Trussonomics trashed within eight weeks. Former US president Donald Trump’s anointed candidates cut down in the midterms. Sam Bankman-Fried, the poster boy of the cryptoworld, collapsing into bankruptcy. Elon Musk throwing Twitter into turmoil. The bursting of myths and the shredding of reputations seem to be the themes of the day.
Each of these cases is, of course, distinct and the root causes of each disaster different. There is a danger, too, in discussing these developments, of seeming to revel in failure. Too much of the debate about Musk and Twitter, especially, has mixed despair with schadenfreude. Yet, viewed collectively, these cases also tell us something deeper about our age and, in particular, about the ways in which we think about innovation and change.
Since the death of Steve Jobs in 2011, Musk has emerged as the leading virtuoso of technological innovation.
Illustration: Mountain People
“His brilliance, his vision and the breadth of his ambition make him the one-man embodiment of the future,” Fortune magazine said in 2014.
The world seems to divide into Musk lovers and Musk haters, a cleavage that has become particularly acute since his acquisition of Twitter last month. For Musk supporters, the critics are little more than know-nothing dullards, attempting for political reasons to hack down a genius of the day.
“It’s remarkable how many people who’ve never run any kind of company think they know how to run a tech company better than someone who’s run Tesla and SpaceX,” computer scientist and venture capitalist Paul Graham wrote on Twitter.
However, look more closely at Musk’s record, and the mystique begins to vanish. Musk was removed as chief executive of each of the first companies he helped found: Zip2, an online business directory; X.com, an online bank; and PayPal, created by the merger of X.com with its much more successful competitor Confinity, cofounded by another Silicon Valley wannabe, Peter Thiel.
Nevertheless, the sale of Zip2 netted Musk US$22 million and the acquisition of PayPal by eBay US$176 million. He used that money to set up a series of other ventures, most notably the electric vehicle company Tesla and SpaceX, which manufactures and launches spacecraft. Yet his record here, too, is hardly that of an entrepreneurial genius.
Tesla is today the world’s most valuable auto company. However, it has been plagued by a host of major problems — from fatal crashes to fines for alleged fraud to accusations of creative accounting. The company has also been accused of garnering more than US$295 million in green subsidies from the state of California for a battery-swapping technology that was never made available to customers.
SpaceX nearly folded in 2008 before a last-minute US$1.6 billion contract from NASA. Before that contract, Musk acknowledged: “We were running on fumes.” His projects were so reliant on public money for survival that in the days before he discovered the necessity of voting Republican to provide “balance” to US politics, conservatives derided the degree of state support for his ventures.
The icon of the self-made entrepreneur of genius has survived only because of fabulous state subsidies. Nor is it just public money that Musk arrogates. According to his biographer, Ashlee Vance, Musk constantly appropriates for himself the credit for the work of his engineers and programmers.
“I don’t really have a business plan,” he has boasted, never letting, in the words of Vance, “the fact that he knew very little about [an] industry’s nuances bother him.”
Musk’s real genius is in creating an aura — around himself, of making vast promises and getting people to believe that he can deliver. Sometimes he does deliver; many times he does not.
However, it is an approach that yields dividends in an age in which people yearn for the visionary, without particularly scrutinizing the vision, who will on the disrupter without necessarily caring what the disruption will be.
It is the approach that allowed figures such as Elizabeth Holmes, who last week was jailed for 11 years for marketing a seemingly miraculous but in reality fake blood-testing system, and Bankman-Fried, whose cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed earlier this month, to win acclaim and adulation from investors, politicians and pundits.
Before he finally bought Twitter, Musk was sued by the social media platform for seemingly backing out of the deal. As part of the litigation, a huge document of e-mails and text messages, sent and received by Musk, was made public by the court. What they reveal is a world of very rich people who, for all their self-mythologizing, are defined largely by the shallowness of their understanding and their use of their wealth to insulate themselves from having to think too closely about what they might be investing in or what change might entail.
“Solve free speech,” Mathias Dopfner, CEO of the publisher Axel Springer, tells Musk in his “#Gameplan” for Twitter, as if to state it is to solve it.
“I’m very skeptical of books,” Bankman-Fried said in an interview in September (a flattering piece that since the collapse of FTX seems to have been deleted by Sequoia magazine). “I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that.”
He added that “if you wrote a book, you fucked up and it should have been a six-
paragraph blog post.”
I doubt Bankman-Fried has never read a book and I doubt whether reading a book would have helped save FTX from bankruptcy. However, it is the kind of flaunting of ignorance, the parading of shallowness, that in certain circles now passes for profundity.
Not just in technology or business, but in politics too, we can see the yearning for the visionary who promises the world so long as you do not look too closely at the small print, and the creation of politicians, from Trump to Truss, who come to believe in their own fantasies.
It is an age of growing support, especially among the young, for authoritarian leaders and “strongman” politics, the inevitable product of disenchantment with democracy and of a lack of faith in traditional agencies of change.
There is a danger in all this that, as the self-proclaimed titans and saviors tumble, what becomes nurtured is a cynicism about change and innovation. The problem is not having a transformative vision about the future, whether in technology or in politics. It is the shallowness and lack of seriousness of those who today present themselves as messiahs.
As the world’s nations sailed the River Seine during the opening ceremony for the Olympics last month, Taiwan once again suffered the enduring humiliation of being the sole country forced to sail under a fictitious name and flag. “Chinese Taipei” is not merely a fake place, but part of a strategic campaign by China to conquer Taiwan in the minds of the global public, forcing the international community to accept the fiction that China has authority over Taiwan, as I have written before in the Taipei Times (“Taiwan’s ‘Chinese Taipei’ problem,” May 22, page 8). If Taiwanese wish to be seen as
Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society. Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming. First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Sunday delivered a speech in Bangkok discussing cross-strait tensions and his recommendations for promoting peace between Taiwan and China. He said little new, reiterating the need to “trust” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and to concentrate on negotiations with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He repeated his appraisal that Taiwan could not win in a war against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), nor could it rely on military intervention by the US. Some would ask why people need to listen to what Ma thinks, a washed-up politician, out of power for the best part
Japan’s and China’s top diplomats met on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum on July 26, hoping to increase exchanges that promote mutually beneficial relations. However, the Chinese ministry misquoted the Japanese official’s comments on the “one China” issue, further fueling tensions between two sides. Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Yoko Kamikawa and her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi (王毅), had their first one-on-one talk in eight months on the sidelines of a gathering of foreign ministers in Laos to discuss issues between the two sides, including Japanese nationals being detained in China, Beijing’s bans on Japanese food imports and Japan’s