By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, April 27, 2022
Ayn Rand is one of those rare writers who has been
almost as unlucky in her enemies as she’s been in her friends. There are many
worthwhile criticisms to make of her thinking and her writing — I still think Atlas Shrugged is a better novel
than The Grapes of Wrath, though mostly because The
Grapes of Wrath is a terrible slog of a novel — but, the times being
what they are, one mostly hears the dumb complaints.
(I’ll get to Elon Musk in a bit.)
One particularly dumb line of “Har! Har! Hypocrisy!”
criticism directed at Rand is the fact that she, a committed enemy of the
welfare state, collected Social Security in her old age. Rand naturally
anticipated such criticism, and wrote that she thought of her Social Security
checks as “restitution” — she opposed Social Security when the state was taking
her money, and she opposed Social Security when the state was sending her a
check. If it had been up to her, there wouldn’t have been any Social Security
at all — but there was Social Security, so why shouldn’t she take back some of
what was taken from her?
(Rand, the great apostle of capitalism, apparently was
not very good with money, but she sold truckloads of books and
presumably paid a lot of taxes over the course of her career.)
One sometimes hears similar lines of criticism deployed
against libertarian-ish businessmen such as Charles Koch. Koch is at the center
of a small galaxy of policy and advocacy organizations, many of which are
dedicated to opposing various kinds of federal intervention in private
businesses. But some Koch-affiliated companies collect various subsidies. (Some
of these appear to be outright subsidies, some of them are simply the result of
government policies that Koch’s political enemies wish were different.
But, arguendo, let’s call them all subsidies.) Koch opposes
subsidies and other forms of crony capitalism, and he advocates a very free
market. He has, as it turns out, mostly lost that fight, and there are
subsidies available to a whole range of businesses from soybean farmers to
Starbucks. Does the fact that Charles Koch opposes such policies in principle
oblige him to forgo the benefits associated with them? Does his political
thinking — which very much puts him in the minority — necessitate that his
business units put themselves at a special economic disadvantage vis-à-vis
their competitors?
I don’t think so. In this much, at least, I’m with Ayn
Rand: Uncle Stupid is in my pocket every day, and I’ll claw back whatever I can
when the opportunity presents itself. If you vote against something and lose,
that does not require you to behave as though you had won and ignore reality.
Which brings us, by a circuitous route, to Elon Musk, the
puckish African-American entrepreneur who is at this moment the wealthiest man
walking the Earth and who is about to become the proud new owner of . . . an
embarrassing, grotesque, vicious, money-losing social-media company that he has
for some unfathomable reason agreed to pay $44 billion for. I half suspect that
Elon Musk’s campaign to acquire Twitter was something like Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign: part publicity stunt, part vanity project, part fit of
pique that he never really intended to go through with but couldn’t walk away
from once he was in the ring. Congratulations, boss: You’ve just spent $44
billion to buy a company that lost $221 million last year, doesn’t have a
viable business model, and seems to be staffed exclusively by people who hate
you. For that kind of money, you could have bought a real company, like
Kimberly-Clark ($2.6 billion in profit last year and growing), and for a few
bucks more you could have bought Ford ($18 billion in profit in 2021), which
might be of some use to a carmaker. Hell, you could have bought Dogecoin —
twice.
That said, I don’t suppose Elon Musk needs my business
advice. And, besides, he has made it clear that he doesn’t think about Twitter
as a business proposition, anyway. He says he isn’t interested in the economics
of the company, but in its social and cultural position.
Conservatives run hot and cold on Musk. One common
criticism levied at him is the one addressed above: that many of his business
interests — not just Tesla — have thrived on government subsidies, incentives,
and contracts. The tax incentives the U.S. government offers for electric
vehicles are not the result of Musk’s lobbying, and he has in fact been
critical of them at times. For one thing, they are a bigger help to other
electric-car makers than they are to Tesla: That $12,500 tax rebate is 46
percent of a Nissan Leaf but only 6.5 percent of a loaded Model X. And,
besides, because of the way the tax credits are structured, Tesla buyers have
not been eligible to receive rebates for some time now. Neither have GM buyers,
both firms having crossed the critical 200,000-sales mark. Musk has opposed
moves in California that would make solar power for homeowners less financially attractive
than it has been — Musk has solar-power interests, and while the
California situation is more complicated than a straightforward subsidy, it is
fair to say that Musk has a financial interest in play.
Musk sometimes talks like a techno-libertarian,
particularly on the issue of free speech, but his admittedly incoherent public
political statements have been in the main, though by no means exclusively,
progressive in the most conventional and ordinary sense. He supported Andrew
Yang in 2020 and cares a lot about climate change; he also thinks a lot of the
tell-me-your-pronouns stuff is silly, thinks the Covid-19 lockdowns in
California were excessive, and isn’t keen on punitive taxes directed at . . . him
and Jeff Bezos, mostly. He prefers consumption taxes to income taxes and
supports estate taxes on the grounds that — here’s that famous human touch of
his — the “probability of progeny being equally excellent at capital allocation
is not high.” He sounds Swiss on the subject of direct democracy and
hand-on-heart when it comes to “the greatest country that has ever existed on
Earth” and the “greatest force for good of any country that’s ever been.”
And he likes to get high with Joe Rogan. So he is a little
bit all over the map.
But he is not Charles Koch — not by a damned sight — and
has not put himself forward as a champion of laissez-faire economics.
He did not lobby those subsidies into existence, though of course he took
account of them in his business plans — as any competent business executive
would.
He calls himself an “absolutist” on free speech, and you
can almost smell the Absolut from here. When Vladimir Putin’s atavistic cabal
invaded Ukraine earlier this year, Musk resisted calls to block Russian state
media from using his satellites. So he means to run a very liberal regime at
Twitter.
I have my doubts that Elon Musk will be able to produce a
good version of Twitter, because a good version of Twitter would not be
Twitter, just as a hammer that you can’t bang your thumb with isn’t a
hammer. It is fun to watch the progressive meltdown about the
possibility that Twitter soon will be run by someone who actually believes in
free speech. But if I have learned anything from the political developments
of the past several years, it is that my enemies’ enemies are not necessarily
my friends. Conservatives who think he is going to rescue the public square
from the pious fanatics who have appointed themselves its roving mutaween are
going to be terribly disappointed. Elon Musk is an enormously intelligent,
emotionally immature, charmingly eccentric man who has $264 billion or so with
which to amuse himself and, at times, to amuse the rest of us, too. Even the
SEC must occasionally allow a secret smile at his antics.
But the problem with Twitter is not who owns it, and it
never has been. The problem with Twitter is that mankind is a fallen creature
in need of a redeemer, a creature that now has the technological capacity to
demonstrate its fallenness 6,000 times per second.
No comments:
Post a Comment