4 ms·

>I understand the impact on government workers, but I'm curious if this is actually changing peoples lives in any way. Well, our inflation rose to 3% in a mont

>I understand the impact on government workers, but I'm curious if this is actually changing peoples lives in any way. Well, our inflation rose to 3% in a month, a few people have died over all these illegal spending freezes, we had a repeat of the Saturday Night Massacre[0] where 6 or 7 judges resigned due to Trump wanting to basically hold blackmail over a corrupt Mayor's case to be temporarily dropped. Those are the most immediate and obvious effects seen after one month off the top of my head. >Elon took over there and took a radical stance, and it just didn't. I'm curious if this will be similar. I don't know why people say this when Twitter had clear changes to day to day use. Let alone to anyone investing in Twitter. Smaller content creators get even less organic engagement, celebrities are harassed more because of blocking changes, commenters get worse, more toxic community. The effects only aren't felt if you use Twitter to get news and you avoid comments, or an account. Even then Twitter makes it harder to view stuff without an account. The fall of Rome took years, if not decades. If you're just expecting anything software to collapse like a demolition project you need perspective on how people define "drastic". ---- On topic: no, don't compare this to Twitter that no one needs in a day to day. The US economy will get noticeably worse, jobs will be harder to find and more people will be let go, The GDP will fall, and if March goes horribly a lot of old people will be on the the street dying. It's not going to all happen in one day, but lives will be lost over these reckless changes. The US isn't exactly doing too well with foreign policy either so that'll be the most obvious effect for you. Our country will probably shift to rely less on us goods. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Amezarak 2y ago
Prosecutors resigned, not judges. March will be no different than January.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  March is when congress decides on a budget. Aka the first legal time in Trump 47 administration that they can actually influence the budget. Some GOP propositions propositions include Medicare cuts and overall trying to lower the budget by 33% IIRC. I'd bet good money we're going to see a bloodbath in the Capitol, be it among congress, or among the people reacting to whatever results happen.
  - Amezarak 2y ago
    How much would you like to bet? Is 20k a good number? Can you be more specific about how you’d define bloodbath so we can agree if it does or does not happen?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Can you be more specific about how you’d define bloodbath Sure, there's 3 vectors I'm looking at here. Legislative: - The government shuts down for 3 or more days before deciding a budget. 1990 shutdown was the most similar situation (which includes Medicaid cuts, but ironically enough was trying to raise taxes) and lasted that long. Executive: - Trump vetoes the budget more than once. 1990 as a reference once again, H.W. Bush vetoed the 2nd proposal , once total. Judicial: - Trump and congress decide on a budget but judges intervene on the allocation. I'm not sure if this ever happened, but I couldn't find any accounts. So I'd say involving all 3 branches qualifies --- - I'll also lump in any significant attempts at violence or death (natural or otherwise) over any politicians involved in such budget debates as part of that (the most literal "bloodbath" possible) Those seem like fair enough criteria? >How much would you like to bet? Is 20k a good number? I'm sadly still a part of an extended job search, so I have no real money to bet. But if this was 2022, I'd probably put 5k onto it in terms of confidence.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Medicare "cuts", it's 100% of Medicare, and big % of foodstamps as well. And increasing debt ceiling, seems like most of it will go to tax cuts for the rich.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Just to be precise, it's a cost equivalent of 100% of 2024 Medicaid (sorry, I typed the wrong one) spending, amortized over 10 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't mean it's cutting all of Medicaid at once, right? It's still drastic, though. 10% every year means 100b in cuts to Medicaid. More money than what's allocated to the DoED
energy123 2y ago
Lots of inflationary pressure building. - Debt repayments are entering a level similar to 1990s due to high rates and debt, meaning the government will eventually have to use inflation to reduce it. - Trump's hostility to energy and housing, two primary drivers of inflation - Tariffs - Deportations of farm workers Inflation expectations according to surveys and rates markets are back up to 2021 levels. The only thing pushing against inflation is a relatively strong real economy, which isn't guaranteed to last if the tariffs and deportations happen.
averageRoyalty 2y ago
> I don't know why people say this when Twitter had clear changes to day to day use. Let alone to anyone investing in Twitter. That wasn't my point though. Twitter itself changed, which was expected and (I assume) intended. My point was the months of us being told constantly by the media that the sky is falling - the servers would fall over tomorrow, the advertisers would all leave and there would be no money, etc. This was literally daily for at least a month. Now, Twitter is still up and running fine (from a technical and assumedly financial perspective). It appears Elons methods worked fine, and all the other major tech companies also went on a mass firing spree to trim the fat. I'm honestly not sure how this compares with similar changes to a federal government - or if it does at all. But the context of my comment came from the GPs point, fat cutting and applying highly profitable tech start approaches to a federal government is an interesting thought exercise and especially so for a country that values capitalism over people so highly. Every significant government policy being added or removed has real world impact - both positive and negative. I'm curious if the positives will outweigh the negatives in this case.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >My point was the months of us being told constantly by the media that the sky is falling - the servers would fall over tomorrow, the advertisers would all leave and there would be no money, etc. This was literally daily for at least a month. That seems to be my point tho. you're imagining Twitter collapsing in a few days and going out of business. That's not really how things work. Twitter went private so no one really knows how well it's doing. I'd bet any confidence in Twitter these days isnt really in Twitter so much as Musk hype, however. >. It appears Elons methods worked fine, and all the other major tech companies also went on a mass firing spree to trim the fat. By waht metric? Financial is dubious of you're following the scene. Workers, certainly not. I guess in the metric that it let him buy the election. That's pretty big, I'll admit. I don't think thst trick will work twice, given his current reputation. In the sense that "it is operating as a domain?" MySpace is still"up and running fine " in 2025. Digg is still up and running in 2025. Such name brands so well known don't really die in a literal sense; someone's going to buy and try to salvage it even after Musk sells it one day. >MySpace is still"up and running fine " in 2025. Digg is still up and running in 2025. Such name brands so well known don't really die in a literal sense ; someone's going to buy and try to salvage it. What positives are you imagining? We pay off the defecit? This ephemeral mood of "corruption" is dealt with? That you get a tax cut? Maybe the 3rd one will save you a few thousand a year. I don't see many upsides here that counter balance this. That's pretty much my whole reservation of this comment. It just seems to be saying "well maybe we get something good out of it" while dimissing the bad that's already come. All on a basis of a company that didn't completely die out from the same cuts and suggesting it "works" because of that.

Amezarak 2y ago

Prosecutors resigned, not judges. March will be no different than January.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
March is when congress decides on a budget. Aka the first legal time in Trump 47 administration that they can actually influence the budget. Some GOP propositions propositions include Medicare cuts and overall trying to lower the budget by 33% IIRC. I'd bet good money we're going to see a bloodbath in the Capitol, be it among congress, or among the people reacting to whatever results happen.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  How much would you like to bet? Is 20k a good number? Can you be more specific about how you’d define bloodbath so we can agree if it does or does not happen?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Can you be more specific about how you’d define bloodbath Sure, there's 3 vectors I'm looking at here. Legislative: - The government shuts down for 3 or more days before deciding a budget. 1990 shutdown was the most similar situation (which includes Medicaid cuts, but ironically enough was trying to raise taxes) and lasted that long. Executive: - Trump vetoes the budget more than once. 1990 as a reference once again, H.W. Bush vetoed the 2nd proposal , once total. Judicial: - Trump and congress decide on a budget but judges intervene on the allocation. I'm not sure if this ever happened, but I couldn't find any accounts. So I'd say involving all 3 branches qualifies --- - I'll also lump in any significant attempts at violence or death (natural or otherwise) over any politicians involved in such budget debates as part of that (the most literal "bloodbath" possible) Those seem like fair enough criteria? >How much would you like to bet? Is 20k a good number? I'm sadly still a part of an extended job search, so I have no real money to bet. But if this was 2022, I'd probably put 5k onto it in terms of confidence.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Medicare "cuts", it's 100% of Medicare, and big % of foodstamps as well. And increasing debt ceiling, seems like most of it will go to tax cuts for the rich.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Just to be precise, it's a cost equivalent of 100% of 2024 Medicaid (sorry, I typed the wrong one) spending, amortized over 10 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't mean it's cutting all of Medicaid at once, right? It's still drastic, though. 10% every year means 100b in cuts to Medicaid. More money than what's allocated to the DoED

energy123 2y ago

Lots of inflationary pressure building. - Debt repayments are entering a level similar to 1990s due to high rates and debt, meaning the government will eventually have to use inflation to reduce it. - Trump's hostility to energy and housing, two primary drivers of inflation - Tariffs - Deportations of farm workers Inflation expectations according to surveys and rates markets are back up to 2021 levels. The only thing pushing against inflation is a relatively strong real economy, which isn't guaranteed to last if the tariffs and deportations happen.

averageRoyalty 2y ago

> I don't know why people say this when Twitter had clear changes to day to day use. Let alone to anyone investing in Twitter. That wasn't my point though. Twitter itself changed, which was expected and (I assume) intended. My point was the months of us being told constantly by the media that the sky is falling - the servers would fall over tomorrow, the advertisers would all leave and there would be no money, etc. This was literally daily for at least a month. Now, Twitter is still up and running fine (from a technical and assumedly financial perspective). It appears Elons methods worked fine, and all the other major tech companies also went on a mass firing spree to trim the fat. I'm honestly not sure how this compares with similar changes to a federal government - or if it does at all. But the context of my comment came from the GPs point, fat cutting and applying highly profitable tech start approaches to a federal government is an interesting thought exercise and especially so for a country that values capitalism over people so highly. Every significant government policy being added or removed has real world impact - both positive and negative. I'm curious if the positives will outweigh the negatives in this case.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>My point was the months of us being told constantly by the media that the sky is falling - the servers would fall over tomorrow, the advertisers would all leave and there would be no money, etc. This was literally daily for at least a month. That seems to be my point tho. you're imagining Twitter collapsing in a few days and going out of business. That's not really how things work. Twitter went private so no one really knows how well it's doing. I'd bet any confidence in Twitter these days isnt really in Twitter so much as Musk hype, however. >. It appears Elons methods worked fine, and all the other major tech companies also went on a mass firing spree to trim the fat. By waht metric? Financial is dubious of you're following the scene. Workers, certainly not. I guess in the metric that it let him buy the election. That's pretty big, I'll admit. I don't think thst trick will work twice, given his current reputation. In the sense that "it is operating as a domain?" MySpace is still"up and running fine " in 2025. Digg is still up and running in 2025. Such name brands so well known don't really die in a literal sense; someone's going to buy and try to salvage it even after Musk sells it one day. >MySpace is still"up and running fine " in 2025. Digg is still up and running in 2025. Such name brands so well known don't really die in a literal sense ; someone's going to buy and try to salvage it. What positives are you imagining? We pay off the defecit? This ephemeral mood of "corruption" is dealt with? That you get a tax cut? Maybe the 3rd one will save you a few thousand a year. I don't see many upsides here that counter balance this. That's pretty much my whole reservation of this comment. It just seems to be saying "well maybe we get something good out of it" while dimissing the bad that's already come. All on a basis of a company that didn't completely die out from the same cuts and suggesting it "works" because of that.