|
|
|
|
|
by toofy
2729 days ago
|
|
> ...they've lost execs left and right, they've had just one profitable quarter... Im really not a Musk fanboy and I really don’t want to come across as anti-market as I recognize the market’s incredible ability to drive some innovation, but I’d like to point out how markets which are intrinsically linked to quarterly growth can often lead to a race to the bottom and can often lead to a serious reluctance to pursue big experiments—the kind of experiments which can take humanity to the next level. I certainly don’t know the answer but we need a way to incentivize large risks which, when successful, have a high likelihood to reward humanity. As the above post illustrates, a system which measures success as quarterly growth is disincentivising big projects and may be making us risk averse on big research, the kind of research and risks we very badly need right now. |
|
Big experiments are only good if they need to be big. Otherwise, they're just wasteful. That waste a) raises risk unnecessarily, b) starves others good experiments of capital, and c) makes people less willing to experiment.
Measured in those terms, I think Musk is particularly bad, and it's due to his need to showboat. The manufacturing philosophy, Lean (or TPS) was brought to America right in the building he occupies. But he has made a raft of mistakes, ignoring that history, consuming far more capital and creating more risk than needed to gain any particular learning that Tesla has produced.
In contrast, look at how Toyota tackled the Prius. They also pioneered an entirely new category of eco-friendly car. But they did it quietly and patiently. It's now one of the world's top-selling cars, and sparked widespread interest in greener living. I don't think they've published their capital costs, but looking at their gradual production ramp-up, I suspect they were much better experimenter than Musk has been at Telsa.