I don't know where all of that came from. My point is just that there's no proof Musk is a better CEO/visionary than thousands of other business leaders. You seem to have constructed a lot of other points that I was not commenting on at all.
I agree that many of businesses survive only because of subsidies and that "free speech" does not mean that private entities cannot censor themselves.
No, we just don't attribute it to a single man with an incredibly inconsistent track record.
> Like I said, the objective of business is to make money. One guy made more money than anyone else.
Tesla is an unusually unsuccessful company when compared to other public companies that have existed for the same amount of time.
Musk is wealthy because of his incessant promises/lies about Tesla, not because the business is making so much money.
Arguably, his stubbornness against learning the lessons of 100 years of vehicle manufacturing is holding Tesla back.
> There's also a lot of luck in sports but the team with the most wins at the end of the season is the best team in the regular season.
This analogy is ridiculous. Sports teams compete in tightly-controlled environments. Even then, we attribute some success to coaching, ownership, luck of the schedule, etc.
But even if we accept the analogy, Musk's "team" has not scored the most points.
> Tesla is an unusually unsuccessful company when compared to other public companies that have existed for the same amount of time.
I think you're packing a lot into the definition of successful there. Tesla has been an excellent investment. The value of the company as determined by the market is high. Your definition of "success" is not dissuading investors. Investors believe in the future of Tesla.
> Musk is wealthy because of his incessant promises/lies about Tesla, not because the business is making so much money.
Lots of things that people consider unethical still make you money. That doesn't change the objective fact that he's made a ton of money through business ventures.
> But even if we accept the analogy, Musk's "team" has not scored the most points.
But Musk has.
You can attribute all you want to luck if you'd like but I think that makes you look like a fool when you consider that he didn't just do it once, he did it twice and changed both markets he entered drastically.
His businesses are worth a ton of money.
He is personally worth a ton of money.
Your earlier comment
> That track record seems... pretty random.
is absurd. Most people can't start one successful business. You think he got lucky twice? Three times if you count Starlink which likely gets spun out into it's own business eventually.
And those business aren't just successful in that they aren't out of business, they're massive successes and have made him the richest person in the world (minus some saudi's who probably hold more non-public wealth).
Yes... sorry to imply any particular viewpoint on your part.
Musk's particular talent, in my view, is his ability to manage exponential growth where there's an extremely narrow set of possibly successful outcomes given a set of constraints.
Maybe he sees a way to get twitter back to exponential growth? I don't.
I agree that many of businesses survive only because of subsidies and that "free speech" does not mean that private entities cannot censor themselves.