That's actually the defense of Musk that some of his supporters put forth. That it's 'his now, he can do what he wants with it' and there doesn't appear to be any business model in mind. He needs to generate ~1.2 billion just to break even, and his Blue Checks model brought in... what, a million dollars? If that.
Well, just because we don't know his business plan, doesn't mean he doesn't have one. And, he has run successful businesses before. So, I'll reserve judgment until he's had some time to restructure it. Plainly, what Twitter was before needed revamping, IMO. We shall see if it turns out to be a good deal.
You mean his motivation isn't to burn it to the ground? His motivation is actually to turn a profit? So you're saying my opinion of Musk is correct, that he's among the worst businessmen on the planet, and that he amassed such a fortune is more a function of a fake-meritocracy than intellect or skill.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Sure, his motivation is to turn a profit, and he also has a motivation to do good in terms of a fair public square platform that doesn't work for one party over another. He has had failed businesses, but he's also had very successful ones. He's had control of Twitter for a few weeks. It's too early to tell if his revamp will work.
Even if Musk didn't do this for the 'lols' (and it just turned out that way),
It hasn't "turned out" any way. There is no reasonable support for any allegation that Musk should have magically restructured Twitter in a month or two. Shit, just dealing with the payroll issue is taking him 3-6 months. He has to cut large severance checks to a huge percentage of the company's employees, and he's working to restructure how Twitter operates. That doesn't happen in a few weeks.
it doesn't really change the nature of my question. Seems like a fair question to me. Governments, through policy, allows individuals to attain more wealth than ever before,
This is not accurate, as in the past there has been huge fortunes amassed by individuals. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Frick, Flagler, Vanderbilt, Hunt, Mellon, DuPont, Getty, etc. etc etc.
which amounts to political influence, as well as the ability to shape human history in the hands of a few. Is that healthy for an economic system?
Perhaps not, but that problem is worse in non-capitalist systems. There are suspected trillionaires in the fascist and monarchical regimes of the middle east. In Communist countries, all the wealth was and is held by the very few (party leaders). In the capitalist West, the economic freedom allows for very wealthy people, yes, but it also allows for the greater good for the greater number.
Okay, so which currency do you use? Trading in beaver pelts and sheep skins seems more like barter to me.
Money existed, and then governments took it over by backing it with governmental promises, rather than independent value. Money was created by people. There are many advantages to a single money system operated by a government, yes. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that money can't exist without a government. It can, and has.
Hey, you actually understand the purpose of government. You're way ahead of the people I usually engage with. There are people on these forums who think that we don't need government.
"Need" is a loaded term. And, humans can exist without governments. Life would be very different if we had no government, and government serves a very good purpose -- that's why "governments are instituted among men." They aren't natural things, they are creations of people.
Seems like you have a decent grasp of the basics.
LOL - thanks, I guess.
