Commenter Dunc pointed me to a long but fascinating article by Edward Zitron titled The Era Of The Business Idiot where he brutally analyzes how US businesses seem to have been taken over by owners and a managerial class that he calls Business Idiots who have become alienated from the actual manufacturing process of whatever their company produces, and make decisions that tend to work against actual productivity and quality in favor of things that advance their own careers and income. (The thrust of the article is similar to Cory Doctorow’s evisceration of the internet that he calls enshittification and the extension of that idea more broadly to American power.)
The Business Idiot thrives on alienation — on distancing themselves from the customer and the thing they consume, and in many ways from society itself. Mark Zuckerberg wants us to have fake friends, Sam Altman wants us to have fake colleagues, and an increasingly loud group of executives salivate at the idea of replacing us with a fake version of us that will make a shittier version of what we make for a customer that said executive doesn’t fucking care about.
They’re building products for other people that don’t interact with the real world. We are no longer their customers, and so, we’re worth even less than before — which, as is the case in a world dominated by shareholder supremacy, not all that much.
They do not exist to make us better — the Business Idiot doesn’t really care about the real world, or what you do, or who you are, or anything other than your contribution to their power and wealth. This is why so many squealing little middle managers look up to the Musks and Altmans of the world, because they see in them the same kind of specious corporate authoritarian, someone above work, and thinking, and knowledge.
He lays much of the blame on the late economist Milton Friedman who said that a company’s only responsibility is to increase shareholder value and that any other consideration, such as the well-being of its employees or the community or the environment in which it is based is a dereliction of its duties. This has led to the intense focus on raising short-term stock values at the expense of any long-term benefits, even to the company.
He gives many, many, many examples of which one is Tesla.
Let’s be honest, when you remove all the money, our current tech industry is a disgrace.
Our economy is held up by NVIDIA, a company that makes most of its money selling GPUs to other companies primarily so that they can start losing the money selling software that might eventually make them money, just not today. NVIDIA is defined by massive peaks and valleys, as it jumps on trends and bandwagons at the right time, despite knowing that these bandwagons always come to an abrupt halt.
The other companies feature Tesla, a meme stock car company with a deteriorating brand and a chief executive famous for his divorces from both reality and multiple women along with a flagrant racism that may cost the company its life. A company that we are watching die in real time, with a stagnant line-up and actual fucking competition from companies that are spending big on innovation.
In Europe and elsewhere, BYD is eating Tesla’s lunch, offering better products for half the price — and far less stigma. And this is just the first big Chinese automotive brand to go global. Others — like Chery — are enjoying rapid growth outside of China, because these cars are actually quite good and affordable, even when you factor in the impact of things like tariffs.
Hey, remember when Tesla fired all the people in its charging network — despite that being one of the most profitable and valuable parts of the business? And then hired them back because it turns out they were actually useful?
This is a good example of managerial alienation — decisions made by non-workers who don’t understand their customers, their businesses, or the work their employees do. And let’s not forget about the Cybertruck, a monstrosity both in how it looks and how it’s sold, and that’s illegal in the majority of developed countries because it is a death-trap for drivers and pedestrians alike. Oh, and that nobody actually wants,
Tesla has become a meme stock, dependent on shareholders wanting to believe in it and Musk. This has enabled it to maintain shareholder value and allow its board to give Musk obscene pay packages.
This video by Martin Adan describes in detail how Musk is driving Tesla into the ground, with his ridiculous Cybertruck leading the way.
Interestingly, Musk seems to have a lot of cult-like fan followers who leap to his defense whenever anyone criticizes him or his Cybertruck. They claim that critics are irrational haters who ignore that he is a genius and that his Cybertruck is the shape of the future. So he does have a core group of customers who will buy whatever he sells. In my area there is one Cybertruck that I see driving around that has painted on the rear panel in large letters ‘TOYOTA’. I am not sure what message the driver is trying to send. Maybe he has buyer’s remorse and is saying that we should not take him to be a Musk fanboy, since Cybertrucks have been known to be vandalized.

I will give Musk this: until Tesla came along, the rest of the car industry was dragging its feet making the move to EVs. Tesla’s early successes convinced SOME of the car industry that this was a bandwagon they needed to jump on (although the makers of one of the best selling cars in history -- Toyota -- have been notably more circumspect than most about jumping all the way on…). And when they didn’t jump hard enough, governments around the world started forcing them to by threatening huge fines if they didn’t.
I’ve said the following before, but it’s true so I’m going to repeat it:
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of standard mobile phones with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to migrate to Android and iPhones.
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of cassette players with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to adopt CDs.
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of CD players with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to adopt mp3 players.
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of mp3 players with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to adopt streaming for music.
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of video tape players with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to adopt DVDs.
We all remember, don’t we, when the government had to threaten makers of DVD players with huge fines if they didn’t stop making them, to force consumers to switch to streaming for movies and TV shows.
Oh, hang on, none of that ever happened. In every case, when something came along that was ACTUALLY better, consumers just started buying the new thing. No threats were needed.
One example of “force” was when we realised CFCs were bad… but manufacturers simply produced other products (aerosols and refrigerators) that were every bit as good as the ones that went before with downsides invisible to the consumer (unless you put a match to your deodorant spray, but y’know -- don’t do that, it’s not a hardship). And CFCs went away, and the hole in the ozone layer just…. stopped being an issue anyone talked about.
Tesla advanced the cause of EVs to a degree it’s hard to measure, but they definitely made it happen sooner than it would have otherwise. Whether that’s a good thing or not depends on whether you’re the sort of person who (a) can afford one and (b) can charge it on the driveway of the home that you own, or whether you’re one of the majority of the population for whom those two things are an unattainable pipedream. Unfortunately, most of the finger-wagging articles about them are written by people who can afford them and do have a home with a driveway on which they can charge one.
Consider: HOW did Tesla capture the EV market? By not bothering trying to make an affordable car. They didn’t target the everyday consumer. Their first “volume” model was the original Roadster, an out-and-out sports car capable of “ludicrous speed”. It got people talking, people who’d previously dismissed EVs as milk floats not fit for people who actually like driving. That was what set them up. They’ve never been focused on what people actually use cars for, they’ve been focused on CHANGING what cars are, especially changing them from “things that you can drive a thousand miles in without having to stop for more than about ten minutes if you need to” into “things that make driving more than half that distance a royal pain in the nads”. (I’ve a mate who had Tesla who tried to drive it to Cornwall a few years back. He’s never trying it again, he tells me. He’s also got a petrol car now. This tells me all I need to know.)
Tesla’s core group have one thing in common -- by any normal measure they’re rich. Do you need to know more?