Inspired by real events! Elon Musk's funding tweet ruffled feathers and stocks soared as buyers engaged based on tweeted funding claim. Details with linked sources are offered below today's #flashplay, which follows:
Scene speaks to the difference between misguided blunders committed by those with no financial power [leverage] and those with it.
INT. CORPORATE OFFICE - AFTERNOON
Person behind desk speaks to person seated in front, facing. Door is closed.
Management: I get it: it's difficult to know what not to do at times, especially
under direction!
Joe: Yes, sir.
Management: We're going to have to let you go.
Facing person, Joe, leaves. Management leaves the office.
INT. CORPORATE ELEVATOR - AFTERNOON
Joe has just left the building. Management meets ownership by chance after boarding elevator.
Ownership: Just think, I'd have to fire you, if you weren't
already set with cash!
Management: Yes, sir.
THE END
Let us know how you like our little play! Motivation behind it was stirred by nothing more than a perception of one of the
latest Twitter-user faux pas, detailed below:
In the dicey realms of trade and law, Elon's tweet about funding and business intent is apparently a potential
business debacle. But Musk offered reasoning that would seem to allay any legal claims at least, when he explained that his method (public disclosure) was more important than the action . . . which itself is under investigation.
If you read the content of that last link, then you're aware that it's been noticed and reported that Musk has a history of preemptive, unrealistic business claims. Yet, who isn't guilty of this kind of out-loud positive thinking? Especially in the lower ranks of life (as that of our employee-actor above, Joe) encouragement
abounds for go-getters to proclaim their most positive goals and ongoing interests. Consider it a potential trap.
Like Joe, Elon continues daily in his work to meet worthy goals, with an occasional public affirmation. Possibly intended to motivate his own mindset of certainty, one might consider an innocent intent to sway outcome via that invisible plane of community thought-stream on which many rely. You know the basic mantra . . . a conglomeration of the many popular motivational speakers:
Want the success? Be positive. Proclaim your intent and the world will answer.
As such, one might say that any perceived inferences in Musk's tweet are
morally sound. Ethically, however, opinion may differ, as
Matthew DeBord suggests at
Business Insider Opinion.
The progressive state under which the United States claims superiority in egalitarianism requires that ethics are sound in business (many are affected by actions of business entities) and politics. This means it's not up to you or me, nor Elon, or our morals, to effect an outcome here based on our perceptions of this event. Rather, our predecessors made certain that representative,
governmental regulatory standards ensure the community vision as well as
individual rights which include pursuit of happiness.
As stakeholders—employees and community members alike—everyone has a strong interest in business events, and should work at any opportunity to ensure support for our public sector ethics organizations as well as promotion of greater private-sector ethics organization overall.
Currently, ethics teams continue to evaluate the funding tweet fiasco.
Already, despite some rationally-convincing reassurances and mitigation from Musk, major firms today announced
backtracks on trade values for Tesla
stock due to a persistent lack of confidence in Musk's claims . . . proving that the jumpy nature of trading
is no match for premature speculation, no matter the fiber of it. In strong inference to this article linked above via CNBC, the best practice would be to
trade based "on fundamentals alone", leaving speculation to the world of
dreams in which it lives.
This effort alone could be positively life-changing for many. Imagine the trickle-down of limited ability to create or destroy value based on a whim and a guess.
Let's also appreciate Musk's acknowledgement that every
employee is considered a stakeholder in business, a concept with broad implications and a fact often unrealized. That he should be concerned about every last one is an expectation of ethics-based best practices in running the most successful business.
That Musk
bothers to sportively mention an employee's stake in working for a company
should affect the perspective of any of us . . . any global citizen, should they have interest in border-jumping,
leapfrogging businesses that take advantage of lowest regulatory standards and labor costs in the interest of exorbitant profit. Outlining the troubles this general paradigm of operation has caused is far too extensive for the aim of this piece. Yet the mention highlights Musk's dedication to business and community by maintaining operations in demanding quarters. Musk's stated support in media for the interests of every employee should bolster public confidence.
Unfortunately, the reality is that such efforts at realizing the community promise of business regulation are seldom acknowledged strongly enough or in great enough number to have an impact politically, hence a growing lack of economic and social opportunity at various rungs on the ladder of wealth. This means that certain communities undoubtedly, unnecessarily continue to suffer under duress of corporate interests . . . which are motivated by uninvolved majority shareholders more than ever before.
Corporate vs. Shareholding Culture vs. Community Reality
According to a quad-authored
article in the New York Times, "Tesla has become the most valuable American car company, [but] has yet to turn an annual profit since its founding in 2003."
In general, regardless of significant progress by union forces during the recent industrial age, in our 'brave new world', such a state of business has often meant reincorporation, possibly liquidation . . . without any approval by, or notice to, certain stakeholders. After all, a "valuable" company that can pay its employees and maintain business still isn't meeting more exorbitant expectations when additional profits aren't realized . . . profits expected by majority shareholders, primarily. One can hardly blame them. They're simply taking what they can, and doing so in many cases under personal moral code.
If you're back to thinking about Joe, who surely would be long gone by now as a result of such lackluster financial performance topped with excessive, unapproved social broadcasting about his intentions with company, then you're not alone.
So, what can be done to level the playing field in the interest of community confidence . . . that of the commonwealth, so to speak. The answer involves being open to the idea that politics exist in the spaces around almost every action or need. Possibly our greatest value as a society of diverse, relational communities is in each member's ability to recognize potential issues as they arise, such as these in business and trading recently.
For example, one broad view is that
only certain stakeholders are affected most negatively, in effect each at greater risk of
losing their stake in companies and communities with little option for redress. These are conditions that can be improved; but, only through greater awareness and personal accountability on everyone's part by following, supporting measures of organization and enacting legislation that protects the interests of everyone in our communities. To do so only supports leaders like Musk, whose primary intent is always rooted in betterment.
In addition, to observe those sensitive to the dissecting probes of ethics watchdogs twist legitimate public interest into some abstract, naive concept like
picking on the companies, it simply becomes incumbent on the observer to responsibly suggest finding other things to rail against than accountability.
