> But he's "allowed" to be worth a lot because if he were doing what he's doing elsewhere, he'd facilitate a multi-trillion dollar wealth transfer from America to that place.
I think this is the critical point. It's kinda the foundation of why all extremely rich people are "allowed" to get so rich.
For the rest, not so much. Partly:
Much as I was impressed with him successfully turning the disaster that was Eberhard and Tarpenning's era into a viable business, I would not describe "noticing and fixing Eberhard and Tarpenning's mistakes" as "single-handedly" launching anything. The booster version is the opposite side of the same wrong coin as those who insist Musk was worthless because Eberhard and Tarpenning came first.
SpaceX similarly, for all I'm impressed by how he's used his charisma and vision and drive to get people organised, he's definitely not "single handed" on this.
But also, my understanding is that for valuations such as Tesla's share price, the "what it should be" is usually based on what they're likely to return in the next 20 years or so. Tesla's stock price is obviously disconnected from the business returns, at best speculation based on what Musk might be able to organise people to do eventually, and given he has been, as you say, "a fuckup for the last few years", the expected return for the Musk group should be lower, not higher.
I think this is the critical point. It's kinda the foundation of why all extremely rich people are "allowed" to get so rich.
For the rest, not so much. Partly:
Much as I was impressed with him successfully turning the disaster that was Eberhard and Tarpenning's era into a viable business, I would not describe "noticing and fixing Eberhard and Tarpenning's mistakes" as "single-handedly" launching anything. The booster version is the opposite side of the same wrong coin as those who insist Musk was worthless because Eberhard and Tarpenning came first.
SpaceX similarly, for all I'm impressed by how he's used his charisma and vision and drive to get people organised, he's definitely not "single handed" on this.
But also, my understanding is that for valuations such as Tesla's share price, the "what it should be" is usually based on what they're likely to return in the next 20 years or so. Tesla's stock price is obviously disconnected from the business returns, at best speculation based on what Musk might be able to organise people to do eventually, and given he has been, as you say, "a fuckup for the last few years", the expected return for the Musk group should be lower, not higher.