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.
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.
Steve Jobs also conspired with his competitors to underpay their staff. Staff as in the people that helped him do business and make billions
Right? At least Elon doesn't have to conspire to underpay his staff.
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.
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.
can I get a source on the math for this? I haven't heard that before
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.
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?
It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.
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.
My evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist is better than your evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist!!!!
My point is that one is a greedy, evil businessman. The other is a greedy, evil conman.
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
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.
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.
Steve Jobs also conspired with his competitors to underpay their staff. Staff as in the people that helped him do business and make billions
Right? At least Elon doesn't have to conspire to underpay his staff.
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.
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.
can I get a source on the math for this? I haven't heard that before
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.
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?
It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.
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.
My evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist is better than your evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist!!!!
My point is that one is a greedy, evil businessman. The other is a greedy, evil conman.
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
True.