Elon Musk’s cocky(狂妄自大的) claims about SpaceX come thick and fast(接踵而至，大量涌现): he now envisions(设想，展望) the rocketry-and-AI firm becoming “worth more than the rest of Earth” if it meets its long-term goals. That prediction, made in response to a supporter who questioned SpaceX’s AI-compute deal with Anthropic, a competitor, may or (more likely) may not come to pass(发生，实现). There is, however, much about SpaceX that Mr Musk can control—indeed, much more than the typical majority owner(多数股权所有者).
埃隆·马斯克关于SpaceX的狂妄言论接踵而至：他现在设想这家火箭与人工智能公司如果实现其长期目标，将变得“比地球其他部分更有价值”。这一预测是在回应一位支持者质疑SpaceX与竞争对手Anthropic的AI计算交易时做出的，可能（更可能的是不会）成真。然而，关于SpaceX，马斯克先生可以控制很多事情——实际上，比典型的多数股东要多得多。
In June the company went public(上市) very much on Mr Musk’s terms. Its initial public offering sold stock to the public without giving the public any meaningful governance rights(治理权). Mr Musk kept roughly 85% of the votes, locked in through super-voting shares(超级投票权股票) that can pass to his heirs through trusts. Buyers of the ordinary stock must waive(放弃（权利）) their right to a jury trial and to bring class actions(集体诉讼). The company qualifies as a “controlled” one, which exempts(免除，豁免) it from the rule that a majority of its board be independent, and Mr Musk can be removed only by a vote of the share class he himself controls. Months earlier, shareholders of Tesla, his electric-car company, had handed him a pay package worth up to $1trn, the real prize of which was voting control rather than cash. The world’s first dollar trillionaire has assembled a set of structures designed to make him answerable to no one, for as long as he likes, and possibly past his own lifetime.(世界上第一位万亿美元富翁已经建立了一套结构，旨在让他无需对任何人负责，只要他愿意，甚至可能在他去世后仍然如此。)
今年6月，该公司完全按照马斯克的条件上市。其首次公开募股向公众出售股票，却没有赋予公众任何有意义的治理权。马斯克保留了大约85%的投票权，通过超级投票权股票锁定，这些股票可以通过信托传给继承人。普通股票的购买者必须放弃陪审团审判和提起集体诉讼的权利。该公司符合“受控公司”资格，从而免除了董事会多数成员必须独立的规定，而且只有马斯克自己控制的股票类别投票才能罢免他。几个月前，他的电动汽车公司特斯拉的股东们给了他一份价值高达1万亿美元的薪酬方案，其中真正的奖励是投票控制权而非现金。这位世界上第一位万亿美元富翁已经建立了一套结构，旨在让他无需对任何人负责，只要他愿意，甚至可能在他去世后仍然如此。
These structures bury old arguments about the safety of capitalism in the midden heap of history(历史的垃圾堆). Before anyone claimed that markets were efficient, political thinkers claimed that the selfinterest(自利，自身利益) of merchants would be a gentler master than the passions of princes. Albert Hirschman reconstructed this forgotten case in “The Passions and the Interests”. Montesquieu held that commerce makes manners gentle, le doux commerce. James Steuart thought economic complexity would restrain(约束，限制) a prince more reliably than any constitution, since a ruler who wrecked(破坏，毁坏) the delicate machinery of trade would beggar(使贫穷，使沦为乞丐) his own kingdom. John Maynard Keynes put it plainly 150 years later: better that a man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow citizens.(约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯在150年后直白地说：一个人统治自己的银行账户比统治自己的同胞要好。)
这些结构将关于资本主义安全性的旧争论埋进了历史的垃圾堆。在有人声称市场是有效的之前，政治思想家们就声称商人的自利会比君主的激情更温和。阿尔伯特·赫希曼在《激情与利益》中重构了这一被遗忘的论点。孟德斯鸠认为商业使举止温和，即“温和的商业”。詹姆斯·斯图亚特认为经济复杂性比任何宪法都更能约束君主，因为一个破坏贸易精巧机制的统治者会使自己的王国陷入贫困。150年后，约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯直白地说：一个人统治自己的银行账户比统治自己的同胞要好。
Answerable to whom?
对谁负责？