So many of the comments here have to do with "his position keeps changing"
I'm not defending Trump personally - but as a concept, lets dig into this a bit.
So someone gets into a position of gaining a vast amount of knowledge over a short period of time from experts and consultants...
Do you expect that their perspective hasn't shifted, or that they will stick to their guns no matter what?
Because that's politics as usual - ignoring new evidence an voting/acting in a manner to support your original stance... never changing (especially drastically)
But isn't the way it should be just this - that new information should inform your decision and, if you're open minded, you should consider changing your stance if the new information supports it?
I'd take someone who changes their mind with new information over someone who sticks their fingers in their ear when information that opposes their viewpoint comes to their attention. Even if their decisions are in disagreement with me, their ability to change their stance says that they are at least making those decisions as opposed to having those decisions decided by what party label they strap on their chest...
There's a difference between changing one's opinion based on evidence and thought... And having, say, mutually exclusive policy positions on the minimum wage during the campaign. (Eliminate it federally, raise it at the federal level, don't raise it at the federal level, let the states decide, let the states decide but it must go up.)
There isn't, to me, evidence of evolution or evaluation. Or a rapidity of such that calls to mind comic-book mutation. We can't get the full view into his mind, obviously, but it seems like we don't have access to a base set of principles from which Donny makes his decisions.
Watch what he does and who he appoints. Having a meeting with someone isn't always that substantial. The crazy stuff he says is just for shock and awe value. This is how he controls the narrative and keeps it away from weightier investigative criticisms of his actions Which are far more damaging and substantial. A remark can always be played off as a joke, bluster or banter. His supporters see that, and get a kick out of seeing him troll the media.
This way he makes some off the cuff remark that has people in news and social media tripping over themselves to denounce and loudly proclaim righteous indignation. His supporters laugh, the crazy fringe love him, and the media and the left chase their tail around in circles until he needs to distract them from something else.
The problem is political interface. How do I vote if politicians can just change their position just a month after the elections? Or if I can't even pin down their position, because they're not sure themselves? What am I actually voting for?
So if you are an issue-based voter, you don't vote for the right person (in which case you'd be principally evaluating their personal qualifications), instead you vote for specific policy positions (here you principally evaluate policy qualifications).
The politician who changes their views according to new information is simply less comprehensible to outside parties. It may be better to be a more easily understood politician who sticks to position in a way that is <too> sticky.
Are we really seeing an open minded person learning from new information? Or is this simply the standard playbook of populist politcs?
Say anything that wins you the election, regardless of how vile, untrue or unworkable it may be. If you win, come up with some plan that doesn't make the idiocy of your campaign proposals glaringly obvious right away.
> Members of the [President's Strategic and Policy Forum] will be charged with
> providing their individual views to the President — informed by their unique
> vantage points in the private sector — on how government policy impacts
> economic growth, job creation and productivity. The Forum is designed to
> provide direct input to the President from many of the best and brightest in
> the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic and non-partisan manner.
There are an initial 16 members on this council, all current or former business leaders.
I wonder if having both Musk and Kalanick on this council signals anything about Trump's position on driverless car regulation, or will otherwise influence it going forward.
The person he's appointed to be Transport Secretary, Elaine Chao, is very hands off (no pun intended) when it comes to regulation, which is likely to be a good sign for driverless cars.
SpaceX depends on government contracts and Elon's companies all seem to be intertwined somewhat financially,so it makes sense he would want to be close to the President.
Uber also heavily depends on gov policy with the contractor/employee debate. Uber is also heavily lobbying governments to privatize public transit which would benefit it.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they pushed for that new in-between employee/contractor designation that they've been claiming is necessary for the new economy.
SpaceX depends on government contracts far less than say ULA; so far SpaceX has had 17 successful private commercial launches and 15 successful government paid launches, and ULA has only had 1 private commercial flight on an Atlas rocket since 2010 (WorldView-3 Digital Globe). And to top it off ULA gets USD1B a year for flight readiness regardless of how many launches it makes (although this will probably go soon).
All these comments about Trump changing his mind or being swayed miss the obvious indicators that he's just following the Putin/Surkov strategy for creating a managed democracy. You destabilize the narrative coherency with opposing, even random, signals (meet with Al Gore, then appoint Rex Tillerson, add Kanye for good measure). As your opponents scramble for some logical imperative along the lines of received political/economic narratives, you dismantle the institutions that oppose you(both literal and civilly constructed), so you can rob and rule however you see fit.
My read is that Trump doesn't have any particular plan beyond fame and feeling important. If that means holding completely opposing views one day to the next, so be it.
This is dangerous, don't get me wrong. And he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes. Let's just hope the good smarter people can get control of him instead of the bad smarter people...
I want to bookmark your comment, because I think you are so on point with what is happening.
The greatest threat to the moderate people of this country is our insistent on believing that everyone is good, and that everything will be ok.
We want to believe that so much we don't see the veil that has been pulled over our eyes.
All his cabinet picks, all the things he has done with his businesses are a clear factual indicator of the kind president he will be, yet everyone in these high-minded forums, educated journalists, still want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It saddens me greatly that so many educated people continue to believe they can work with him, when it's clear that he has no intention of working with anyone, for anyone, but himself.
I think this is because most of us have lived in relatively peace and prosperity our entire life.
I hope I am wrong and that my stupidity will be laughed at in the coming months.
I think that you're overestimating Trump's ability to dismantle institutions, even if we stipulate that he's a machiavellian schemer who's successfully sowing chaos among his opponents by "destabilizing the narrative coherency."
FWIW, Trump stated in a recent interview that he would keep an "open mind" on climate change. He was probably informed by his advisers that climate change is real.
It bothers me that Twitter is frequently considered an original source, and yet comments can be deleted willy-nilly. It's too close to 1984-esque Newspeak. The HN model seems much better: You can only delete comments for some amount of time after initially posting; after that, they're fixed in stone.
(But I am glad this new council is somewhat bipartisan!)
I felt the same way, but I'm happy that he can be sensible about it and accept that Trump is President for the next 4 years whether we like it or not. We need to make the best of a crap situation.
Yeah, Elon was very vocally opposed to Trump, in an interview just before Trump's election he said Trump was "not the finest moment in our democracy" and that his character "doesn't reflect well on the US.
Still, these guys are businessmen, and part of being a good businessman is a willingness to put aside personal differences and disagreements and be able to work together.
Can Elon, Travis influence Trump's policies in any meaningful way by being part of the PAC?
A lot of Trumps plans such as opening up fossil fuel reserves, not believing in climate change (though Trump said he would keep an open mind in a recent interview), going hard on immigration go directly against what Silicon Valley stands for. Will it be possible to influence Trump's plans on these issues? I remain skeptical.
I have a hunch Trump is influenced by whomever is standing in front of him at any given moment.
His attraction to wealth and celebrity might actually be beneficial to the tech scene here. The more he meets with people like Musk, Cook, Gates, hell even Kayne West, the better in my opinion.
Honestly, I think the Democrats could actually turn Trump into a left-leaning President given enough careful attention and subtle manipulation. The GOP has been in a mode of "our way or no way" the last eight years and it's a hard habit to break. It could backfire with Trump.
It seems pretty obvious based on Trump's choices for head of EPA, DOE, etc. that even if he is "keeping an open mind" he is appointing people to positions of power that have anything but an open mind in regards to climate change and environmental stewardship.
His recent interview was probably just political posturing so he doesn't get lambasted by the media while he is making these appointments.
Please tell your CEO that he needs to focus on one thing at a time. Delivering the Tesla Model 3 as promised should be his ONLY priority. Activities such as serving on a Trump economic advisory panel or thinking about solar shingles are a distraction and a waste of his valuable time.
I don't see the hypocrisy. Trump never said he wouldn't be advised by Elon Musk, nor did Musk say he would never advise Trump. Agreeing to advise someone who you didn't want to win the office (but who nevertheless did) is not hypocritical.
Elon Musk has a couple of well defined, over-riding goals: to make humans a multi-planetary species and to see humanity move to sustainable power. To those ends he's fully committed. Making a lot of money is one necessary, interim step along the way. As is working with/coordinating with the US Government.
That's as hypocritical as going to New Orleans to help with relief efforts after saying that Katrina would devastate the city. I.e. not even a little bit.
Space travel is an almost certain reality in the near future. If anything Trump wants to be first in line to open an elite casino and Trump Tower on Mars for the ultra wealthy. Elon can make it happen.
I wonder if Mr. Trump will attend, he seems not terribly interested in briefings. Perhaps he will since they are business related instead of intelligence.
Let me fix that for you; "Elon Musk is just another capitalist who likes money."
Minor snark aside, Musk's companies have not availed of any government money that wasn't available to others. And in many cases Musk's companies weren't even the beneficiaries of said government money, quite often that money went to the purchasers of products made by Musk's companies (Tesla, electric car subsidies go to car owners, not manufacturers; Solar City, feed in payments go to the owners of the solar equipment (and yes I realise sometimes that is to finance companies and/or to Solar City)). In other cases like SpaceX they have competed for government contracts and won those contracts.
But at the end of the day Musk's companies typically attract less subsidies (Tesla / Solar vs other car companies / oil / gas / coal companies) or charge the government less for the same work than others (think ULA). So in effect they are better for the government's stated goals than a lot of other companies. And yet at the end of the day Musk's companies need money to survive and grow just like any other company; government or otherwise, and compared to many other companies in their respective arenas their revenue from government contracts can be substantially smaller pro rata.
So in the end Musk's companies will use whatever influence they can (this is called hustle in start ups), and they need money (and do whatever they can to avoid being solely dependent on government cash). And to top it off they actively support competition, even when they could afford to stand still and reduce the rate of innovation.
He may very well be a crony capitalist, but he is OUR crony capitalist. And if money is going to be dished out to cc's I, for one, would much rather see it burn on the altar in the Church of Musk than anywhere else.
[+] [-] jmcdiesel|9 years ago|reply
I'm not defending Trump personally - but as a concept, lets dig into this a bit.
So someone gets into a position of gaining a vast amount of knowledge over a short period of time from experts and consultants...
Do you expect that their perspective hasn't shifted, or that they will stick to their guns no matter what?
Because that's politics as usual - ignoring new evidence an voting/acting in a manner to support your original stance... never changing (especially drastically)
But isn't the way it should be just this - that new information should inform your decision and, if you're open minded, you should consider changing your stance if the new information supports it?
I'd take someone who changes their mind with new information over someone who sticks their fingers in their ear when information that opposes their viewpoint comes to their attention. Even if their decisions are in disagreement with me, their ability to change their stance says that they are at least making those decisions as opposed to having those decisions decided by what party label they strap on their chest...
[+] [-] flatpointer23|9 years ago|reply
Or mutually exclusive positions on a ton of policy issues: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...
There isn't, to me, evidence of evolution or evaluation. Or a rapidity of such that calls to mind comic-book mutation. We can't get the full view into his mind, obviously, but it seems like we don't have access to a base set of principles from which Donny makes his decisions.
[+] [-] gnarbarian|9 years ago|reply
This way he makes some off the cuff remark that has people in news and social media tripping over themselves to denounce and loudly proclaim righteous indignation. His supporters laugh, the crazy fringe love him, and the media and the left chase their tail around in circles until he needs to distract them from something else.
[+] [-] threatofrain|9 years ago|reply
So if you are an issue-based voter, you don't vote for the right person (in which case you'd be principally evaluating their personal qualifications), instead you vote for specific policy positions (here you principally evaluate policy qualifications).
The politician who changes their views according to new information is simply less comprehensible to outside parties. It may be better to be a more easily understood politician who sticks to position in a way that is <too> sticky.
[+] [-] thisisdallas|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|9 years ago|reply
Are we really seeing an open minded person learning from new information? Or is this simply the standard playbook of populist politcs?
Say anything that wins you the election, regardless of how vile, untrue or unworkable it may be. If you win, come up with some plan that doesn't make the idiocy of your campaign proposals glaringly obvious right away.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jsnathan|9 years ago|reply
I wonder if having both Musk and Kalanick on this council signals anything about Trump's position on driverless car regulation, or will otherwise influence it going forward.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] livestyle|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoyomaforce|9 years ago|reply
Uber also heavily depends on gov policy with the contractor/employee debate. Uber is also heavily lobbying governments to privatize public transit which would benefit it.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they pushed for that new in-between employee/contractor designation that they've been claiming is necessary for the new economy.
[+] [-] tankenmate|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: company name fix.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|9 years ago|reply
This is dangerous, don't get me wrong. And he's absolutely going to get used as a tool in smarter people's schemes. Let's just hope the good smarter people can get control of him instead of the bad smarter people...
[+] [-] vinhboy|9 years ago|reply
The greatest threat to the moderate people of this country is our insistent on believing that everyone is good, and that everything will be ok.
We want to believe that so much we don't see the veil that has been pulled over our eyes.
All his cabinet picks, all the things he has done with his businesses are a clear factual indicator of the kind president he will be, yet everyone in these high-minded forums, educated journalists, still want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It saddens me greatly that so many educated people continue to believe they can work with him, when it's clear that he has no intention of working with anyone, for anyone, but himself.
I think this is because most of us have lived in relatively peace and prosperity our entire life.
I hope I am wrong and that my stupidity will be laughed at in the coming months.
[+] [-] aetherson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|9 years ago|reply
"We know the man, tried to work with him, but he's a danger to society" sounds better than "we think he will be dangerous".
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Symmetry|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anondon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhurron|9 years ago|reply
We're just getting rid of the veneer that business interests don't run the country now.
[+] [-] aliaser|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|9 years ago|reply
(But I am glad this new council is somewhat bipartisan!)
[+] [-] blowski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vivekd|9 years ago|reply
Still, these guys are businessmen, and part of being a good businessman is a willingness to put aside personal differences and disagreements and be able to work together.
[+] [-] ensignavenger|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anondon|9 years ago|reply
A lot of Trumps plans such as opening up fossil fuel reserves, not believing in climate change (though Trump said he would keep an open mind in a recent interview), going hard on immigration go directly against what Silicon Valley stands for. Will it be possible to influence Trump's plans on these issues? I remain skeptical.
[+] [-] joezydeco|9 years ago|reply
His attraction to wealth and celebrity might actually be beneficial to the tech scene here. The more he meets with people like Musk, Cook, Gates, hell even Kayne West, the better in my opinion.
Honestly, I think the Democrats could actually turn Trump into a left-leaning President given enough careful attention and subtle manipulation. The GOP has been in a mode of "our way or no way" the last eight years and it's a hard habit to break. It could backfire with Trump.
[+] [-] paxtonab|9 years ago|reply
His recent interview was probably just political posturing so he doesn't get lambasted by the media while he is making these appointments.
[+] [-] rtx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] castratikron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmaynard|9 years ago|reply
Please tell your CEO that he needs to focus on one thing at a time. Delivering the Tesla Model 3 as promised should be his ONLY priority. Activities such as serving on a Trump economic advisory panel or thinking about solar shingles are a distraction and a waste of his valuable time.
Thanks, Craig
(Model 3 reservation number xxxxxxxx)
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sickbeard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinzollars|9 years ago|reply
I thought we were on a one week long hiatus. If you have the ability, please down vote this article.
[+] [-] jlebrech|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukaa|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csallen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Diederich|9 years ago|reply
Elon Musk has a couple of well defined, over-riding goals: to make humans a multi-planetary species and to see humanity move to sustainable power. To those ends he's fully committed. Making a lot of money is one necessary, interim step along the way. As is working with/coordinating with the US Government.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laichzeit0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] em3rgent0rdr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tankenmate|9 years ago|reply
Minor snark aside, Musk's companies have not availed of any government money that wasn't available to others. And in many cases Musk's companies weren't even the beneficiaries of said government money, quite often that money went to the purchasers of products made by Musk's companies (Tesla, electric car subsidies go to car owners, not manufacturers; Solar City, feed in payments go to the owners of the solar equipment (and yes I realise sometimes that is to finance companies and/or to Solar City)). In other cases like SpaceX they have competed for government contracts and won those contracts.
But at the end of the day Musk's companies typically attract less subsidies (Tesla / Solar vs other car companies / oil / gas / coal companies) or charge the government less for the same work than others (think ULA). So in effect they are better for the government's stated goals than a lot of other companies. And yet at the end of the day Musk's companies need money to survive and grow just like any other company; government or otherwise, and compared to many other companies in their respective arenas their revenue from government contracts can be substantially smaller pro rata.
So in the end Musk's companies will use whatever influence they can (this is called hustle in start ups), and they need money (and do whatever they can to avoid being solely dependent on government cash). And to top it off they actively support competition, even when they could afford to stand still and reduce the rate of innovation.
[+] [-] feistypharit|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daptaq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ageofwant|9 years ago|reply