Decoding Elon Musk

Why Twitter? Why now?

Appré note: I’m keenly aware of what is going on in the world at the moment. I see a lot of ink and precious cable bandwidth spilled on variations of the question of “what is driving Elon Musk to buy Twitter?” Frankly, I think using things he says in the short-run (e.g on Twitter) is wrong-headed: “ preserve the public square blah blah, free speech blah blah….” It's not that these things aren't relevant (although some of it appears to be theater), it's that they may be of limited utility in seeing the full picture. 

Also: All this is entirely my opinion and has nothing to do with my previous relationship with Twitter.

— — —

At this moment in the world and time, Elon musk is a set of one, combining extreme wealth with political clout and is genuinely popular around the world. If you study and squint it's possible to say that to the extent that he has excelled in each of these things, he may be unique in combining the peak of these attributes, in human history. I believe understanding Elon Musk can be examined through the lens of how extraordinary it is for him to combine these three peaks at the same time.

Establishing uniqueness at a point in time is relatively easy, you set out your dimensions and bring out your tape measure, and voila! What's hard is trying to establish it from the lens of human history, because not all of it is recorded.  You have to fairly consider the relative context of the time as well. According to credible sources, about roughly 100-110 billion people have ever lived, excluding those alive today. That’s a lot of people. Still of them all, Elon Musk might have achieved the highest amount of a particularly unique combination of powers in human history. I know it's quite the leap; let me explain:

How is Elon unique? This requires a clear definition - I think he is unique for acquiring the apex (or close to the apex) of all three sources of power(s)¹ in human society simultaneously. 

In social and political research, there are multiple kinds of power in the world, however, they only have three ultimate sources. The first is wealth/financial power - the ability to purchase any asset or favors you want or to outbid other people who have money just because you have more. The second is political power - the ability to decide on behalf of a multitude of people, wield your will over them and make or influence law. The third is popular power - the ability to be lionized and/or be defended by millions or billions of ordinary people. Popular power is achieved when a majority of the population has a favorable impression of you and passionately supports you.

It's important to realize that the third power is the most potent and the hardest to achieve. First, because the adulation of the masses is its own ultimate power. In many ways it's how all power is derived in human society, even more potent than guns and steel. After all, the history of revolution tells us that money and political power will fall before a determined people who join together to disapprove of any dynasty. Second, because it's hard to achieve or maintain real popularity when one already has wealth and power. One must generally contribute to the commons and be seen as selfless to gain it. However the powerful and the wealthy often spend their lives doing the opposite of the things that are perceived as selfless and contributing to the commons. Instead they spend it in extraordinary efforts to enrich themselves through cutthroat enterprise and buying off of politicians. And so an independent press is rarely kind or fair to them, disclosing their mistakes and their rough elbowed activity at every turn. Which often leads to being unpopular. And so the conundrum of power and wealth is how to achieve these other sources of power, without exciting the ire of the people. 

Most popular personages in human history acquire one or two of these powers² - religious personages often acquire popular power, many times long after their death (Budha, Jesus of Nazareth). Intellectuals acquire the same (Isaac Newton) and may achieve modest wealth (Edison, Ben Franklin). Military and political personages often acquire wealth and political power, but popularity is debatable outside their homelands (Alexander the great, Genghis Khan). It's also possible to acquire all three, but unevenly - a big spike in one but the rest in moderation.

In many ways, previous apex personages had a disadvantage in their ages - the world was much smaller, so popular power was limited to the radius of political influence and information flow. How much more popular could Alexander the great or Nebuchadnezzar have been beyond Eurasia in their time? But with world wide information and social networks, it is now possible to be known and loved around the entire world at the same time. 

Elon Musk has acquired (or is on track to acquire) the apex of all three sources of power for humanity. The only other person who may have come close is Napoleon Bonaparte. He has achieved the trifecta: extreme wealth, significant political power, and broad popular power; to an extent that it appears no man in history has ever done. Napoleon Bonaparte came close. He was hugely popular and politically powerful in Europe (not so much in the conquered territory). But, his wealth was far less than what Elon has amassed at +$200b and growing. To come close you have to conflate the wealth of the French state at the time, with Napoleon’s. 

Let’s recount a bit: Firstly, Elon Musk is by far the wealthiest person in the world through his holdings in Tesla and SpaceX, which are still relatively young in their growth trajectory. Since money begets even more via the market; he is likely on track to be the first trillionaire in the known human timeline.

Secondly he is politically powerful. “O come now Oji”, you say,  “why would you say that? He holds no office..?” I’ll tell you how: aside from the fact that politicians and lobbyists can be bought and sold for pennies - meaning that money buys you access to political power automatically in the United States of America and in most major democracies - Elon is building key industries critical to economic growth in several countries - USA, China, Europe etc. Because of our interlaced world, these engines of economic growth (EV cars and Space) across continents are highly impactful. Being key to economic growth - the hard economy; manufacturing, space, thousands of jobs (livelihood of voters)…in any one country makes you politically powerful. In addition, SpaceX has the most modern and cheapest space launch system in the world and is on track to increase its dominance via the starship launch system. By holding the partial keys to the future of the space-driven economy and being crucial to the national security of several countries I assert that Elon Musk has political power, apparent or not. And probably more apparent in the coming years. It's telling that he is the only rich person in the world who regularly crosses politicians. There are many instances of him chivvying politicians all around the world with very little apparent consequence. That is the baldest expression of political power there is.

But here are a few more: SpaceX and Tesla spent roughly $10 million in lobbying in the last 3 years. They are not the biggest spenders but that spending seems to be rising quickly. He challenged the state of CA on lockdown measures and seems to have won? His companies get in fights with the NTSB and the SEC and regularly secures state or municipal subsidies for the expansion of his Gigafactories in Austin, Germany, and even Shanghai. 

I would say that’s plenty of power and I believe he is just getting started.

Thirdly, Elon Musk is hugely popular. It's not even necessary to express this in terms of the kind of fake popularity often represented by the number of his Twitter followers (~85M, 45M off the most popular person on that platform, Barack Obama, ex-president of the USA) or any kind of social media following. It's more important to note that his proclamations and actions move markets in ways that no one else’s do. So much so that his imprint on a company or project or idea (Twitter, Dogecoin, Renewables, self-driving, hyperloop tunnels) drives instant credibility via the faith of real people. Millions of whom stake their lives and livelihood on him being right. He spends very little on marketing for his companies, instead, relying on his popularity to do the selling (it's fairly well documented that the marketing spend on Elon Musk's companies and ventures is effectively zero).

It's possible that were the government to move against him, a people's revolution would move to stop it, it's to that scale. Certainly, it's very puzzling that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has different rules for him than for anyone else in the world.

Elon Musk is therefore unique, maybe even in human history. But what does this all mean? Once you come to that conclusion, what next? What can you conclude? Why Twitter?

• Uniqueness means there is no perfect prior model for predicting what something will do or become in the future. As such Elon Musk represents a particularly unpredictable variable in the world. He could use his power and influence anywhere on the spectrum for good or evil; to great consequence. And crucially, there may be very little to stop him in that choice. Certainly, the arc of his life will be hugely consequential for all humans on the planet by virtue of the three sources of power he has amassed at their apex (and growing).

• He will seek to remain popular. It's unlikely that he doesn’t appreciate that this third power is the most potent and volatile. It already saves millions for his companies, for example. SpaceX and Tesla famously spend $0 on marketing, drafting off the strength of his popularity and his presence on Twitter. I believe this is also the reason he wants control of Twitter. It would give him more direct control of this most volatile of powers. It would mean that he could never be banned from the platform - an unacceptable threat to his hegemony and emerging apex status. The tendency with wealth and power is for popularity to decline - you can already see this with all the activity around acquiring Twitter (although as he loses liberal support he appears to be gaining conservative support). You should expect Elon Musk to do and say more and more crazy things to pander to the median of popular opinion and retain his popular power. 

  Ask yourself, which is a more valuable and influential resource now or in 10 years - the Washington Post or Twitter? I would suggest that the answer is clearly Twitter (WaPo was bought by Bezos for $250m) with a commensurate advantage in spreading ideas and influence. 

• You should eventually expect a more explicit play for political power from Elon Musk. The kind of influence he wields is often opposed by others and explicit political power can provide a hedge against that opposition. His companies already have a sizable lobbying presence in DC - expect that to increase. Who knows, he may even start a political party? I mean Andrew Yang is trying it and he is a relative nobody (Elon supported Andrew Yang during his run for president in 2020).

Finally, who are his competitors? Who else, in our contemporary times, can lay claim to potentially achieving this trifecta of sources of power? There are only 2 names that come to mind in our age: Bill Gates and Barack Obama. 

But they are imperfect candidates. Bill Gates appears to have no appetite for political power and popular power at all. His work on and exposure to the pandemic has made him hugely unpopular around the world (not that he cares). And his age suggests he will not achieve a surge in political or popular power,  even if he pivoted. Barack Obama does not appear to be on track to ever be as wealthy as either Bill Gates or Elon Musk. However he has immense people power and in 2022, popular power has started to translate into real money.

Finally, it's worth noting that I’m not writing this to appeal to EM’s ego. In many ways, I hope he doesn’t read this. I personally see dimension in the man - his ability to convert his vision into reality, I prize highly. His courage and ability to take direct/tough action based on his often prescient insight is probably what has most driven his excellent achievements - and he does this without regard for niceties and even rules when he can get away with it. However, I am not a big fan of his famously horrible way of… treating people. Though, it's not lost on me that a lot of those who have put their mark on the world in history share this trait.

1. This is a condensing of the literature on social and political power.

2. Some examples: Jesus (popular power), Buddha (Popular power), Alexander the great (Popular power, Wealth,Political clout), Napoleon Bonaparte (Political power, Wealth, Popular power), Abe Lincoln (political power, popular power), Martin Luther K (popular power, political power),  etc.