pull down to refresh

(Maaaan... previous ~econ post is my own from 12h ago... not going great right now for the best territory! #878667., no actually there was one post in-between! (#878984)

First of all, "hostile takeover" is stupid. Elon has no specific "power" (that's the real problem since his DOGE/anti-waste efforts can only do minor things under the executive's control, not the real bad stuff that Congress needs to cut). Plus, the idea that he wasn't democratically elected is so stupid... yeah, cuz Trump didn't campaign with him and saying explicitly what he wanted him to do?? jeez, louise.
behind the scenes, the richest man on the globe had quietly recruited tech executives and a slew of young coders, who would quickly deliver shock treatment to one of the world’s largest bureaucracies. ... Emissaries from Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency have infiltrated major agencies, fired or suspended tens of thousands of civil servants, and gained access to reams of sensitive security, health and financial data.
Very nasty indeed: Yes, that is how things like these get done! Also, the federal government has something like 2.5 million employees; firing "tens of thousands" of those parasites achieves next to noooothing. Besides, the venerable Al Gore under Clinton managed to shrink federal workforce by some ten times that (though, over a few years... maybe the speed is what angers these people?) FT helpfully provides a nice chart of the specifics of U.S. fiscal-parasitic problem:
CUT SOME OF THAT SHIT, BITCH!
Also, so far so good:
Any doubts about Doge’s efficacy were set aside by the opening salvos in Musk’s cost-cutting drive, as his team rapidly became the government’s de facto human resources department, offering buyouts to millions of employees, and getting rid of diversity, aid and development programmes.
Problem remains:
Doge has yet to take aim at social security and Medicaid payments on which tens of millions of Americans rely or at the Department of Defense, which together account for the largest chunk of federal spending. Trump has vowed to not touch welfare benefits in “any way, shape or form”, while the Republican-led Congress is highly unlikely to sanction significant cuts to the Pentagon’s budget.
Also, check this out:
Don't wanna play partisan games here (paraphrasing Mr. Trump: there are bad people on both sides!), but... anyone remembering a certain day 4 years and 31 days ago today? Yeah, that's right; your sorry asses were indignation itself over the preposterous Trump rallies over coups/storms/assault on democracy. And now this is a coup...? Fuck. Sake. (what, so you all go to jail now...?)

"Musk has morphed into the most prominent of the so-called techno-libertarians in Silicon Valley, who believe government regulations hinder innovation and profits."

Cool yeah, I'll take it.
(Also, @Undisciplined, the journalists in this story report 60,000 fed workers taking the buyout offer. Again, I'll take it!)
Sorry this is in ~econ, because sincerely it's all just a politics rant... but it is the Financial Times and there were some fiscal considerations in the article!
Anyway, happy weekend reading.

non-paywalled here: https://archive.md/Ocmm9
I'm not necessarily 'against' Doge. I agree that government is inefficient and spends way too much money.
However I am skeptical nonetheless of how the new admin is going about it. Honestly Doge or what they do... is the last thing I would be concerned about.
My biggest complaint about the Trump administration is that I have no ideas as to what their actual goals are, what it is they are trying to achieve. If you're not sure what you're trying to achieve, what the actual end goal is, how can you do things in the furtherance of it?
reply
I agree that his actions seem chaotic, but more often than not they're negotiating tactics to bring people to the table. I think his goals are exactly as advertised: secure the border, eliminate government waste, pare back the deep state
It's the latter that has beltway folks all worked up
reply
What do those things even mean though? And what good does 'securing the border' even do for Americans???
reply
You don't think Trump has wealthy corporate sponsors who he delivers results to?
reply
I agree with you to an extent. In general less government and middle men will be a net benefit to the taxpayer. There are far too many duplicative bureaucratic organizations that need to be cut out.
A dangerous downstream effect of what is happening right now, is in 2028 if Vance or the Republican's don't get re-elected is that the pendulum will swing extremely strong in the other direction.
reply
Seems pretty much like what he campaigned on. (Then again, he said a toooon of things so whatchagonna trust?)
reply
Libertarians don't know crony capitalism when they see it.
Seems like they never read Adam Smith...
'‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices’.
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 17h
The rhetoric is getting absolutely exhausting...
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @LowK3y19 8h
I still think Elon is weird
reply
Sociopath.
reply
Libertarians don't understand that government is the single most significant contributor to the wealth of nations.
Can they name a single successful economic power where the government has not been crucial to the development of the economy?
SILENCE!
Libertarians are naive ideologs....with no understanding of the real world and history.
reply
What about England during the industrial revolution? What about the USA?
So you also say it was the US govt and not capitalists from, I don’t know, Henry Ford to Steve Jobs, hundreds of others, who built the wealth of the USA?
reply
Certainly industrialists play a major and visible role but where do they get the access to raw materials, rule of law, security, infrastructure and access to markets from? Who builds the network of access to materials and markets? It is GOVERNMENTS and their military.
Britain in the Industrial Revolution was the British Empire! It controlled most of the planet via the British GOVERNMENT and its global military domination. Read about India, read about the OPIUM WARS where British steam rolled themselves into China forcing the Chinese to concede Hong Kong and establishing multiple trading posts in China through the FORCE OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENTS MILITARY to enable British merchants access to the vast and lucrative Chinese market. Diplomacy, backed up by military brute force is what positions a nations merchants to become wealthy. The BRITISH EMPIRE- the global network of colonies and trading posts backed up by the British Navies domination of the seas.
And during the period from WW1 to WW2 where the USA gradually took over the global hegemony of Britain culminating in the Bretton Woods agreement shortly after WW2.
Read some history. GOVERNMENTS ARE CRUCIAL to the wealth of nations.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @galt 4h
Interesting that all the governments you cite are pretty much bankrupt, where is the wealth they have created? They have taken it away from the people, spent it all and more. Greeks, Chinese, Roman, Portuguese, Spanish, British empires, US (ongoing) have all gone to zero
reply
Perfectly correct.
As success breeds entitlement and the strength and unity that builds empires evaporates and citizens clamour and demand more and more 'bread, circuses and rights' from the government while offering less and less.
Look at the USA today- seething with various groups demanding their 'rights' and a complete breakdown of any sense of unity and purpose. People in a declining empire forget the importance of unity and government - they assume they will always be the dominant culture. They adopt such absurd notions as Libertarians do ignoring the historical fact that governments and their role have always been crucial to the wealth of nations.
reply
I would argue that you have described bugs (not features) of pretty much all political systems.
I still insist that the (economic) progress and achievements are due to the individuals and their capitalistic/liberal thinking. I agree with you that the states do play a role, we just won’t agree on whether it is positive or negative.
reply
I never claimed the state always plays a positive role so you are misunderstanding me. I do claim that there has never been an empire or wealthy nation without the government of that wealthy nation playing a major role in the success of its economy.
And you cannot name any exception to this.
Merchants, inventors, industrialists, workers, consumers and entrepreneurs all rely upon the legal system provided by government and access to materials and markets that governments provide- or don't provide. It is a governments role to maximise the wealth of the nation and some succeed, and some fail, with most somewhere in between - it is the ability of the nation to defend its resources and markets and project its power to obtain the markets and resources of other regions that is crucial to whether its economy is a successful one or not. This requires the government to control its own military force, or to make alliance or subservient tribute status to a greater power.
A good government can put in place multiple protocols, institutions and infrastructures that strengthen its economy- for example a good monetary system and a decent legal system are fundamentals without which enterprise cannot easily function.
Without the security of property that a nation state must provide enterprise is hopeless.
These are not bugs, but the fundamental requirements a good government can provision which can enable its citizens to prosper.
The naive Libertarians denial of these realities is fundamentally flawed and destructive - it undermines the economy and wealth of the nation wherever their absurd ideas take hold.
reply
60 sats \ 1 reply \ @7e6e393a56 57m
His analysis fits very much into the dialectic of historical materialism that there is no capitalism without a state. I don't think you're a Marxist, and it's none of my business either, but I see in your comments your attempt to show that capitalists don't know how capitalism works. This is a very common criticism that national developmentalists and communists make.
Why do people even need all these programs? 200 years ago there was nothing like that and no one complained.
The government makes people dependent on itself, so it can control them: obey or we'll take your benefits away.
It's important to build wealth and have one's own means or build community. Only then can we opt out of this thievery and coercion.
reply
Why do people even need all these programs? 200 years ago there was nothing like that and no one complained.
No one complained, definitely not. People back then used to solve their existential problems with dignity and noblesse.
reply
Yup, 100%.
Saw this meme yesterday, very appro
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 9h
Good meme!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 9h
They want you to be dependent on the state!
reply
24 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 4h
I agree here, we need way more than 60K cut, I'd like to see the house get cleaned 2M+
We need a limited government, with value-added positions. No more rent-seeking, corrupt bureacrats.
reply
Sure.
No, you go and tell 'em!
reply
24 sats \ 1 reply \ @PictureRoom 5h
I think it's forward thinking to have Elon help track down the previous administration's expenses and budgeting using AI. There's some uncertainty about their specific goals, but I believe rooting out corruption and waste is a great step in the right direction.
reply
Truly... Good luck getting to the real stuff. Patient is already screaming and waiting and you've barely taken out the scalpels yet
reply
I wonder how many people who were laid off (or will be fired) voted for Trump.
reply
we will make this territory great again
reply
The chart is misleading. They purposely exclude "Medicaid" and replace it with "Health"
reply