If this report is true, then it raises extremely serious questions of conflict of interest and national security.
It's possible to argue that Elon as the special advisor to the president needs the unfettered access to all of the US govt(including national security) that he currently has.
It is impossible to argue that doing so is not a blatant conflict of interest and a security risk given that a large part of this net worth depends on SpaceX stock's performance.
To be clear, there is an established process for people with substantial assets and potential conflicts of interest to participate in senior roles in the govt. They have to place their assets in a trust which they do not control(preferably a blind trust). Doing so reduces, but does not eliminate the conflict of interest.
It's completely out of the playbook to for the CEO of a company that receives substantial govt contracts to be in a position to strongly influence who receives those contracts.
It's on another planet all together for the same person to be privy to the highest levels of national security discussions while his company receives substantial investment from the primary strategic competitor of the United States(as defined by the president himself)
It just might be possible that everything is hunky dory and Elon's personal ethics are strong enough, however in these cases, even the appearance of corruption is enough.
@dang this post is being ganged up on and flagged like previous posts critical of Elon. There is no evidence that the article or the posting goes against HN guidelines.
It's not being ganged up on or flagged. It did run into a few software penalties. Mostly that's because this general topic (His You-Know-Whoness) is the most repetitive/indignant one that HN has experienced in recent months. We're trying to avoid that, not because of the specific topic, but because those qualities (repetition and indignation) are the opposite of what the site is for, and destroy what it is for.
It's not as if HN has been lacking for major, massive threads about it, so I'm disinclined to switch the software off on this one.
That's the problem with outsourcing to defense companies. They'll eventually end up owned by your competitors.
Just like the US backed most critical German companies in the 30s to be able to get rid of the French in the Rheinland and attack Russia. They had a majority in IG Farben eg. and gave them the artificial Diesel patents. Which brought the Nazis to power and then they turned around and attacked the US.
I'm not sure how much of their critical companies, like for their airplanes, rockets, intelligence (Booz Allen Hamilton) which are all publicly traded are in fact controlled by Saudi-Qatari or Chinese investors now. Is there some overview?
[+] [-] arunabha|1 year ago|reply
It's possible to argue that Elon as the special advisor to the president needs the unfettered access to all of the US govt(including national security) that he currently has.
It is impossible to argue that doing so is not a blatant conflict of interest and a security risk given that a large part of this net worth depends on SpaceX stock's performance.
To be clear, there is an established process for people with substantial assets and potential conflicts of interest to participate in senior roles in the govt. They have to place their assets in a trust which they do not control(preferably a blind trust). Doing so reduces, but does not eliminate the conflict of interest.
It's completely out of the playbook to for the CEO of a company that receives substantial govt contracts to be in a position to strongly influence who receives those contracts.
It's on another planet all together for the same person to be privy to the highest levels of national security discussions while his company receives substantial investment from the primary strategic competitor of the United States(as defined by the president himself)
It just might be possible that everything is hunky dory and Elon's personal ethics are strong enough, however in these cases, even the appearance of corruption is enough.
[+] [-] arunabha|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|1 year ago|reply
It's not as if HN has been lacking for major, massive threads about it, so I'm disinclined to switch the software off on this one.
[+] [-] rurban|1 year ago|reply
Just like the US backed most critical German companies in the 30s to be able to get rid of the French in the Rheinland and attack Russia. They had a majority in IG Farben eg. and gave them the artificial Diesel patents. Which brought the Nazis to power and then they turned around and attacked the US.
I'm not sure how much of their critical companies, like for their airplanes, rockets, intelligence (Booz Allen Hamilton) which are all publicly traded are in fact controlled by Saudi-Qatari or Chinese investors now. Is there some overview?