Elon Musk turns into Trump on Twitter

Elon Musk of Tesla fame has a knack for getting his name in the headlines. There is barely a week goes by when his name doesn’t appear in the media somewhere, whether it is the mainstream media or more niche sectors of the press. This week he has taken on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), because he is fed up of journalists’ criticisms of Tesla.

As always, Musk launches his attacks on Twitter. This time he presented the WSJ and its columnist Holman Jenkins as “sock puppets for “big oil.” In one tweet he asked his followers: “Please support my campaign to rebrand WSJ as sock puppets emoji.”

Francois Asure at CCN finds it very odd that Musk should behave somewhat like Trump on Twitter, suggesting that surely as a creative genius, Musk can do better than hurl “Trump-style epithets” at such an esteemed institution. Asure was referring to the way in which Trump branded Hillary Clinton, “Crooked Hillary”, and he also called Kim Jong-Un “Little Rocket Man.” Presumably he didn’t call him that when he met him at their famous summit meeting.

Instead, Musk appears to be adopting Trump’s tactics with the WSJ, simply because he doesn’t think the paper gives him fair coverage. It sounds a lot like Trump’s ongoing battle with The New York Times, CNN and his other perceived media enemies that he is sure tell lies about him. It often comes across as childish petulance on trump’s part, and Musk’s response to this WSJarticle, “Tesla Can’t Stop Dreaming Big.” The introduction reads: “Elon Musk’s plans to turn Tesla into a dominant automobile player have become a liability instead of an asset.” It is a less than glowing account of Tesla and the upheavals within the company. It also questions Musk’s leadership style and the way in which he uses his personality –“erratic, bombastic and alternative” –to draw attention to his brands.

As Asure remarks, “For the CEO to use Twitter to communicate with shareholders is about as unusual as a U.S. president turning to the social media platform to craft a message.” And as he rightly points out, the way in which Musk courts media attention is always likely to lead to some negative reviews. It is not difficult to see why the WSJ cites Musk as a liability for Tesla; he positions himself as bigger than his car brand. If you stopped the average man in the street, I’d say it is likely that they know more about what Musk gets up to than the engineering or design of a Tesla model.

And why did he choose to use “big oil” as his idea of an insult? Simply because his fan base is into electric cars, and oil, a fossil fuel, is the nemesis of those who are environmentally conscious. The oil industry probably doesn’t love Elon Musk much either, but as Asure points out, the oil industry often gets a “free pass” in the press, whereas the Tesla story is much more entertaining for any journalist.

And Musk often makes big claims that he can’t follow through on, which is more grist for the media’s mill. But, the point of this whole story is to illustrate how social media has become the battleground for characters like Musk and Trump. When their backs are against the wall they hit out in tweet form. And it often backfires on them, because calling people names makes things personal that should be treated with gravitas and diplomacy. However, neither Trump nor Musk possesses much of these qualities. While Musk’s tweets are entertaining, as are Trump’s, he is in danger of allowing his game playing to obliterate his Tesla brand; just as Trump’s outbursts have lowered the tone of the Office of the President of the United States.

Jack Dorsey: the billionaire on a $1.40 salary

I’ve discovered something truly strange: Jack Dorsey, one of the co-founders of Twitter, takes home an annual salary of $1.40. Why this odd amount? Well, it is a nod to the original 140-character limit for a tweet. He would of course be within his rights to ask for $2.80, since Twitter expanded the maximum number of characters that can be used to 280.

Dorsey is, of course, known for being a billionaire, and Twitter generated a revenue of $909 million in the last quarter of 2018 alone. His SEC filing revealed: “As a testament to his commitment to and belief in Twitter’s long-term value creation potential, our CEO, Jack Dorsey, declined all compensation and benefits for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and in 2018 he declined all compensation and benefits other than a salary of $1.40.”

Why does Dorsey do it?

Gerelyn Terzo writing at CCN suggests it makes him and his company look good, and Terzo remarks, “His creativity to reflect the Twitter character limit is second-to-none.” But let’s not forget that in 2018 he offloaded a lot of stock. He sold 1.7 million shares from Square to net him $80 million after taxes. And by the way, he only takes home an annual salary of $2.75 from Square. This company, which makes devices for small businesses to accept credit card payment sin person, was struggling to become profitable, but in 2018 its stock climbed by 80%. And the majority of Dorsey’s fortune is tied up in Square equity. As Forbes reports, “Thanks largely to the run-up in the stock, he is now worth $1.9 billion more than at the start of the year. His net worth currently stands at $4.7 billion, with his 61 million shares of Square accounting for $3.9 billion.” By contrast, Dorsey hasn’t touched his Twitter shares this year and they surged by 50% in value in 2018, giving him a stake worth $600 million.

Dorsey isn’t alone

Dorsey isn’t the only billionaire who takes a nominal salary. Donald Trump donates his $400,000 presidential salary to different causes and Elon Musk never cashes in his annual salary of $45,936, which he is forced to accept under Californian law. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook is paid $1 per annum, as is Evan Spiegel at Snap.

Bankers prefer big money

Significantly, banking CEOs, do not take the same approach as the founders of media and tech giants like Twitter and Facebook. They are firmly wedded to their eye-watering salaries, despite the banking crash of 2007. Swiss Bank UBS is currently under scrutiny for its CEO’s excessive salary of $14 million. But Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan Chase is paid $30 million per annum. No wonder that when the banker was in front of Congress last week, he was closely questioned about why some of the bank’s staff were finding it impossible to reach the end of the month without needing overdraft facilities. Katie Porter’s questioning of Dimon should have made him squirm, but his face didn’t move a single muscle as he responded to her questions with, “”I don’t know, I’d have to think about that.”

But the real question here is: are the likes of Jack Dorsey really the good guys, and the bankers the baddies? Perhaps it is their employees who can answer that question?

Which would you bet on: John McAfee becoming US president, or eating his d**k on TV?

For many years when most people heard the name ‘McAfee’ the software that protected your computer from malware, viruses and Trojans came to mind. But, John McAfee, the man behind the anti-virus software business has given us an entirely different image to conjure up when the name is mentioned.

Who knew that the Anti-Virus King was such a maverick and such an enthusiastic user of Twitter? His announcement this week that he plans to run for President in the 2020 presidential campaign is not a great surprise, and if constant Twitter use is a qualification for the job (the current POTUS seems to think it is) then he might be a shoo in.

Not that John McAfee can actually step foot in the USA. He has fled the country and is sending out messages from his boat, which is somewhere in international waters so that the Internal Revenue Service can’t touch him. He hasn’t filed a tax return in years, so it’s no surprised that the IRS have come after him, especially since he keeps boasting about it. McAfee certainly doesn’t seem to have grasped the concept of ‘going under the radar’.

What else do we know about the man? Well, he’s a cryptocurrency fanatic to start with and he has made a lot of noise in the crypto world and attracted a large swathe of followers. He also has a fairly interesting backstory, including the fact that he was born in the UK, not the USA. His parent moved to Roanoke, Virginia when he was young and his father committed suicide when McAfee was 15.

His career in computing started after he took a job at a firm that coded punch-card systems. He then worked at a few Silicon Valley firms until the first major virus in PCs emerged and that’s when he started his anti-virus company. The company soon became one of the biggest of its type, but McAfee decided to retire in 1994 and keep a low profile.

His shares in the company netted him $100 million and he seemed set for a comfortable future, however in 2008, the financial collapse that affected the whole world also hit McAfee hard and he lost around 96% of his fortune.

And this is when he starts to reveal his maverick nature to a wider audience. He moved to Belize, but started to think he was being followed, and lost his connection with society for a while. He also had to flee the country in 2012 when he became a person of interest in a murder case that involved the death of his neighbour. He was then arrested in Guatemala for illegal entry and repatriated to the USA. And that’s when his love affair with crypto started.

In 2015 he started the Cyber Party and made his first attempt to run for president. He also got involved with MGT Technologies, a rather mysterious firm that was producing games, providing cybersecurity services and manufacturing some drugs. It’s an odd mix that gives off a strong smell of dodginess. He left her to become fully embroiled in the bitcoin world; the leading cryptocurrency being his favourite. He’s made numerous predictions, perhaps most famously his tweet that if bitcoin didn’t reach $1 million by the end of 2020 “I will eat my dick.” Which will happen first: will McAfee become president or will we see him cannibalise himself on Squawk Box at the beginning of 2021?

Avoiding the fakes – when you’re looking for an online coach

Having a life or business coach is an invaluable investment in yourself. However, finding one that has the right expertise and who gives you value for money can be a search with challenges, especially if you rely on the online coaching industry.

When you venture on to the web, you’ll find coaches for every aspect of life and it is spectacularly easy to find them. But, as the Romans said,

“Caveat Emptor,” or “let the buyer beware.”

I say this because the Internet has made it very easy for anyone to set them up as some sort of guru, offering wealth and power in five easy steps, if you just pay for their book, course or one-to-one sessions with them. So, how can you tell the wheat from the chaff? Well, there are a few things you can watch out for.

01-goal-Secrets-Life-Coaches-544484034-Nikada

 

Exaggerated claims

Policing the Internet is a work in progress and currently it is still easy for those who want to trick you to get on the first page of results. These people know how to SEO their sites to the hilt. My advice is to look out for coaches who make exaggerated claims. Is the offer just too good to be true? Will you really make millions in a matter of months? Look for the coaches that don’t promise the spectacular and unachievable, who don’t use flashy language and who acknowledge you have to put the work in for any real change to happen.

Check their credentials

And I don’t mean their training certificates. If a coach claims they can help you to boost your income to seven figures, make sure you find out if they have been able to do that for themselves. Do your research to make sure the coach has achieved what they claim to be offering. But don’t stop there. Look deeper. Did the coach have a more advantageous starting point than you; in other words, did they work to get where they are, or have they benefited from a fortunate background? If you and the coach have very different starting points, then they possibly are not the one for you.

Watch out for the marketing tricks

Beware of certain sales tactics. For example, there are many who throw in an enormous number of ‘bonuses’, which is an attempt to make you feel more comfortable with the high cost of the course. Also, watch out for those who use special offers within a limited time period that are intended to make you pressure buy. This probably means they know the course isn’t worth the money they are charging. Instead, find one who understands the investment you are making and who can demonstrate that you will be getting value for money.

The free content

Like pressure buying, the offer of free content is another marketing trick. Sometimes the free content is a genuine offer. But, do study what you are offered gratis. Is it just a rehash of some information that is already on the site, for example? The quality of the free content directly relates to the quality of the course you will pay for. Is it going to be worth it?

Finally, you must go with your gut. What inconsistencies can you spot? Do they seem like a balanced person? Are they arrogant or do they brag about themselves? If something feels off, then it probably is. Trust your instincts before you spend your money.