Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: I'm David Gera and this is the big take from
Speaker 2: Bloomberg News.
Speaker 3: Today.
Speaker 2: On the show, we're bringing you a special conversation in full.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk spoke with Mishaal Hussein, editor at Large for
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Weekend at the Cutter Economic Forum. Musk joined remote
Speaker 2: Lea from Austin, wearing his signature dark jacket with a
Speaker 2: fur collar. The interview covered a lot of ground, from
Speaker 2: the billionaire's future at Tesla to his ongoing feud with
Speaker 2: open Ai CEO Sam Altman and the possibility of Starlink
Speaker 2: going public. At times, the conversation grew heated, particularly when
Speaker 2: Michall asked about Starlink operating in South Africa, Musk's country
Speaker 2: of birth, and about reports of his communication with Russian
Speaker 2: President Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone and Elon Musk, Welcome to cut Their Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: How are you?
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. I'm fine, How are you?
Speaker 1: Very well? Thank you and very pleased to have you
Speaker 1: with us. You know, among those here in the audience
Speaker 1: in Doha are some you will know people who have
Speaker 1: backed to you financially over the years since you last
Speaker 1: spoke here in twenty twenty two, A lot has changed
Speaker 1: in your life. You're not only running multiple companies. You
Speaker 1: were doing that then, but now you also have a
Speaker 1: role in government. So, first of all, I hope you
Speaker 1: don't mind it. From time to time I have to
Speaker 1: move you from one topic to another because we have
Speaker 1: a lot to cover in the time we have. That
Speaker 1: will be all right, Okay, Well, let's start then with
Speaker 1: exactly the fact that you now have this combination of
Speaker 1: being a CEO and having a role as a government advisor.
Speaker 1: Tell me about your week. How does it work? What's
Speaker 1: the split of your time?
Speaker 4: Well, I travel a lot. So I was in Silicon
Speaker 4: Valley yesterday morning. I was in Lasa evening, I mean
Speaker 4: Austin right now. I'll be in DC tomorrow. I'll be
Speaker 4: there having dinner with Presidence tomorrow night, I believe, and
Speaker 4: then a much of cabinet secrety meetings and then back
Speaker 4: to Sloton Valley on Thursday night.
Speaker 1: But I mean, the balance of your time is it? Well,
Speaker 1: clearly it's a lot. But is it still the case
Speaker 1: as you said a while ago, that it's about one
Speaker 1: to two days a week on your government work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's correct, And what does that mean for your corporate life?
Speaker 1: Because if we start with Tesla, the company has suffered
Speaker 1: in recent months what you've called blowback. So what is
Speaker 1: your plan for turning that around? The declining sales picture?
Speaker 1: And by what stage do you think you're going to
Speaker 1: be able to turn it around?
Speaker 3: Oh, it's already to turn around.
Speaker 1: Give me some evidence for that. I've just been looking
Speaker 1: at the sales figures for Europe in April, which show
Speaker 1: very significant declines in the big markets.
Speaker 3: Europe is our weakest market.
Speaker 4: We're stronger everywhere else, so our sales are doing doing
Speaker 4: well at this point.
Speaker 3: We don't anticipate any any meaningful sales shortfall.
Speaker 4: And the you know, the obviously the stock market recognizes
Speaker 4: that since we're now back over a trillion dollars in
Speaker 4: market cap, so really the market is aware of the situation.
Speaker 3: So it's it's already turned around.
Speaker 1: But sales still down compared to this time last year.
Speaker 3: In Europe.
Speaker 1: In Europe, okay, and.
Speaker 4: Yes, but that's that's true of all manufacturers, there's no exceptions.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that you're not going to be able?
Speaker 3: Does that mean you're it's quite weak?
Speaker 1: Okay, but you would acknowledge. Woudn't you that what you
Speaker 1: are facing. Okay, let's just take it as Europe what
Speaker 1: you are facing is a significant problem. This Tesla is
Speaker 1: an incredibly aspirational brand. People identified with it. It saw it,
Speaker 1: They saw it it being at the forefront of the climate.
Speaker 1: And now people are driving around with stickers in their
Speaker 1: cars saying I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.
Speaker 4: And there are also people who are by buying it
Speaker 4: because Elon's crazy, or however they may view it. So, yes,
Speaker 4: we've lost some sales, perhaps on the left, but we've
Speaker 4: gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this
Speaker 4: point are strong and we've seen no problem with them
Speaker 4: had so what I mean? You can just look at
Speaker 4: the stock price if you want the best inside information.
Speaker 4: The stock market analysts have that, and our stock wouldn't
Speaker 4: be trading near all time ice if it was not.
Speaker 3: If things weren't in good shape. They're fine, don't worry
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I was citing sales figures rather than share price. Well,
Speaker 1: tell me then, how committed you are to Tesla. Do
Speaker 1: you see yourself and now you committed to still being
Speaker 1: the chief executive of Tesla in five years time. Yes,
Speaker 1: no doubt about that at all.
Speaker 3: Well, no, I might die.
Speaker 1: Okay, sure to that.
Speaker 3: Let me see you if I'm dead. So the slighter mode.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that the value of your pay doesn't
Speaker 1: have any bearing on your decision?
Speaker 4: Well, that's not really subject discussion in this forum. The
Speaker 4: I think, obviously there should be a conversation for if
Speaker 4: there's something incredible is done, that compensation should match.
Speaker 3: That something incredible was done.
Speaker 4: But I'm confident that whatever the whatever some activists posing
Speaker 4: as a judge in Delaware happens to do will not
Speaker 4: affect the future compensation.
Speaker 1: This is the judge you twice struck down the fifty
Speaker 1: six billion a pay package that was that was awarded
Speaker 1: to you. I think the value on the basis on
Speaker 1: the current value of stock options.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not a judge, not a judge.
Speaker 4: The activist who is cars playing a judge in a
Speaker 4: Halloween costume.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's your characterization. I think the value on the
Speaker 1: current value of stock options.
Speaker 3: I think the actual justice according to the law, on the.
Speaker 1: Current value of stock options. I think the value of
Speaker 1: that pay package stands at about one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Are you saying you are relaxed about the value of
Speaker 1: your future pay package. Your decision to be committed to
Speaker 1: Tesla for the next five years as long as you
Speaker 1: are still with us on this planet is completely independent
Speaker 1: of pay. No, it's not independent, So pay is a
Speaker 1: relevant factor then to your commitment to Tesla.
Speaker 4: A sufficient voting control such that I cannot be ousted
Speaker 4: by activists investors is what matter to me. And I've
Speaker 4: said this publicly many times, but let's not have this
Speaker 4: whole thing be a discussion of my list pay.
Speaker 3: It's not a money thing. It's a reasonable.
Speaker 4: Control thing over the future of the company, especially for
Speaker 4: building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots. I can't be
Speaker 4: sitting there and weren't going.
Speaker 3: To get tossed out by for political reasons by activists.
Speaker 4: That will be unacceptable. That's all that matters. Now, let's
Speaker 4: move on.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, just one question, well one question before we
Speaker 1: move on to other companies, which is that I wonder
Speaker 1: if some of what you've has happened to Tesla in
Speaker 1: the last few months, did you take it personally?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: And did it make you regret any of you all
Speaker 1: think twice about your political endeavors because it is I.
Speaker 4: Did what needed to be done, the violent antibody reaction,
Speaker 4: and I'm not someone who's ever committed violence, and yet
Speaker 4: massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was
Speaker 4: threatened against me.
Speaker 3: Who are these people? Why would they do that? How
Speaker 3: wrong can they be?
Speaker 4: They're on the wrong on the wrong side of history,
Speaker 4: and that's an evil thing to do to go and
Speaker 4: damage some point intocent person's car, to threaten to kill me.
Speaker 4: What's wrong with these people? I have not harmed anyone,
Speaker 4: So something needs to be done about them, and a
Speaker 4: number of them are going to prison and they deserve it.
Speaker 1: You're well, you're referring to the attacks on Tesla's showrooms,
Speaker 1: but I think.
Speaker 4: Well, it's into showrooms and burning down cause unacceptable. Those
Speaker 4: people will go to prison, and the people that funded
Speaker 4: them and organized them will also go to prison.
Speaker 1: Don't worry, wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't wouldn't you acknowledge
Speaker 1: that some of the people who turned against Tesla in
Speaker 1: Europe were were upset at your politics, and very few
Speaker 1: of them would have been violent in any way. They
Speaker 1: just objected to what they saw you say or do politically.
Speaker 4: Well, it's certainly fine to object to political things, but
Speaker 4: it's not it's not fine to resort to violence and
Speaker 4: hanging someone in effigy and death threats. That's obviously not okay.
Speaker 4: You know, that's absurd. That is in no way justifiable
Speaker 4: at all in any way, shape or form. And some
Speaker 4: of the the legacy media and nonetheless have sort of
Speaker 4: justified which is unconscionable. Shame on them.
Speaker 2: After the break, my colleague Michelle Hussein's interview with Elon
Speaker 2: Musk continues. He talks about his long standing feud with
Speaker 2: Open AI and its CEO Sam Altman, and his track
Speaker 2: record on calling for more AI regulation. You're listening to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at the Qatar Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about your other companies, then another business area, SpaceX.
Speaker 1: I saw that you said in a speech at the
Speaker 1: West Point Military Academy recently that the future of warfare
Speaker 1: is AI and drones, and obviously defense is an increasingly
Speaker 1: booming sector with the state of the world at the moment.
Speaker 1: Do you see SpaceX moving into weaponized drones?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, as they ask interesting questions that are impossible
Speaker 4: to answer, so SpaceX is is.
Speaker 3: The space launch leader. So SpaceX doesn't do drones.
Speaker 4: SpaceX builds rockets, satellites, and Internet terminals, so SpaceX has
Speaker 4: a very dominant position in space launch. So of the
Speaker 4: mass launch to orbit this year, SpaceX will probably do,
Speaker 4: China will do the remain half of the remaining amounts
Speaker 4: of five percent, and the rest of the world, including
Speaker 4: the rest of the US, will do about five percent.
Speaker 3: So SpaceX will do about ten times as much as.
Speaker 4: The rest of the world combined, or twenty times as
Speaker 4: much as China, which is in China is doing actually
Speaker 4: a very impressive job. The reason for this is that
Speaker 4: we're putting it into orbit the largest satellite constellation the
Speaker 4: world has ever seen by far, so I think at
Speaker 4: this point about maybe approaching eighty stable active satellites in
Speaker 4: orbit our SpaceX and they're providing high high vand with
Speaker 4: global connectivity throughout the world. In fact, this connection is
Speaker 4: on a SpaceX connection. So I think this is a
Speaker 4: very good thing because it means that we can provide
Speaker 4: low cost my bandwidth Internet to parts of the world.
Speaker 3: That don't have it or it's very expensive.
Speaker 4: And I think the single biggest thing you can do
Speaker 4: to lift people out of poverty and help them is
Speaker 4: giving them an Internet connection, because once you have the
Speaker 4: internet connection, you can.
Speaker 3: Learn anything for free on the Internet, and you.
Speaker 4: Can also sell your goods and services to the global market.
Speaker 4: And once you have knowledge by the Internet and the
Speaker 4: ability to engage in commerce, that this is going to
Speaker 4: greatly improve quality of life for people throughout the world.
Speaker 3: And it has.
Speaker 4: And I'd just like to think anyone in the audience
Speaker 4: who may have been helpful, and you know, we're starlink
Speaker 4: and getting it to approved in the country, and I
Speaker 4: think it's doing a lot of good in the countries
Speaker 4: that have approved, which is I think this point one
Speaker 4: hundred and thirty countries are very happy with it. I
Speaker 4: don't currently into spate space actually getting into the weapons business.
Speaker 4: That's certainly that's not an aspiration. We're frequent we're frequently
Speaker 4: asked to do to do weapons programs, but we have
Speaker 4: dost part a client.
Speaker 1: Do you envisage SpaceX or indeed starlink as a separate
Speaker 1: entity publicly listing in the near future or at all.
Speaker 4: It's possible that starlink may go public at some point
Speaker 4: in the future, and what would be.
Speaker 1: The what would be the time frame, what kind of
Speaker 1: time frame you consider it.
Speaker 4: I mean no rush, I mean no rush to your public.
Speaker 4: The public is I guess a way to you know,
Speaker 4: potentially make more money, but at the expense of a
Speaker 4: lot of public company overhead and inevitably.
Speaker 3: A whole bunch of lawsuits which are very annoying.
Speaker 4: So there's really something needs to be done about the
Speaker 4: share shareholder shareholder derivative lawsuits in the US because it
Speaker 4: allows plaintiffs law firms who don't represent the shareholders to
Speaker 4: pretend that they represent the shareholders by getting a puppet
Speaker 4: plaintiff for a few shares to initiate a massive lawsuit
Speaker 4: against the company, and the irony being that extreme irony
Speaker 4: that even if the class they purport to represent were
Speaker 4: to vote that they don't want the lawsuit, the lawsuit
Speaker 4: will still continue.
Speaker 3: So how can it be.
Speaker 4: A class action representing a class if the class were
Speaker 4: against it? And that's the bizarre situation we've got in
Speaker 4: the US that needs a dire ney to reform. As
Speaker 4: anyone's running a public company, you've experienced this, It's an
Speaker 4: absurd situation that needs to change.
Speaker 1: Well, do you think Donald Trump might change it. You've
Speaker 1: certainly got his ear. I imagine that you've put this
Speaker 1: to him. Is this something you're trying to change before
Speaker 1: any starlink.
Speaker 3: IPO, Well, we need a law to be passed.
Speaker 4: The trouble being that Judeen sixty Senate Senate votes and
Speaker 4: the Democrats will vote against it. The plaintiffs bar is
Speaker 4: I believe, the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party.
Speaker 4: That's the that's the issue. At the state level, this
Speaker 4: can be solved, and I should say Texas recently passed
Speaker 4: a law which at least the state level made a
Speaker 4: class action lawsuits much more reasonable because you have to
Speaker 4: get at least one in thirty three shareholders to agree
Speaker 4: that they are part of a class of shareholders three percent.
Speaker 4: This is will be really helped with privileged lawsuits.
Speaker 3: OK.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about AI, which is in so many of
Speaker 1: you businesses and in all our worlds in different ways.
Speaker 1: It's one of the big changes the development of generative AI.
Speaker 1: Since you last spoke to this forum three years ago,
Speaker 1: you're in this space of course with GROP which almost
Speaker 1: everyone will know. You co founded open ai and then left,
Speaker 1: and you've obviously got a legal battle with open ai
Speaker 1: and Sam Altman. I wonder if you could say something
Speaker 1: about the status of that, because you were together in
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia with the president last week with Sam Altman
Speaker 1: in the same place at the same.
Speaker 3: Time in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Okay, So does that mean you are pushing ahead with
Speaker 1: the lawsuit against open Ai.
Speaker 3: Yes. So I came up with the name open ai
Speaker 3: as an open source and as a nonprofit, and I
Speaker 3: founded ai opening app for the first roughly fifty million dollars,
Speaker 3: and it was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company,
Speaker 3: and now is they're trying to change that for their
Speaker 3: own financial benefit into a for profit company that is
Speaker 3: closed source. So this would be like, let's.
Speaker 4: Say you you finded a nonprofit to help preserve the
Speaker 4: Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a
Speaker 4: lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the word.
Speaker 3: You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I founded.
Speaker 3: That's opening Eye.
Speaker 1: They've made some changes to their corporate instructure, though, haven't
Speaker 1: they since in recognition of of what you've said.
Speaker 3: And now that's just what they told the media.
Speaker 1: Okay, part they have part they have partly walked back
Speaker 1: their plan to restructure the business. I guess that's made
Speaker 1: no difference to how you feel about it. So you
Speaker 1: determined to see.
Speaker 3: Them in court of course.
Speaker 1: Okay, well that's said going to be one to watch.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to ask you about AI and regulation
Speaker 1: because when you were here last talking to John Mickelfwait,
Speaker 1: you had some pretty strong words about the risk that
Speaker 1: AI poses and you said that you really felt what
Speaker 1: the US was missing was a federal AI regulator that
Speaker 1: you know, something along lines of the Food and Drug
Speaker 1: Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration. Now you're clearly now
Speaker 1: in a zone where you're more you're more on the
Speaker 1: cutting regulation side than wanting new regulators. So has your
Speaker 1: view changed on the need for an AI regulator.
Speaker 4: Well that I don't think there should be regulators. You
Speaker 4: can think of regulators like referees on the on the
Speaker 4: field in sports, there should be some number of referees,
Speaker 4: but that you shouldn't have so many referees that you
Speaker 4: can't kick the ball without hitting one.
Speaker 3: So in many in most.
Speaker 4: Fields in the US, the regulatory burden has grown over
Speaker 4: time to the point where it's like having more referees
Speaker 4: than players on the field. So and This is a
Speaker 4: natural consequence of an extended period of prosperity.
Speaker 3: It's very important to apro appreciate this. This has happened
Speaker 3: throughout history.
Speaker 4: When you have an extended period of prosperity with no
Speaker 4: existential war, there's no there's no cleansing function for the
Speaker 4: for unnecessary laws and regulations. So what happens is that
Speaker 4: every year more laws and more regulations are pasted, because
Speaker 4: you know, legislators are going to legislate, regulators are going
Speaker 4: to regulate, and you will get the steady pile of
Speaker 4: more and more laws and regulations of a time until
Speaker 4: everything is illegal. And let me give you an example
Speaker 4: of a truly absurd situation. Under the Biden administration, SpaceX
Speaker 4: was sued for not hiring asylum seekers in the US. Now,
Speaker 4: the problem is, it's actually illegal for SpaceX under itart
Speaker 4: in National Traffic and Arms Regulations to hire anyone who
Speaker 4: is not a permanent resident of the United States, because
Speaker 4: the premise being that they will take advanced rocket technology
Speaker 4: and return to their home country if they're not a
Speaker 4: permanent resident.
Speaker 3: So we're simultaneously.
Speaker 4: In a situation where it's illegal to hire slams used
Speaker 4: and is also illegal to hire asylum seekers, and the
Speaker 4: Partner of Justice chose to prosecute us despite both paths
Speaker 4: being illegal.
Speaker 3: Down if you do, down if you don't.
Speaker 1: But my question was specifically about a regulator for AI,
Speaker 1: which you said three years ago was needed, and you
Speaker 1: said we need to be proactive on the regulation of
Speaker 1: AI rather than reactive. Have you changed your mind on that?
Speaker 3: No, of course not. What No, of course not. What
Speaker 3: I'm saying is that there should be some referees on
Speaker 3: the field, a few referees, but you shouldn't have a
Speaker 3: field jam packed with referees such so you could not
Speaker 3: kick a ball in any direction without hitting one. So
Speaker 3: the the fields that have been around for a long time,
Speaker 3: such as automotive, so aerospace, you know if the sort
Speaker 3: of food and drug industries are overregulated, but the new
Speaker 3: fields like artificial intelligence are underregulated. In fact, there is
Speaker 3: no regulator at all.
Speaker 1: So they should be. Do you still think that.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm simply saying, which I think is just basic
Speaker 3: common sense that you that you want to have at
Speaker 3: least you want to have a few referees in the field.
Speaker 3: You don't want to have an army of referees. But
Speaker 3: you want to have a few referees on any given field,
Speaker 3: in any given sport, or even any given arena, industrial arena,
Speaker 3: to ensure help that public safety is taken care of.
Speaker 3: But you don't have so there's an't, there's an't, there's
Speaker 3: a proper number of referees. Like I said, it's actually
Speaker 3: very easy to visualize this when compared to sports. If
Speaker 3: the whole field is packed with referees, that would look absurd.
Speaker 3: But if there were no referees at all, your game
Speaker 3: is not going to be as good.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's then talk about your new world, your
Speaker 1: role advising government. You are in this unique and unprecedented
Speaker 1: position of having billions of dollars worth of contracts with
Speaker 1: the federal government yourself, mostly through SpaceX, and also now
Speaker 1: an insider's knowledge of it because of dose. Can you
Speaker 1: see that there is a conflict of interest or a
Speaker 1: potential conflict of interest in broad terms just through that
Speaker 1: very fact?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 4: Actually, there have been many advisors throughout history and the
Speaker 4: US government and others who have had economic interests, and
Speaker 4: I absolutely an advisor. I don't have a formal power,
Speaker 4: and that's a president can choose.
Speaker 3: To accept my advice or not. And that's that's how
Speaker 3: it goes.
Speaker 4: If there's a single contract that of my companies that
Speaker 4: have received that people think is somehow not was awarded improperly,
Speaker 4: it would immediately be front page news, to say the least.
Speaker 4: And if I hadn't mentioned it, certainly my competitors would.
Speaker 4: So if you're not seeing that, then the clill is
Speaker 4: not a complex to interest.
Speaker 1: The Yeah, there's another way though to look at it.
Speaker 1: That For example, you have many competitors, whether it's companies
Speaker 1: like Boeing or companies would like to do more of
Speaker 1: the kind of work you do for NASA Blue Origin
Speaker 1: Rocket Lab. And because DOGE is in every federal government department,
Speaker 1: you or people who work for DOGE and you are
Speaker 1: the driving force behind it, have an insight into those companies'
Speaker 1: affairs and those companies' relationships with the federal government.
Speaker 3: Now, all we do as we review the organization to
Speaker 3: see if the organization has.
Speaker 4: Departments that are no longer relevant and and then are
Speaker 4: the contracts that that are being awarded good value for money?
Speaker 4: In fact, frankly, the bar is not particularly high. Is
Speaker 4: there any value money in a contract? And if there's
Speaker 4: if there isn't, then we make recommendations to the secretary.
Speaker 4: The Secretary can choose to take those actions or not
Speaker 4: take those actions, and that's it. And then any action
Speaker 4: that that that is as a function of DOGE is
Speaker 4: posted to the DOGE website and to the DOGE dog
Speaker 4: Govt at DOGE handle on the x platform. So it's
Speaker 4: it's complete transparency. And I have not seen any case
Speaker 4: where the best min not has even been an accusation
Speaker 4: of conflict because it is.
Speaker 3: It is completely and utterly transparent. That's it.
Speaker 1: And what about the international dimension, Now, let's think about style.
Speaker 1: Stalink is obviously a very very good internet service. It's
Speaker 1: sought after all over the world. It's critical to the
Speaker 1: frontline in Ukraine. It has also had more contracts coming
Speaker 1: its way, and there is some evidence that companies are
Speaker 1: allowing access to it because they want to be close
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration and send the right signal. So
Speaker 1: Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is
Speaker 1: working around their rules on black ownership in order to
Speaker 1: allow starlinkin and that is being done on the eve
Speaker 1: of the visit the President Ramaposa is going to make
Speaker 1: to the White house. Do you recognize that as a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest?
Speaker 3: Now, of course not.
Speaker 4: First of all, you should be questioning why is there
Speaker 4: why the racist laws in South Africa. That's the first
Speaker 4: pt problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper
Speaker 4: for they be racist laws in South Africa. The whole
Speaker 4: idea with what Nelson Madelo, who is a great man, proposed,
Speaker 4: was that or races should be on an equal footing
Speaker 4: in South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not
Speaker 4: to replace one set of racist laws with another set
Speaker 4: of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper. So
Speaker 4: the that's that's the deal, that all races.
Speaker 3: Should be tweat equally and there should be no preference
Speaker 3: given to one or the other, whereas there are now
Speaker 3: one hundred and forty laws in South Africa that give
Speaker 3: a pre that basically give strong preference to to if
Speaker 3: you if you're black South African and not otherwise. And
Speaker 3: so now I'm in the subsurd situation where I was
Speaker 3: born in South Africa but cannot get a license to
Speaker 3: operates in starlink because I'm not black.
Speaker 1: Well, it looks like that's about It looks looks like that, right,
Speaker 1: looks like that's about to change.
Speaker 4: I just asked you a question, Please answer. Does that
Speaker 4: seem right to you?
Speaker 1: Well, those rules were designed to bring Those rules were
Speaker 1: designed to bring about an era of more economic equality
Speaker 1: in South Africa, and it looks like the government has
Speaker 1: found a way around those rules for you.
Speaker 3: Ask your question.
Speaker 1: This is this is your ento. Everyone wants to hear
Speaker 1: from you.
Speaker 3: As your question yes or no, not.
Speaker 1: For me to answer. I have got a question for
Speaker 1: you about about your government works and the amount of savings.
Speaker 3: Why do you like raceless lots?
Speaker 1: This is not for me to answer. Come on, now,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question.
Speaker 3: You have to answer question. Answer now, you answer mine.
Speaker 1: I say, I think if you I'm sure you can
Speaker 1: have that conversation directly with the South African government if
Speaker 1: you want to. I want to ask you about the
Speaker 1: total believe it, that's not good. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about the total around. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about the total amount that you're planning to save through
Speaker 1: Doge's work. Before the election, you said it was going
Speaker 1: to be at least two trillion. The number currently on
Speaker 1: doze dog gov is one hundred and seventy billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's a big change. What happened to the two trillion?
Speaker 3: Or do you expect it to happen immediately?
Speaker 1: Well? Is it going to happen because dose is supposed
Speaker 1: to run till next July.
Speaker 4: I mean, your question is absurd in this fundamental premise.
Speaker 4: Are you assuming that on day you know, within a
Speaker 4: few months this an instant two trillion saved?
Speaker 1: No, I'm not sure. I'm just asking you, is that
Speaker 1: still your aim?
Speaker 3: Then? Is it still your aim to get the amount
Speaker 3: of time? Have we not made good progress given the
Speaker 3: amount of time?
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I'm asking. So, is it's still your
Speaker 1: aim to go from one hundred and seventy billion to
Speaker 1: two trillion?
Speaker 3: The ability of those to operate is this function of
Speaker 3: whether the government.
Speaker 4: And this includes the Congress, is willing to take our advice.
Speaker 4: We're not the dictators of the government. We are the advisors,
Speaker 4: and so we can advise. And the progress who made
Speaker 4: thus far I think is incredible. Those team has done
Speaker 4: incredible work. But the magnitude of.
Speaker 3: The savings is proportionate to the support we get from
Speaker 3: Congress and from the yeah executive branch of the government.
Speaker 3: In general. So we're not the dictators. We are the advisors.
Speaker 4: But thus far, for advisors with the DOGE team, to
Speaker 4: their credit, has made incredible progress.
Speaker 1: You've talked about four billion dollars a day being saved,
Speaker 1: but that that won't get which is an and I
Speaker 1: think everyone can agree that combating waste and inefficiency in
Speaker 1: government is a very good thing. But if you add
Speaker 1: that up, it's not going to get to two trillion
Speaker 1: over the lifetime of DOGE.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The four billion, the four billion a day, if dose
Speaker 1: is going to run till next July, is not going
Speaker 1: to get you to two trillion dollars. But you still
Speaker 1: say it's your aim, so we'll take that as read.
Speaker 3: There's there's, there's there's what DOGE I mean? I feel
Speaker 3: you are somewhat trapped.
Speaker 4: In the NPC dialogue tree of a traditional journalist. So
Speaker 4: it's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trapped in
Speaker 4: the dialog of a conventional journalist because it's like talking
Speaker 4: to a computer.
Speaker 3: So doges an advisory.
Speaker 4: Group, we are doing the best we can as an
Speaker 4: advisory group. The progress made thus far as an advisory
Speaker 4: group is excellent. I don't think any advisory group has
Speaker 4: done better in the history of advisory groups of the government. Now,
Speaker 4: we do not make the laws, nor do we control
Speaker 4: the judiciary, nor do we control the executive branch. We
Speaker 4: are simply advisors. In that context, we are doing very well.
Speaker 4: Beyond that, we cannot we cannot take action beyond that
Speaker 4: because we are not some sort of imperial dictator of
Speaker 4: the government.
Speaker 3: There are three branches of the government that that art
Speaker 3: some degree opposed to that level. Cost savings, no or less.
Speaker 4: Let's let's let's not criticize whether there's a four trillion
Speaker 4: and instead look at the fact that that out sixty
Speaker 4: billion has been saved and more will we saved two And.
Speaker 1: As I said, I think everyone can agree that cutting
Speaker 1: waste and indeed fraud in any government and being responsible
Speaker 1: with taxpayers money is a very good thing. So yes,
Speaker 1: I can see, I can see that you're proud of
Speaker 1: that work.
Speaker 2: After the break, Michelle asks Elon Musk about US AID
Speaker 2: funding cuts, whether he's in communication with Russian President Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin and the steepest challenges facing the multi hyphenit CEO.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bloomberg's Michelle Hussein interview Elon Musk at
Speaker 2: the Cutter Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: I do want to ask you about USAID and the
Speaker 1: comments that Bill Gates made the other day, which and
Speaker 1: I know that you called him. I know you've said
Speaker 1: that already.
Speaker 3: I wanted.
Speaker 4: And I'm just who does Bill Gates think he is
Speaker 4: to make comments about the welfare of children, given that
Speaker 4: he is before quented Jeffrey.
Speaker 3: Fstein, Okay, well.
Speaker 1: He's he's he said he regrets those and he's spent.
Speaker 1: He spent. He spent a lot. He spent a lot
Speaker 1: of his own money on on philanthropy around the world
Speaker 1: over the years. My question to you is have you
Speaker 1: looked at the data to check if he might be
Speaker 1: right that the cuts to U S A I D
Speaker 1: might cost millions of lives.
Speaker 4: Yes, I'd like him to shore us any any evidence
Speaker 4: whatsoever that that is true.
Speaker 3: It's false.
Speaker 4: The what we're found with US A D cuts and
Speaker 4: by the way, they have an open cut. The parts
Speaker 4: of the U S A D that were found to
Speaker 4: be even slightly useful, we're transferred to the stage department.
Speaker 4: So they've not been deleted, they've soerly been transferred to
Speaker 4: the stage department. But many many times over with USA
Speaker 4: D and other organizations. When we've when they said, oh,
Speaker 4: well this is going to help you know, children, or
Speaker 4: it's going to help some UH disease eradication or something
Speaker 4: like that. And then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever,
Speaker 4: I say, well, please connect us with this group of
Speaker 4: children so we can talk to them and understand more
Speaker 4: about their issue.
Speaker 3: We get nothing. We don't they don't even try to
Speaker 3: prevent show. We should come up with a with a
Speaker 3: show orphan meaning like it's sort of like, well, can
Speaker 3: we at least see a few kids, like where are
Speaker 3: they if they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to
Speaker 3: them and talk to their caregivers. And then we get
Speaker 3: a thing as a.
Speaker 4: Response because it's what we find is an enormous amount
Speaker 4: of fraud and graft.
Speaker 1: Okay, I put this example.
Speaker 3: Very little actually gets to the kids, if anything at all.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me put this example to you because you
Speaker 1: grew up in South Africa, so you will know the
Speaker 1: impact of HIV AIDS well. And this is why I
Speaker 1: asked about the data the US led on international efforts
Speaker 1: to combat HIV AIDS treatment prevention. And there's an initiative
Speaker 1: called pepfile, which is credited with saving twenty six million
Speaker 1: lives in the last twenty years. It was part of
Speaker 1: the foreign aid freeze. Then there was a limited waiver.
Speaker 1: Its services are disrupted, and unaid says if permanly discontinued,
Speaker 1: there will be another four million AIDS related deaths by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine. So if you look at that example,
Speaker 1: which is backed up by data. In twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: six hundred and thirty thousand people died of AIDS related illnesses,
Speaker 1: then perhaps Bill Gates's figures are not wrong. Millions of
Speaker 1: lives could be lost.
Speaker 3: First of all, the program, the AIDS Medication program, is continuing,
Speaker 3: so your fun moree premise is wrong. It is continuing. Now,
Speaker 3: do you have another example, not in.
Speaker 1: Its entire not in its entirety the program there's a
Speaker 1: limited waiver, and UNAIDS have said that not all of
Speaker 1: the services that were previously funded by USA IDEA continuing.
Speaker 1: So that's that's why, that's why I put that example
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, which ones aren't being funded? I'll fix it.
Speaker 1: Right now for okay. Well, actually they're all on the
Speaker 1: un unaid's website, so you'll be able to see them,
Speaker 1: but mostly they are to deal with Mostly they are
Speaker 1: to do with prevention, and for example, the rollout of
Speaker 1: a drug called Lennard kappavir, which was hailed as one
Speaker 1: of the biggest breakthroughs against AIDS for many years, which
Speaker 1: came out last year. So if you are perhaps, I'm
Speaker 1: sure UNAIDS would be delighted if you're able to look
Speaker 1: at that again.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, if in fact this is true, which I
Speaker 3: doubt it is, then we'll fix it.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, So finally, political, your political influence. I wondered
Speaker 1: whether you have decided yet how much you're going to
Speaker 1: spend on the upcoming midterms. Is it you spent a
Speaker 1: lot more money on the last US election than you
Speaker 1: envisaged when you were speaking here three years ago. Are
Speaker 1: you going to continue to spend at that kind of
Speaker 1: level on future elections?
Speaker 3: I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to
Speaker 3: do a lot less in the future.
Speaker 1: And why is that?
Speaker 3: I think I've done enough?
Speaker 1: Is it because of blowback?
Speaker 3: Well? If I see a reason to do political spending
Speaker 3: in the future, I will do it. An I currently serieson.
Speaker 1: What about political influence beyond the US? How often do
Speaker 1: you speak to President Putin.
Speaker 3: I don't speak to President Putin.
Speaker 1: You've never spoken to President Putin.
Speaker 3: I was on a video caller with him once about
Speaker 3: five years ago. That's the only that's the speaks President Putin.
Speaker 3: Oh you must I get it.
Speaker 1: Actually, i've heard you. I've heard you speak about it.
Speaker 1: For example, in your West Point speech, you said, oh,
Speaker 1: I challenged President Putin to to was it an arm wrestle?
Speaker 1: And I know the Wall Street Journalist reported your reported conversations.
Speaker 1: If you're if you're saying they haven't happened other than once,
Speaker 1: I'll take that as read.
Speaker 3: Is there a worse publication on the face of the
Speaker 3: earth than the Wall Street Journal I wouldn't use that
Speaker 3: to lign up my cage for paragraphics that that that
Speaker 3: newspaper is the worst newspaper in the world. And there's
Speaker 3: and you know, if there's one newspaper that should be
Speaker 3: pro capitalist, it's the one with Wall Street in the name.
Speaker 3: But it isn't.
Speaker 4: So I have the very lowest opinion of the Wall
Speaker 4: Street Journal. Absolute answers.
Speaker 3: And you clearly have believed the tripe that you've written,
Speaker 3: that you've read in those papers.
Speaker 1: I read, I read very widely, and I'm putting these
Speaker 1: questions to you so that you have an opportunity to
Speaker 1: respond to them, which you are and for which we're
Speaker 1: all grateful to hear. Your response is, okay, we are.
Speaker 1: We are out of time.
Speaker 4: So you mentioned challenging. I did so on the X platform.
Speaker 4: I challenged Vladimir Putin to single over the I didn't
Speaker 4: talk to him.
Speaker 3: That was a post on the X platform.
Speaker 1: That's why. That's why I asked you, and you've and
Speaker 1: you've clarified and explained, thank you. That's that's why I
Speaker 1: was asking whether you have had reported conversations and and
Speaker 1: you've said you have a dot of videos.
Speaker 3: Okay, legacy media lize.
Speaker 1: Okay, listen. I actually thought I might give Grock the
Speaker 1: last word, because when I asked Rock what your hardest
Speaker 1: challenge is, it said the strain of managing multiple high
Speaker 1: stake ventures and made financial, regulatory and public relations crises.
Speaker 1: And I wondered whether you recognize that characterization and whether
Speaker 1: you do think that this is a pivotal year in
Speaker 1: your life.
Speaker 3: Well, every year has been somewhat pivotal, and this one's
Speaker 3: no different.
Speaker 4: So I mean, in terms of interesting things that probably
Speaker 4: our accomplish this year the getting Starship to be fully reusable,
Speaker 4: so that we catch both the booster and the ship,
Speaker 4: which will be the first fully reusable orbital rocket ever
Speaker 4: in history, which will be a profound breakthrough as the
Speaker 4: essential breakthrough necessarily to make life multiplanetary and ultimately become
Speaker 4: a space faring civilization. We've got neural link which is
Speaker 4: now helped by patients restore capability using the te lefty
Speaker 4: implant where they're able to control the computer simply by thinking.
Speaker 4: We'll be doing our first patient to restore bland, just
Speaker 4: to restore restore site with our blind site implant, which
Speaker 4: is the the end of this year early next. In fact,
Speaker 4: that that first patient might be in the U a E.
Speaker 4: Since we have a relationship with you AE and the
Speaker 4: Cleveland clinic clinic there.
Speaker 3: The I think what's.
Speaker 4: Running on the AI front, we are close to what
Speaker 4: you might call a g I or or digital superintelligence,
Speaker 4: and I think we'll see we are seeing an explosion
Speaker 4: in digital super intelligence here. And then we've got at Tesla,
Speaker 4: the what we'll be launching ancuvised autonomy basically self driving
Speaker 4: cars with no one.
Speaker 3: In them in Austin next month. So It's a big
Speaker 3: year for sure.
Speaker 4: Many other things on the in the works too.
Speaker 3: I'm technologists first and foremost Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for joining us here at Cutter
Speaker 1: Economic Forum. Thank you.
Speaker 2: This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gera.
Speaker 2: This conversation was part of the Bloomberg Weekend Interview, where
Speaker 2: host Michelle Hussain will talk to influential voices in politics,
Speaker 2: business and culture from around the globe. You'll be able
Speaker 2: to find Michelle's new Weekend interview series at Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 2: slash Weekend, or in the Bloomberg Gap. The Government of
Speaker 2: the State of Cutter is the underwriter of the Cutter
Speaker 2: Economic Forum, powered by Bloomberg Special thanks to Jessica bec
Speaker 2: and Timothy Green. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.