reasonable value, and i hope it happens sooner rather than later.

[Cyclotron]

I can't imagine setting a limit on what a person might be able to earn.

I can. It's called Anti-Trust law, created by americans nonetheless when standard oil was becoming too big and starting to have too much influence over the competition and the government itself.
That a person - not a company - is worth more than a company's GDP is wrong, and signals that many wrong things were let to happen before.

The same applies to the other coporate overlord, a couple years ago we could have had the same conversation about bezos (and we probably would if his rockets worked)

I seriously hope that spacex stock crash and burns, to a sane and reasonable value, and i hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Anti-trust law?  I don't see how that makes any sense. Standard oil was actively preventing competition. The laws and the break up were not about changing the wealth of anyone, it was about fixing the competitive market.

There's tons of competition in the markets that these companies exist in. If there had been any chance of anything sticking, you could bet that legal action would have been brought over the years and administrations either in Federal or State courts. Just because a company is dominant doesn't mean it is actively preventing competition. SpaceX entered and is now dominating a market that has, for a long time, been filled with only government contractors primarily from the mlitary industrial complex. SpaceX completely busted open that cronyism filled industry and has made extraordinary reductions in cost to get cargo to space.

If you want SpaceX to crash and burn then so be it. But that represents more than Elon Musk. Its also very unlikely given the company and subsidaries are doing extremely well. It's AI hardware and infrastructure component alone is likely to dwarf the rest of the company in the coming 12 months. The more people push back on bulding data centers the better it is for SpaceX.