3 ms·

Have I missed something? Last time I blinked he seemed to be looking at a pretty active role in the next US administration

kortilla 2y ago
The role is in killing off large parts of the federal govt
Jtsummers 2y ago
His and Ramaswamy's roles will be advisory, and specifically targeting cutting government spending. This is not a pro-government thing except that they both have significant conflicts of interests which will influence which parts of government they suggest cutting and which they suggest leaving more or less intact.
- dools 2y ago
  Using regulatory capture to further your own economic interests is still pro government, it's just that it's a government aimed at meeting the needs of a very small number of oligarchs rather than the majority of the population.
- roamerz 2y ago
  >>which will influence which <could> influence
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    Only if one is super human would it not.
- Shalah 2y ago
  Musk said there are over four hundred federal agencies, that's more than the number of states.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > Musk said there are over four hundred federal agencies, that's more than the number of states. That's a silly way to weigh your decisions and valuations. "There are more than four hundred federal employees, that's more than the number of states." The number of agencies is itself mostly irrelevant, it's their individual size, effectiveness, and appropriateness that matters. Do all of them need to exist? Almost certainly not. But do we need to cut it down to one per US state? That's an arbitrary and useless target.
    - Shalah 2y ago
      > But do we need to cut it down to one per US state? I'm sure they could be reduced down to similar areas of operation. One of the first to be cut being The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Who has so-far spent 16 years building 119 miles of track at a cost of $14 billion. That's roughly $66,845 per yard.
      - Jtsummers 2y ago
        That's a state agency, outside of the scope of DOGE except that it receives some (probably a lot of) federal funding. If you want this to be a serious discussion don't suggest cutting agencies because of the total count of agencies or cutting state agencies in a discussion about federal agencies.
        Shalah 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - tverbeure 2y ago
    California has more agencies than the number of states of California! Using the number of states as some yardstick makes zero sense: merging multiple current states into one wouldn’t make our society less complex.

kortilla 2y ago

The role is in killing off large parts of the federal govt

Jtsummers 2y ago

His and Ramaswamy's roles will be advisory, and specifically targeting cutting government spending. This is not a pro-government thing except that they both have significant conflicts of interests which will influence which parts of government they suggest cutting and which they suggest leaving more or less intact.

dools 2y ago
Using regulatory capture to further your own economic interests is still pro government, it's just that it's a government aimed at meeting the needs of a very small number of oligarchs rather than the majority of the population.
roamerz 2y ago
>>which will influence which <could> influence
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  Only if one is super human would it not.
Shalah 2y ago
Musk said there are over four hundred federal agencies, that's more than the number of states.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Musk said there are over four hundred federal agencies, that's more than the number of states. That's a silly way to weigh your decisions and valuations. "There are more than four hundred federal employees, that's more than the number of states." The number of agencies is itself mostly irrelevant, it's their individual size, effectiveness, and appropriateness that matters. Do all of them need to exist? Almost certainly not. But do we need to cut it down to one per US state? That's an arbitrary and useless target.
  - Shalah 2y ago
    > But do we need to cut it down to one per US state? I'm sure they could be reduced down to similar areas of operation. One of the first to be cut being The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Who has so-far spent 16 years building 119 miles of track at a cost of $14 billion. That's roughly $66,845 per yard.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      That's a state agency, outside of the scope of DOGE except that it receives some (probably a lot of) federal funding. If you want this to be a serious discussion don't suggest cutting agencies because of the total count of agencies or cutting state agencies in a discussion about federal agencies.
      - Shalah 2y ago
        [flagged]
- tverbeure 2y ago
  California has more agencies than the number of states of California! Using the number of states as some yardstick makes zero sense: merging multiple current states into one wouldn’t make our society less complex.