After reading the recent news about protests against Elon Musk and his role in the Trump Administration, I felt troubled.
Of course, people have a right to voice their opposition to the South African’s unelected role in American government, considering his companies’ numerous federal contracts. Conflicts of interest are inherent and obvious in this case.
However, painting with too broad of a brush is not helpful. I refer to protesters at New York City Tesla dealership chanting ‘We need clean air, not another billionaire!’ among other things. Granted, this was a quickly-thought-up slogan aimed at whipping up the crowd, not presenting a policy position.
Still, demonizing billionaires as a group–pitting the blue collars against the blue bloods–is misguided and destructive. While Elon Musk is easy to despise, other billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are not.
Being rich does not equate to being evil. Maturity acknowledges nuance and even contradictions in life. Shades of grey and untidy realities abound.
And while I cherish free speech and look forward to it having a long and healthy life, I am suspicious of those who attempt to leverage a legitimate complaint–Musk’s outsized, reckless, and dangerous role in US government–into a broader attack on those who are wealthy.
The last thing we need at this moment in history is a class war, regardless of how deserving a few individuals in the 1% are.
I’ve said before that the rich man should know how the poor man lives, and the poor man should know how the rich man works.
I’ll amend that by saying that both the rich and the poor benefit from democracy. We should ignore instigators who attempt to divide us, and focus on the real issues in front of us.
- BGT
Amen.
I did not take the post as negatively as most below did, hence my amen. I saw it as anti violent protest and anti class warfare. I am always for the American taxpayer keeping more of his own hard earned paycheck, hence, government waste must be identified and slashed.
The message may be simplified by referring to an elementary logical fallacy. My computer does not have characters for symbolic logic so I will use words.
The fallacy: P implies Q, Q, therefore P.
The fallacy is taught with this example” If it rains, the grass is wet.
There grass is wet.
Therefore, it rained.
Less elegant is “do not throw out the baby with the bathwater”.
Hello, Byron. I believe that your readers would be better served if you were bit more specific about the actions of Mr. Musk, rather than defaming him with thinly veiled, ad hominem, comments, such as the implication that he is “reckless” and “dangerous.” I believe that Mr. Musk is, to some extent, autistic. As a result, he is not likely to exhibit a charming personality. On the other hand, he is, arguably, one of the greatest talents to emerge in the last 100 years. Moreover, we have Mr. Musk only because we have President Trump. We have President Trump only because the Democratic Party now seems incapable of offering a competent candidate — i.e, Trump did not win the presidency; rather, Harris lost. Harris was the candidate because President Biden selected her as his VP, based on, by his own admission, her race and gender rather than her competence. And so the world turns . . .
Best wishes — Hudson Forbes
Hudson, let me address your final comment on the blog as diplomatically as I can.
First, Elon Musk may be a great businessman, but he is not suited for public service. This is obvious to any objective observer, and even to the current president of the United States, who now no longer has the need or desire for his services. As to his personality, I have never met him. I can only consider what I’ve seen in terms of his judgment: a man wearing a baseball cap and jeans in the Oval Office, and the same man wielding a chainsaw on stage at a political event, just to name two incidents.
Furthermore, to refer to Kamala Harris as candidate who is not ‘competent’ is inaccurate and smacks of partisan propaganda, which we don’t tolerate here. She has decades of experience in public service. This includes roles as attorney general of the State of California, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States. She is obviously ‘qualified’ to hold the office, which might be a better word than ‘competent.’
I provide a lot of latitude for various opinions on this blog, and make no claims to always being right about anything. However. I do expect comments to rise to a certain level of credibility, accuracy, and fairness. Yours fall short.
I wish you the best of luck. – BGT
Now I know why I quit reading this blog. Byron, shame on you.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Hudson and I also concur with Chris. Mr. Tully’s commentary here makes me take pause. Perhaps he is not someone I would wish to take any advisement.
Byron — thanks for your response, and for posting my comment. Please be assured that I am not partisan; I dislike both parties rather much. Perhaps I have a different view than you because I live in the United States rather than overseas.
Regarding Mr. Musk: don’t judge him by his appearance (by the way, I agree with your assessment; the same goes for President Zelensky’s inappropriate outfits). Rather, judge him by his actions, which, understandably, many people may or may not find objectionable. Those who find them objectionable should, I think, offer explanations as to why. This approach leads to a rational discourse rather than a barrage of ad hominem insults.
Regarding credibility: it would help yours with your readers if we knew more about you. For example, How old are you? What is your level of education? If you hold any university degrees, what fields are they in? And what are your accomplishments in life, beyond writing a good book about old money? These questions are offered only as friendly suggestions.
Again, best wishes! Hudson Forbes
I took the chant “we need clean air, not another billionaire” to be a complaint about the fact that Elon Musk is gutting the Environmental Protection Agency which will allow large industrial polluters to pollute more freely. Although this will inure to the financial benefit of the owners and shareholders of those corporations I think it is just as likely that they chose the word “billionaire” because it rhymes with “air” and Musk happens to be one.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to interpret this as an attack on rich people generally. But perhaps my class-warfare radar is not as sensitive as yours.
You know, I’ve read most of your books over the past ten years and have followed this blog every since I learned of its existence. My husband and I have a much better financial level of fitness because of the advice I’ve taken from your work. And I’m truly grateful to you for that. But with all that’s happening in the world right now, when one billionaire who makes others look bad becomes the issue of the week most worthy of a post, it does give me pause. The billionaires will be fine no matter what people say about Musk. The Social Security recipients who paid into the program and now can’t verify their identity if they can’t afford wifi or transportation to increasingly distant offices because of Musk will not be.
I have to say that I (almost) wholeheartedly also agree with Mr. Forbes here. With the exception that I think Byron’s words can be judged on merit alone. As a student of the Old Money Values over the last few years, I have learned Privacy to be perhaps foremost among them. Furthermore, I think his books, which there are more than one, convey great character, which makes this blog, in my eyes, well worth reading. Even though Byron’s political leanings differ greatly from my own.
With regards to unelected officials: It strikes me as quite partisan (and ironic) to criticize Elon’s position without also acknowledging (since she was brought up) Kamala Harris’. She was not only unelected as a presidential candidate (as opposed to a cabinet position), but also was found wildly unpopular when she did run a presidential campaign. Who could find this to be democratic? I think this fully justifies Mr. Forbes’ assertion about the Democrats being unable to mount a worthy candidate. And I also am not a partisan. And I also dislike both parties much.
With regards to criticism of Elon: I won’t comment on the destructiveness or lack thereof of the DOGE initiative. I think all criticism is fair but I do find it convenient how they seemingly all take place without acknowledgments of the 36.5 trillion dollar elephant in the room.
With regards to the actual message of this blog post: I concur wholeheartedly. And I always appreciate your enlightened take on things, Byron.
“Blue collars against blue bloods” is great quote. Real change on real issues cannot begin with classwarfare. It requires cooperation and empathy from all positions.