Transcript
What’s good for Elon Musk is not necessarily good for America. In fact, it may go the other way around. So why did Donald Trump take Musk and a bunch of other top executives to China with him?
Hi, Paul Krugman, again from a cafe, a little noisy behind me, but I hope it’ll be tolerable.
So Donald Trump has gone to Beijing. I wrote something about it earlier today, about the economics and about the generally pathetic state of the United States in geopolitics right now. But I want to focus for this video on the remarkable decision of Trump to bring a bunch of wealthy executives, in the case of some of them, like Musk, extremely wealthy executives, with him on a trip that is supposed to be something about serving the interests of the United States.
America’s corporations are not America. They really have very distinctive differences in interest from those of the general public. You may have heard the old line that what’s good for General Motors is good for America. That’s not exactly what the CEO of General Motors said. What he said is that what’s good for America is good for General Motors and vice versa.
But in any case he said that a very very long time ago, when corporations’ role in American life was not what it is now. General Motors at the time was a “stakeholder” corporation. That is, it did not see itself as solely serving the interests of stockholders. It viewed itself as having multiple groups that had a stake in the company.
There was the workers who were represented by a powerful union. There were customers who were considered to be part of the story. They played a role in the wider community.
Today corporations ruthlessly maximize value for stockholders, unless they do it for the founder who is considered to be the owner. (It’s not entirely clear that Tesla is run in the interest of Tesla stockholders. To a large extent, it’s run just in Elon Musk’s interest, but it’s certainly not run in the interest of U.S. workers or U.S. national security or anything like that.)
Why then should we care? It’s probably worth knowing that to the extent that corporations are run in the interest of their stockholders, the stockholders of an “American” corporation are by no means necessarily American. We think that something like 40% of US equities are owned by foreigners. So anything that enhances the profits of corporations, you should think of 40 cents on the dollar of that gain actually going to other countries.
And among Americans, stock ownership in the United States is extremely concentrated in the hands of the top 10% of the population, a large fraction just in the hands of the 1% or less. and most Americans have very little stake in stock prices. They may have some stake in the success of business in the United States, but that doesn’t have to be what we consider American corporations.
It’s not really right to think of Tesla or NVIDIA, whose Jensen Huang also went to China, as being somehow America going to China. These are corporations that serve stockholders around the world, serve some tech bros who have a special control over them. What they want is profits . What they want is access to the Chinese market, including being able to sell China stuff that from the US national point of view maybe we shouldn’t be allowing them to sell — you know, highly sophisticated equipment that on national security grounds we should actually try to restrict the access of fundamentally unfriendly powers.
Anyway, we know that’s what’s good for Nvidia is definitely not good for America. What’s good for Elon Musk is more problematic but there’s very little reason to think that any business advantages that Tesla might gain out of this, or xAI, or whatever whatever enterprise is he’s hoping will realize some gain, that this is going to redound significantly to the benefit of US workers.
T,o the extent that it benefit redounds the benefit of these guys the people who are on the plane, why should we care? An extra billion dollars in the hands of Elon Musk or Jensen Huang doesn’t do anything for the great majority of Americans.
And yeah, it does something for them, but not very much, right? When you have that much money, a billion here, a billion there, and what’s the difference? So this is a really peculiar group to be taking. unless you try to think about what does Donald Trump want?
Well, from Trump’s point of view, his son Eric, who runs the family business, was on the plane. They claim it’s just it’s just a family thing — yeah, right. He might as well have been walking around Beijing with a sign that says — in block capitals, of course, this is Trump — BRIBE ME. That’s very clearly what that’s about and as for the rest, well, you know, these corporations are in a way Trump’s base or at least they gave him a lot of money both in campaign funds and directly in one way or another.
I’m still wondering, by the way, why do we need a billion dollars for that ballroom? I thought the corporations were were paying for the ballroom by bribing Trump. But maybe I don’t know where that money is going.
Anywa,y whatever the story, these are not U.S. national interests being represented here. The whole visit — aside from the fact that it’s humiliating, that it’s really a pathetic display of U.S. weakness and Chinese strength — the whole visit is also yet another spectacular example of the corruption that now pervades everything about U.S. governance.
And we should be angry. We should be outraged. We certainly shouldn’t allow Trump and company to spin whatever comes out of this as a victory. We mostly defeated ourselves here, but we certainly aren’t getting anything for us. Maybe something for Elon Musk comes out of this, but there’s nothing for the rest of us coming out of this essentially tributary visit to China.
Take care
Facts Only
* Donald Trump took Musk and other top executives to China.
* The corporations (e.g., Tesla, NVIDIA) are run in the interest of stockholders, often not U.S. workers or national security.
* Stock ownership in U.S. equities is highly concentrated among the top 10% of the population.
* The speaker notes that gains from corporate profits may flow to other countries (estimated at 40 cents on the dollar).
* The visit is framed as a display of U.S. weakness and Chinese strength.
* The speaker suggests that the visit is an example of corruption pervading U.S. governance.
* The speaker questions where the billions gained by executives benefit the general American public.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative leverages a systemic critique of capital and governance, focusing on the detachment between corporate profit-seeking and national interest. It establishes a pattern by juxtaposing the pursuit of global financial gain (e.g., access to the Chinese market for tech) with perceived failures in domestic representation and security. The speaker employs a moral framing, moving the discussion from specific corporate actions to broader themes of corruption and national humiliation, which serves to generate outrage.
The core assumption driving the argument is that wealth accumulation, particularly by a highly concentrated elite, inherently constitutes a threat to the collective interests of the American public. This operates as a form of emotional exploitation, substituting complex geopolitical and economic dynamics with a simplified binary of "America vs. the world" and "good vs. bad." The pattern detected is the use of the personal actions of wealthy individuals and political figures to frame systemic failures as acts of national betrayal and corruption, relying heavily on emotional appeals (outrage, fear) rather than granular evidence to drive the argument.
This type of framing often serves to deflect scrutiny from the mechanisms of power—such as the influence of campaign finance, corporate lobbying, and international trade agreements—to focus instead on the symbolic failure of leadership. The implications are that resistance to the movement is defined not by economic or security policy, but by moral indignation regarding the perceived weakness and corruption of the political system.
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits a distinct human, polemical style characterized by emotional appeals and conversational flow, suggesting it is a direct expression of an individual viewpoint rather than machine generation.