I think this is a psychological thing. Humans during evolution were highly rewarded for seeking and keeping powerful allies. So by imagining that Elon is my friend (because I'm his friend) and Elon is really intrinsically powerful (instead of just a lucky, well positioned grifter that can fall from grace at any moment) I can feel better about my own safety. I can feel more powerful by extension and the indirection somehow muddles that fact that it's all made up. The same mechanism works in religious people.

▲

openrisk 7 months ago | parent [-]

You might be onto something but we need a proper "evolutionary theory of bootlicking" before we get carried away.

Its pretty clear that the all-too-common in space and time hierarchies, oligarchies, command-and-control pyramids etc. rely on trickle-down privilege to sustain.

But the feeligs of disgust and disbelief at how a person can diminish themselves in the hope of some crumbs falling their way must also have strong evolutionary basis?

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

I’m not sure I understand your viewpoint.

The OP said “the most successful businessman in the world”.

Sure one can argue about how OP came to that conclusion, by what measure, etc, but the man produced a highly successful car company, in a field nobody has really been able to do it, under terms where everyone was counting down the days until it went bankrupt.

That alone is an amazing feat.

Then he went on to create a rocket company that broke barriers of space travel no one has been able to do.

Then he started a satellite company that pushed the boundaries of communication for the average person.

I’d say all those feats are worthy of praise and make him a person who stands out significantly from any other businessman in recent history.

So saying he’s the “most successful businessman” doesn’t seem like an absurd or overly hyperbolic statement.

And how you got “stroking off” or the even more absurd “bootlicking” from that statement is just bizarre. I saw zero evidence of either.

I’d say your comments are the odd ones here and say more about you than the OP.

▲

scotty79 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

> Then he went on to create a rocket company that broke barriers of space travel no one has been able to do.

Look closer into how the sausage is made. For example the Moon grant for SpaceX to the tune of about $3bln was awarded by a person who wrote it in first person singular and after she did it, she promptly quit and went to work for SpaceX.

Musk is definitely successful, but a grifter not a businessman.

> [...] man produced a highly successful car company

Musk is claiming to posess and even selling non-existent technology to both investors and consumers (pre-orders never fullfilled) for almost a decade now. Other people (Theranos, Nikola) who tried to replicate his success in this field but didn't have pants padded with hundred bln$ are curretly serving very long prison sentences for investor fraud. While Musk got off on the grounds that what he says is widely known to be pure puffery and no-one of sound mind should expect what he says to be accurate. Funny how billions "in the bank" can change how justice percieves you.

Musk is now basically so full of hot air that when he stumbles he falls up.

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

As the British would say the proof is in the pudding.

I do know we didn’t have self-landing rockets nor a massive reduced cost of space cargo until SpaceX.

Whether Musk hired the author of a Moon grant is irrelevant to that fact.

Same with Tesla. We had multiple, massively funded car companies try and fail to mass produce an electric car consumers wanted

Whether Musk overpromises FSD isn’t relevant to that accomplishment.

▲

scotty79 7 months ago | parent [-]

We also used to not have have LLMs, bipedal and quadrupedal robots, ubiquitous GPS maps, cell phones, miniature cameras of insane quality, ridiculously fast mobile internet connections, residential fiber and many other useful things.

Many smart people make things happen all the time. Regardless of whether there's some singular rich grifter in that specific that can latch onto them soon enough to claim credit or not.

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

Hence the term “businessman”, you know business, not technological advances.

And regardless I made no claim that any of those other things aren’t important, so feel free to knock down your own strawman.

▲

scotty79 7 months ago | parent [-]

It's just scary that so many people that find such "businessman" something to admire.

That latching onto smart people and ousting them out of their own achievements and replacing with yourself in public imagination is something to admire.

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

People make a simple statement "Musk is the most successful businessman" and you think you know their internal thought process and are ready to condemn them.

Your own bias is showing.

▲

scotty79 7 months ago | parent [-]

This simple statement shows that either they don't understand what kind of "businessman" Musk is exactly or they know but they don't care about it. He's the most successful grifter. Most successful conman. Those are simple statementd too. I condemn people who say those in honest admiration. I also condemn those ignorant of what means to be the kind of businessman Musk is while praising him.

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

It sounds like your entire point is "stop liking things I don't like". The very fact you say "I condemn people who say those in honest admiration" shows this is more about you than the person who made the comment.

You've provided zero evidence to back of your claims of "grifter" (whatever that is).

It's not hard. Businessmen run businesses. Musk runs many and in a very successful way. You're entitled to your own opinions, but that's what they are - nothing more than your opinions.

	▲	scotty79 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Just "stop liking conmen just because they are rich".

▲

openrisk 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism [1],[2].

The Economist made a feeble effort to rank countries in this respect [3] but it does not even include the tech sector in the "crony-prone" sectors (eyes rolling).

[1] "situation in which businesses profit from a close relationship with state power, either through an anti-competitive regulatory environment, direct government largesse, and/or corruption. Examples given for crony capitalism include obtainment of permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other undue influence from businesses over the state's deployment of public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works" etc.

[2] Crony Capitalism, American Style: What Are We Talking About Here? https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/15-025_c6fbbbf7-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony-capitalism_index

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism

No, actually the burden is on the person making that claim (you).

▲

openrisk 7 months ago | parent [-]

If you think "ideal businessmen" can spend millions to influence political outcomes and overtly commingle public and private interests I question the integrity of your judgement and feel no burden whatsoever.

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

Have you stopped the “crony capitalism” and moved onto something else now?

Now that you’ve brought up political money and public and private interests, I’m starting to think you don’t like his politics and that’s about it.

I can think of any other business who doesn’t spend millions for politics and “commingle public and private interests” (whatever that actually means).

▲

scotty79 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Now that you’ve brought up political money and public and private interests

"Crony capitalism, sometimes also called simply cronyism, is a pejorative term used in political discourse to describe a situation in which businesses profit from a close relationship with state power, [...] In other words, it is used to describe a situation where businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather collusion between a business class and the political class."

> I can think of any other business who doesn’t spend millions for politics and “commingle public and private interests”

So if cronyism is prevalent in US to some degree then a person who does that best shouldn't be criticisized?

▲

refurb 7 months ago | parent [-]

So please provide evidence how Tesla, SpaceX or Starlink have benefited from "a close relationship with state power".

You realize that prior to the latest election, the government generally was opposed to Elon Musk. He was investigated by the SEC, and attacked by politicians.

That sounds like the opposite of crony capitalism.

> So if cronyism is prevalent in US to some degree then a person who does that best shouldn't be criticisized?

Maybe you should start with some evidence first? Honestly, it sounds like you just don't like him and you're mad that others do like him.

	▲	scotty79 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Moon mission 3bln grant awarded by government person in power that after awarding it promptly quit and went to work for Musk. And who knows what happened around starlink and military. Tons of subsidies for Tesla. Tax cuts. All of his companies benefit hugely from tax money yet people see him as incredible self made billionaire.