7 ms·

> The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government. It's worse than that. They're also incompetent. Look, I'm a radical anarcho-ca

> The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government. It's worse than that. They're also incompetent. Look, I'm a radical anarcho-capitalist / libertarian / voluntaryist myself. I'm fine with the idea of "destroying the government" in general. BUT, even I would say that there's a right way to go about it, and that that involves dismantling things slowly and incrementally, identifying replacements (where available) for government services that are being wound down BEFORE winding them down, minimizing the harm done, taking "collateral damage" into consideration etc. These people are doing the equivalent of "destroying the government" by just randomly lobbing hand grenades all over the place, with no knowledge, consideration, or concern, for the outcomes.

scarab92 2y ago
[flagged]
- CasualSuperman 2y ago
  If the only thing on the planet you care about is efficiency, sure. How about the human lives impacted by all of it?
  - the_snooze 2y ago
    "Efficiency" is such a dumb thing to optimize for singlemindedly. Overly efficient systems are brittle and can't adapt to shocks. Look what happened to the efficient global supply chain when that ship blocked the Suez Canal. Imagine if we demanded "efficiency" from fire departments; they'd only hire as many firefighters as they need to respond to the average number of emergencies per day, then totally flop when there's a mass casualty event.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    Having a fast moving and inefficient government is what attracts people to the US! To live and invest there. Fast moving governments can destroy things, make them unpredictable and unstable based on the whims of a few. In this case an unelected billionaire with conflicts of interest and a pardon for all his crimes waiting for him in Dec of 2028. People hate that.
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      Slow moving*
- slg 2y ago
  >It’s the same with firing people and hiring them back. Performance metrics are unreliable, but firing and then hiring back who you miss isn’t. It shows you who is really critical. I might believe this if there was actually any time between the firing and rehiring. This isn't the administration firing people, observing the result, and then restaffing the programs that did actually become less efficient. There have been multiple times in recent weeks in which this administration fired people and then immediately moved to rehire them because they didn't have any idea of who they actually fired in the first place. I just don't understand how anyone could think all the confusion and uncertainty we have seen over the last month is part of a well constructed and good faith plan for a more efficient government.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Its picking up rocks to see what makes threats or scatters. A large portion of the effect you seem to be experiencing is trump and elon troll, and the media just mangles the trolls until I do not believe any story, comment, etc about Trump, doge, musk, Zelensky, Putin, whatever unless I literally see their words or hear their words. Ex: the executive branch policy executive order today or yesterday. MSM and people on the internet "he's bypassing the checks and balances!" OK no that's not what the EO says; but just for fun check what EO Biden signed about this many days into his presidency. Hint: Reformation of the US Supreme Court. It's just what they do. Presidents. Also for the record Trump has signed 68 and in the same timespan Biden signed 34. Most of both were rescinding the others EO.
    - slg 2y ago
      The example I gave was people being fired and immediately rehired[1][2] and you're blaming that on the fake news not understanding Trump's "trolling"? That is your defense that this is all "part of a well constructed and good faith plan for a more efficient government"? The President of the United States is trolling federal workers by firing and then immediately rehiring them? [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev24184vjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev24184vjo [2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o
- devin 2y ago
  "lOoK HoW gReAt TwItTeR iS DoInG"
  - scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      It's been overrun by Nazis and is worth a fraction of it's purchase price. Having a website be technically online is not the measure of if it's "doing well".
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >Operationally, Twitter is doing well, even with 80% of the workforce gone. >It’s pretty clearly a success story on any objective measure. Your comment actually underscores the problem. That is, even if Twitter really is more efficient operationally, the overall business is greatly diminished. You point to the advertiser feud as the reason for revenue drop-off, as if it's a tangential thing. But, in fact, part of the reason for that is the chaos, as well as other, let's say..."human dynamics". And, now we're seeing a mass exodus from Twitter, the impact of which remains to be seen. It's all related. Having humans in the mix makes things far messier. So, business success is not merely about operational efficiency and, when it comes to government, it's orders of magnitude more complex.
      - fallingknife 2y ago
        The advertisers couldn't care less about operational chaos at Twitter. They care about bad press. If Twitter was a lesser known company or Elon Musk wasn't a political enemy of liberal journalists, there would have been minimal revenue loss. This had nothing to do with the layoffs. Twitter would have the exact same problem even if they kept all the employees.
        unclebucknasty 2y ago
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  "Just hire them back" is not actually a cost efficient option. Take TB medication delivery, one of the many programs halted by the USAID cuts. If you stop a TB treatment midway through you make the development of drug-resistant TB more likely and you make it more likely that this strain spreads to others. Even if Musk decides that actually it really is unconscionable to not tackle the deadliest disease on the planet (which happens to be treatable), the delays cause deaths. This isn't like turning some web server back on. Rehiring people is also a fucking joke when they've been fired in this manner. People have been forced to rapidly leave the countries that they are deployed in with minimal support from leadership. Those relationships are burned.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    > Those relationships are burned. That's the bigger point. This is the destruction of the United States as a viable partner, today and for the future. It's the most anti-American thing you could do, which makes you think how much of this is incompetence and ideology and how much of it is compromise.
  - rlpb 2y ago
    > Those relationships are burned. Also, everyone knows that they're more likely to get messed around as a government employee now, so the market rate has gone up. It is now more expensive to hire people for the same roles.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      Government jobs don't work like that, do they? There's a pay schedule for the job title and that's what you get paid. The codes start with G and go from 1-16 and beyond. Idk look it up. You don't really get to negotiate wages as a federal employee. The only thing you can get paid more on hire is if the schedule for the title is like GS4-GS5 DOE The flip is they get paid time off, a lot, retirement, health coverage, and maybe early retirement.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  > a brilliant strategy to quickly and comprehensively remove waste A better strategy would have been to : - spend 2016-2020 while Trump was in power auditing the NSAID / federal spending. - spend 2020-2024 while they were hand-vetting thousands of loyalists and having Musk donate $240,000,000 towards their funds, plus other donations from other mi/billionaires, planning spending cuts. - spend the pre-election time telling people what cuts they were planning and why. - move to make those planned cuts quickly and comprehensively. - release a tidy report of fraud and corruption found after 2, 3, 6 months. This keeps confidence in the government high for national and international investors and governments, it would win over some Dems and undecided voters, it would reduce worry and stress from Republicans. They didn't do that, and you can't say it isn't a priority or they didn't have money or time or access to do it, so the possible remaining reasons don't look good: 1. they are just winging it. They don't know what the agencies do, what can be cut or what they want to spend. 1. The plans are so objectionable that if they told everyone their plans in advance, people would not have voted for them. (They don't care what the agencies do). 1. the chaos and hurt is part of the plan. 1. They want to be able to make stuff up, and have nobody able to call them on it. (see also: DOGE's actions are sealed by Executive Order, Musk has said some untruths about what they've found, Musk told interviewers that the things he says will be incorrect). 1. any other reasons? Any compelling reasons?
  - xyzzy123 2y ago
    If you move slowly, agencies will circle the wagons and organise resistance. I don't endorse it, but it seems like the "strategy" is mainly speed and surprise.
  - normie3000 2y ago
    I'd say it's probably option 1.
- guizadillas 2y ago
  "move fast and break things" means iterating on a product but that's on a whole different scale when you are talking about space rockets and the USA government
- tanaros 2y ago
  I don’t think it’s a good strategy in this case. Some of the people you fire will not come back, even if you try to rehire them immediately. Some of the firings will not result in problems in the near term, but will cause problems later on. Some of the firings will cause problems that only occur under certain conditions, like catastrophic events and natural disasters. Furthermore, you cause real harm to people who depend on these services in the interim period where you’re figuring things out. In some cases that harm cannot be undone. The stated policy objectives to reduce waste could be achieved with much less disruption and cruelty simply by doing them more slowly and thoughtfully. There is no need to rush everything through in six weeks.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    << The stated policy objectives to reduce waste could be achieved with much less disruption and cruelty simply by doing them more slowly and thoughtfully. There is no need to rush everything through in six weeks. If there is one thing that Trump has clearly learned from his first term, it is your window to effect actual change is surprisingly small and for that reason alone, historically speaking, presidents tended to open with their priorities ( whatever they were ). I am mildly on the fence, but it has been my affliction most of my life. FWIW, I do hear you, but I do see a need for a drastic reduction. I recognize it is a gordian knot and it will be painful across the board. Doing it slowly may be just taking a bandaid off one hair at a time.
- dumpHero2 2y ago
  You give a compelling argument. If the same strategy was being executed by someone else, I'd even consider giving it a thought. Heck, if the president was executing this independently, I'd still give him the benefit of doubt. But I don't trust Elon with what you're suggesting. He has nefarious motives.
- zigglezaggle 2y ago
  > It’s the same with ... This is the problem with your argument and all others like it. Like the parent comment states in this thread, there is a truly mind boggling level of nuance and complexity that goes on in almost every single discrete field. The nuances that make you succeed in one field may not (are probably not!) the same as another field. We can even see this within a field: Being a good engineering manager does not make you a good engineer, or vice versa. So why should we think either of these disciplines can be extended into geopolitics, finance, or anything else?
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >It’s the same with firing people and hiring them back. Except that we're talking about human beings. >Progressives will hate all of this simply out of a hatred of Musk Consider that truly believing this instead of considering that some people have well-reasoned concerns, might make you closed to divergent ideas. And that is, of course, what you're accusing progressives of being here.
- rideontime 2y ago
  Which other leaders? Any who aren't about to be impeached for rugpulling memecoins?
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Spoken like a true sociopath. These are people’s lives.
UncleMeat 2y ago
Well, then get to resisting. Like it or not, people with your ideology aren't going to be distinguished from the people that burned the government to the ground, destroyed people's lives, and sold the ashes to the richest men on the planet.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  It is a fascinating comment. Surely, you recognize things are hardly black and white. Like it or not, the guy has an actual popular mandate to do just that. If you accept that premise, the undistinguishing is already happening on both sides of the US' political spectrum.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" for them. We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything. So, no. This is just another asymetric rule designed to enable. Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      << Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" We don't hear it from democrats now either. What is your point? That each side uses the best argument that supports their position and they decide on the argument after they decide what their expected result is? We all know this and it has been unfortunate part of the discourse for decades at the very least. << We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything. Could you elaborate on this point a little? I had a longer initial reaction to it, but I realized that the phrasing can be interpreted in several ways. I will say this just to give you an idea of my initial read: the vitriol( from republican electorate ) was the cause of the mandate ( to clamp down on bureaucracy ). Now, said clamping generates its own vitriol ( and seemingly some vitriol as well ). Which vitriol you want to focus on? << Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Why.. do I care about it at all? Asshole designation is largely meaningless to me. I will push that point further, because I worry that I might be misunderstood on this point. You may find that almost the entirety of the situation we find ourselves is a result of people 'just being nice' and trying not ruffle feathers. There was rather ample time to do some of the incremental changes some recommended here, but no one wanted to be an asshole. We are way past the point, where that label would even register ( not even have and impact; register ). Edit: I will separately note that on this forum, I noted years ago that if those issues are not addressed, we will find ourselves having to make rather unhappy choices. I am pointing it out for one reason some may be misunderstanding some very basic reality. I will offer one more example of this weird blindness to zeitgeist. Did you notice how Trump was able to simply shrug off the felon label? Have you considered the why behind it? << Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership". Again.. why does it matter to me? They can boo all they want.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>I'm fine with the idea of "destroying the government" in general. BUT, even I would say that there's a right way to go about it... Earnest question: Does the second sentence here cause you to reflect on the first, because: >minimizing the harm done, taking "collateral damage" into consideration... acknowledges that the government is performing important functions on which people rely. I know there's an argument that the private sector could instead provide some of these, but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies?
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies? I believe the idea is that you can have multiple companies for a given purpose and switch between them (or form your own) depending on what you think works best for you and your community. You cannot have multiple governments - if the one elected on an piece of land you happen to live on does not act in your interests, you're pretty much SOL at least until the next election cycle (if it's a democracy) or the next coup (if it's not). The obligatory caveat is that - of course - this does not work in practice. At the very least, it requires a perfect free and fair market which means it needs us all to be well-informed rational actors. And there are probably more requirements than just this.
  - cgcrob 2y ago
    It doesn’t work in practice. So needs regulators or you end up with cartels. And for regulators you need a government. We got where we got because this already failed.
    - drdaeman 2y ago
      That's what I've said, yes. It does not. Companies tend to deceive customers, as the incentives are frequently aren't aligned, so "voting with a wallet" is not functioning as well as it should. And profit-seeking leads to market consolidation, which, at least past some threshold is a net negative on society and turns into oligopoly. A vision of a society without a government is utopic. It requires drastically different mindset and understanding of the side effects and unintended outcomes from every living person. Yet, I cannot help but naively like the idea of such society (which is entirely subjective thing), and so I wish we all could be smarter and knowledgeable, stop fighting for resources, and that some distant day whatever becomes of us may live in a world where cartels won't form because everyone understands how that's not really in anyone's interest (paradoxically, I believe that's not even good for the cartel itself in the long term - power and wealth are also a deadly curse).
jrm4 2y ago
You're probably part of the problem; folks like yourself are nearly universally ignorant of many Chesterton's fences.
- geoelectric 2y ago
  Unless they radically edited what they said after you replied, I’d say the approach they favor necessarily includes understanding the fence. It’s a bit rude to just lump them in with “folks like themselves” as an ad hom. Even as a left lib who thinks the primary purpose of a government should be to pool money into public good, I doubt all the fences that are up are there for good reasons anymore. Questioning them in a careful and rational manner is healthy, and I wish it were done more. Wanton destruction like we’re seeing now isn’t. I think that’s in line with what your parent comment was saying too. They might be more surprised than I would be as to how many fences are justified, but it sounds like they believe it’s important to check.
  - jrm4 2y ago
    I've worked in government and large institutions, and frequently deal with people who think like this. Let's just say I'm perfectly comfortable with the ad hominem. Literally 100% of the people I've encountered with this attitude either soften it once they're actually in, or they come in and break things. Any time someone comes in with a "clean house" attitude," I know I have to get ready because they nearly universally have no clue of what they're talking about.
    - intended 2y ago
      Pardon my French. - You need to be sharing a fuck ton of examples. People make sense of things in many ways. One of the most fundamental are stories. Share every example or story you can, or your friends can. This is one of the things conspicuously absent on HN, which is surprising since there should be many people with personal experience dealing with governments or complex systems. It may seem simple, but they matter.
      - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
scarab92 2y ago
[flagged]
- devin 2y ago
  I can assure you that a great number of the people who disagree with you don't just "hate Musk" or have Trump derangement syndrome or something. This assumption that people only disagree with you for bad faith reasons or aren't "remaining curious" is weird, and you should reflect on it.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  I notice you very actively defending Musk in threads but typically leave the conversation when someone ask you to defend the indefensible.
Applejinx 2y ago
Then it's worth asking: surely no matter what your perspective is, it's possible to come up with intelligent and capable malefactors who'll further your power and that of your side? No matter who you consider to be malefactors. Let's say we call ancaps malefactors, and we're talking about the reformation of society. Surely it's possible to find capable people who will set that in motion and lock it in so it can't be avoided? There must be so many people able to plan this out. You might be one of those people! And yet, how come we're looking at a pile of nonsense people, hurling grenades and being catastrophically useless in their own rights, across the board? Do you consider them incompetent, when the claim is they'll make everything great and you hope they'll serve your interests? Or do you consider that they're doing exactly what they are meant to do, but they're meant to be saboteurs and the damage IS not only the point but the only real plan? In that case, they might not even be in control of what they think they're intending, but they've been selected to do exactly what they're doing. Some of the bigger ones seem to be carrying on like Bond villains, presumably because they enjoy that, but even they are poised to do catastrophic damage to what they're supposed to 'rule'. So do they even expect to rule anything, or are they simply trying to break everything before fleeing the ruins? They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate. That might be the only purpose.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  << They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate. That is arguable, but let us assume it is true for the sake of the argument. If that is true, would you agree that US hegemony seriously waned over the course of at least 4 administrations before Trump?
throwawayq3423 2y ago
So, like terrorists.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  More like National Socialists.
  - astrange 2y ago
    They believed in government. It's more like Italy.
  - electrondood 2y ago
    At least it's an ethos.
fallingknife 2y ago
The problem is that it wouldn't get done. To do it that way you would need the cooperation of the bureaucracy and they are just not going to cooperate here. And who can blame them? I wouldn't do a good job if my bosses asked me to do an analysis of how to cut my job. The conclusion would be "the collateral damage would be catastrophic." I think that's why large corporate layoffs are always a shitshow too.
- vharuck 2y ago
  What about early retirement for unnecessary bureaucrats? You give them their most recent salary and benefits until they're 65 or would've been eligible for retirement, then handle their retirement plans as though they'd been working all that time. So that's fewer bureaucrats, less resistance to the change, more people moving to the "more productive" private sector, and the money still flows to communities via federal wages. This kind of plan would be crazy for a private company that needs to fight to survive each quarter, but it works for governments who should be planning decades ahead.
genewitch 2y ago
> that involves dismantling things slowly and incrementally Yeah? been waiting, consciously, for over 35 years and all we managed to do is give billions to industries for no return for citizens, tenfold our debt, potentially bankrupt Medicare, and so on. Democrats have been in power about equally (20 vs 14 years but just president isn't enough to be "in power"); so neither side is interested in fixing this country for the people instead of themselves.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  This. In fact, since the system is built for gridlock, both parties happily pretend to care about given's electorate red meat, while blaming the other party for failing to do X. It is a perfect scenario for an elected official: do nothing -- the hardest thing to do in politics.
  - watwut 2y ago
    The lock is VERY one sided. Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas. The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate. It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      << The lock is VERY one sided. Hmm. Is it though? You are making rather broad statement here. Would you be willing to offer an example supporting that statement? << Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas. 'Were'? It is a real question, but the spirit is the same as above. Can you offer an example you have in your mind. I suspect I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume too much. << The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate. Same as above. << It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it. No. This is pure silliness and I am frankly tired of hearing this point so I will just call it out. I like to see things as they are. If things happen to work in a way that I happen to not like, then I do not like those things, but it does not mean said those things are invalid, simply because it was a 'kneejerk' reaction to it. And even trying to cast it as kneejerk is amazingly inaccurate. This resentment has been building for a long time now ( does anyone even remember Vance's CNN commentary that basically said 'can you hear us now?' ), which kinda sucks for the political class as they will need to figure out a different model ( and it seems they may have already ) to bamboozle the population. I am happy to discuss further, but you need to give me a little more.

scarab92 2y ago

[flagged]

CasualSuperman 2y ago
If the only thing on the planet you care about is efficiency, sure. How about the human lives impacted by all of it?
- the_snooze 2y ago
  "Efficiency" is such a dumb thing to optimize for singlemindedly. Overly efficient systems are brittle and can't adapt to shocks. Look what happened to the efficient global supply chain when that ship blocked the Suez Canal. Imagine if we demanded "efficiency" from fire departments; they'd only hire as many firefighters as they need to respond to the average number of emergencies per day, then totally flop when there's a mass casualty event.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  Having a fast moving and inefficient government is what attracts people to the US! To live and invest there. Fast moving governments can destroy things, make them unpredictable and unstable based on the whims of a few. In this case an unelected billionaire with conflicts of interest and a pardon for all his crimes waiting for him in Dec of 2028. People hate that.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    Slow moving*
slg 2y ago
>It’s the same with firing people and hiring them back. Performance metrics are unreliable, but firing and then hiring back who you miss isn’t. It shows you who is really critical. I might believe this if there was actually any time between the firing and rehiring. This isn't the administration firing people, observing the result, and then restaffing the programs that did actually become less efficient. There have been multiple times in recent weeks in which this administration fired people and then immediately moved to rehire them because they didn't have any idea of who they actually fired in the first place. I just don't understand how anyone could think all the confusion and uncertainty we have seen over the last month is part of a well constructed and good faith plan for a more efficient government.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Its picking up rocks to see what makes threats or scatters. A large portion of the effect you seem to be experiencing is trump and elon troll, and the media just mangles the trolls until I do not believe any story, comment, etc about Trump, doge, musk, Zelensky, Putin, whatever unless I literally see their words or hear their words. Ex: the executive branch policy executive order today or yesterday. MSM and people on the internet "he's bypassing the checks and balances!" OK no that's not what the EO says; but just for fun check what EO Biden signed about this many days into his presidency. Hint: Reformation of the US Supreme Court. It's just what they do. Presidents. Also for the record Trump has signed 68 and in the same timespan Biden signed 34. Most of both were rescinding the others EO.
  - slg 2y ago
    The example I gave was people being fired and immediately rehired[1][2] and you're blaming that on the fake news not understanding Trump's "trolling"? That is your defense that this is all "part of a well constructed and good faith plan for a more efficient government"? The President of the United States is trolling federal workers by firing and then immediately rehiring them? [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev24184vjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev24184vjo [2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o
devin 2y ago
"lOoK HoW gReAt TwItTeR iS DoInG"
- scarab92 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    It's been overrun by Nazis and is worth a fraction of it's purchase price. Having a website be technically online is not the measure of if it's "doing well".
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >Operationally, Twitter is doing well, even with 80% of the workforce gone. >It’s pretty clearly a success story on any objective measure. Your comment actually underscores the problem. That is, even if Twitter really is more efficient operationally, the overall business is greatly diminished. You point to the advertiser feud as the reason for revenue drop-off, as if it's a tangential thing. But, in fact, part of the reason for that is the chaos, as well as other, let's say..."human dynamics". And, now we're seeing a mass exodus from Twitter, the impact of which remains to be seen. It's all related. Having humans in the mix makes things far messier. So, business success is not merely about operational efficiency and, when it comes to government, it's orders of magnitude more complex.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      The advertisers couldn't care less about operational chaos at Twitter. They care about bad press. If Twitter was a lesser known company or Elon Musk wasn't a political enemy of liberal journalists, there would have been minimal revenue loss. This had nothing to do with the layoffs. Twitter would have the exact same problem even if they kept all the employees.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
UncleMeat 2y ago
"Just hire them back" is not actually a cost efficient option. Take TB medication delivery, one of the many programs halted by the USAID cuts. If you stop a TB treatment midway through you make the development of drug-resistant TB more likely and you make it more likely that this strain spreads to others. Even if Musk decides that actually it really is unconscionable to not tackle the deadliest disease on the planet (which happens to be treatable), the delays cause deaths. This isn't like turning some web server back on. Rehiring people is also a fucking joke when they've been fired in this manner. People have been forced to rapidly leave the countries that they are deployed in with minimal support from leadership. Those relationships are burned.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  > Those relationships are burned. That's the bigger point. This is the destruction of the United States as a viable partner, today and for the future. It's the most anti-American thing you could do, which makes you think how much of this is incompetence and ideology and how much of it is compromise.
- rlpb 2y ago
  > Those relationships are burned. Also, everyone knows that they're more likely to get messed around as a government employee now, so the market rate has gone up. It is now more expensive to hire people for the same roles.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Government jobs don't work like that, do they? There's a pay schedule for the job title and that's what you get paid. The codes start with G and go from 1-16 and beyond. Idk look it up. You don't really get to negotiate wages as a federal employee. The only thing you can get paid more on hire is if the schedule for the title is like GS4-GS5 DOE The flip is they get paid time off, a lot, retirement, health coverage, and maybe early retirement.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
jodrellblank 2y ago
> a brilliant strategy to quickly and comprehensively remove waste A better strategy would have been to : - spend 2016-2020 while Trump was in power auditing the NSAID / federal spending. - spend 2020-2024 while they were hand-vetting thousands of loyalists and having Musk donate $240,000,000 towards their funds, plus other donations from other mi/billionaires, planning spending cuts. - spend the pre-election time telling people what cuts they were planning and why. - move to make those planned cuts quickly and comprehensively. - release a tidy report of fraud and corruption found after 2, 3, 6 months. This keeps confidence in the government high for national and international investors and governments, it would win over some Dems and undecided voters, it would reduce worry and stress from Republicans. They didn't do that, and you can't say it isn't a priority or they didn't have money or time or access to do it, so the possible remaining reasons don't look good: 1. they are just winging it. They don't know what the agencies do, what can be cut or what they want to spend. 1. The plans are so objectionable that if they told everyone their plans in advance, people would not have voted for them. (They don't care what the agencies do). 1. the chaos and hurt is part of the plan. 1. They want to be able to make stuff up, and have nobody able to call them on it. (see also: DOGE's actions are sealed by Executive Order, Musk has said some untruths about what they've found, Musk told interviewers that the things he says will be incorrect). 1. any other reasons? Any compelling reasons?
- xyzzy123 2y ago
  If you move slowly, agencies will circle the wagons and organise resistance. I don't endorse it, but it seems like the "strategy" is mainly speed and surprise.
- normie3000 2y ago
  I'd say it's probably option 1.
guizadillas 2y ago
"move fast and break things" means iterating on a product but that's on a whole different scale when you are talking about space rockets and the USA government
tanaros 2y ago
I don’t think it’s a good strategy in this case. Some of the people you fire will not come back, even if you try to rehire them immediately. Some of the firings will not result in problems in the near term, but will cause problems later on. Some of the firings will cause problems that only occur under certain conditions, like catastrophic events and natural disasters. Furthermore, you cause real harm to people who depend on these services in the interim period where you’re figuring things out. In some cases that harm cannot be undone. The stated policy objectives to reduce waste could be achieved with much less disruption and cruelty simply by doing them more slowly and thoughtfully. There is no need to rush everything through in six weeks.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  << The stated policy objectives to reduce waste could be achieved with much less disruption and cruelty simply by doing them more slowly and thoughtfully. There is no need to rush everything through in six weeks. If there is one thing that Trump has clearly learned from his first term, it is your window to effect actual change is surprisingly small and for that reason alone, historically speaking, presidents tended to open with their priorities ( whatever they were ). I am mildly on the fence, but it has been my affliction most of my life. FWIW, I do hear you, but I do see a need for a drastic reduction. I recognize it is a gordian knot and it will be painful across the board. Doing it slowly may be just taking a bandaid off one hair at a time.
dumpHero2 2y ago
You give a compelling argument. If the same strategy was being executed by someone else, I'd even consider giving it a thought. Heck, if the president was executing this independently, I'd still give him the benefit of doubt. But I don't trust Elon with what you're suggesting. He has nefarious motives.
zigglezaggle 2y ago
> It’s the same with ... This is the problem with your argument and all others like it. Like the parent comment states in this thread, there is a truly mind boggling level of nuance and complexity that goes on in almost every single discrete field. The nuances that make you succeed in one field may not (are probably not!) the same as another field. We can even see this within a field: Being a good engineering manager does not make you a good engineer, or vice versa. So why should we think either of these disciplines can be extended into geopolitics, finance, or anything else?
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>It’s the same with firing people and hiring them back. Except that we're talking about human beings. >Progressives will hate all of this simply out of a hatred of Musk Consider that truly believing this instead of considering that some people have well-reasoned concerns, might make you closed to divergent ideas. And that is, of course, what you're accusing progressives of being here.
rideontime 2y ago
Which other leaders? Any who aren't about to be impeached for rugpulling memecoins?
alistairSH 2y ago
Spoken like a true sociopath. These are people’s lives.

UncleMeat 2y ago

Well, then get to resisting. Like it or not, people with your ideology aren't going to be distinguished from the people that burned the government to the ground, destroyed people's lives, and sold the ashes to the richest men on the planet.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
It is a fascinating comment. Surely, you recognize things are hardly black and white. Like it or not, the guy has an actual popular mandate to do just that. If you accept that premise, the undistinguishing is already happening on both sides of the US' political spectrum.
- watwut 2y ago
  Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" for them. We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything. So, no. This is just another asymetric rule designed to enable. Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    << Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" We don't hear it from democrats now either. What is your point? That each side uses the best argument that supports their position and they decide on the argument after they decide what their expected result is? We all know this and it has been unfortunate part of the discourse for decades at the very least. << We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything. Could you elaborate on this point a little? I had a longer initial reaction to it, but I realized that the phrasing can be interpreted in several ways. I will say this just to give you an idea of my initial read: the vitriol( from republican electorate ) was the cause of the mandate ( to clamp down on bureaucracy ). Now, said clamping generates its own vitriol ( and seemingly some vitriol as well ). Which vitriol you want to focus on? << Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Why.. do I care about it at all? Asshole designation is largely meaningless to me. I will push that point further, because I worry that I might be misunderstood on this point. You may find that almost the entirety of the situation we find ourselves is a result of people 'just being nice' and trying not ruffle feathers. There was rather ample time to do some of the incremental changes some recommended here, but no one wanted to be an asshole. We are way past the point, where that label would even register ( not even have and impact; register ). Edit: I will separately note that on this forum, I noted years ago that if those issues are not addressed, we will find ourselves having to make rather unhappy choices. I am pointing it out for one reason some may be misunderstanding some very basic reality. I will offer one more example of this weird blindness to zeitgeist. Did you notice how Trump was able to simply shrug off the felon label? Have you considered the why behind it? << Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership". Again.. why does it matter to me? They can boo all they want.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

>I'm fine with the idea of "destroying the government" in general. BUT, even I would say that there's a right way to go about it... Earnest question: Does the second sentence here cause you to reflect on the first, because: >minimizing the harm done, taking "collateral damage" into consideration... acknowledges that the government is performing important functions on which people rely. I know there's an argument that the private sector could instead provide some of these, but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies?

drdaeman 2y ago
> but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies? I believe the idea is that you can have multiple companies for a given purpose and switch between them (or form your own) depending on what you think works best for you and your community. You cannot have multiple governments - if the one elected on an piece of land you happen to live on does not act in your interests, you're pretty much SOL at least until the next election cycle (if it's a democracy) or the next coup (if it's not). The obligatory caveat is that - of course - this does not work in practice. At the very least, it requires a perfect free and fair market which means it needs us all to be well-informed rational actors. And there are probably more requirements than just this.
- cgcrob 2y ago
  It doesn’t work in practice. So needs regulators or you end up with cartels. And for regulators you need a government. We got where we got because this already failed.
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    That's what I've said, yes. It does not. Companies tend to deceive customers, as the incentives are frequently aren't aligned, so "voting with a wallet" is not functioning as well as it should. And profit-seeking leads to market consolidation, which, at least past some threshold is a net negative on society and turns into oligopoly. A vision of a society without a government is utopic. It requires drastically different mindset and understanding of the side effects and unintended outcomes from every living person. Yet, I cannot help but naively like the idea of such society (which is entirely subjective thing), and so I wish we all could be smarter and knowledgeable, stop fighting for resources, and that some distant day whatever becomes of us may live in a world where cartels won't form because everyone understands how that's not really in anyone's interest (paradoxically, I believe that's not even good for the cartel itself in the long term - power and wealth are also a deadly curse).

jrm4 2y ago

You're probably part of the problem; folks like yourself are nearly universally ignorant of many Chesterton's fences.

geoelectric 2y ago
Unless they radically edited what they said after you replied, I’d say the approach they favor necessarily includes understanding the fence. It’s a bit rude to just lump them in with “folks like themselves” as an ad hom. Even as a left lib who thinks the primary purpose of a government should be to pool money into public good, I doubt all the fences that are up are there for good reasons anymore. Questioning them in a careful and rational manner is healthy, and I wish it were done more. Wanton destruction like we’re seeing now isn’t. I think that’s in line with what your parent comment was saying too. They might be more surprised than I would be as to how many fences are justified, but it sounds like they believe it’s important to check.
- jrm4 2y ago
  I've worked in government and large institutions, and frequently deal with people who think like this. Let's just say I'm perfectly comfortable with the ad hominem. Literally 100% of the people I've encountered with this attitude either soften it once they're actually in, or they come in and break things. Any time someone comes in with a "clean house" attitude," I know I have to get ready because they nearly universally have no clue of what they're talking about.
  - intended 2y ago
    Pardon my French. - You need to be sharing a fuck ton of examples. People make sense of things in many ways. One of the most fundamental are stories. Share every example or story you can, or your friends can. This is one of the things conspicuously absent on HN, which is surprising since there should be many people with personal experience dealing with governments or complex systems. It may seem simple, but they matter.
    - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

scarab92 2y ago

[flagged]

devin 2y ago
I can assure you that a great number of the people who disagree with you don't just "hate Musk" or have Trump derangement syndrome or something. This assumption that people only disagree with you for bad faith reasons or aren't "remaining curious" is weird, and you should reflect on it.
9283409232 2y ago
I notice you very actively defending Musk in threads but typically leave the conversation when someone ask you to defend the indefensible.

Applejinx 2y ago

Then it's worth asking: surely no matter what your perspective is, it's possible to come up with intelligent and capable malefactors who'll further your power and that of your side? No matter who you consider to be malefactors. Let's say we call ancaps malefactors, and we're talking about the reformation of society. Surely it's possible to find capable people who will set that in motion and lock it in so it can't be avoided? There must be so many people able to plan this out. You might be one of those people! And yet, how come we're looking at a pile of nonsense people, hurling grenades and being catastrophically useless in their own rights, across the board? Do you consider them incompetent, when the claim is they'll make everything great and you hope they'll serve your interests? Or do you consider that they're doing exactly what they are meant to do, but they're meant to be saboteurs and the damage IS not only the point but the only real plan? In that case, they might not even be in control of what they think they're intending, but they've been selected to do exactly what they're doing. Some of the bigger ones seem to be carrying on like Bond villains, presumably because they enjoy that, but even they are poised to do catastrophic damage to what they're supposed to 'rule'. So do they even expect to rule anything, or are they simply trying to break everything before fleeing the ruins? They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate. That might be the only purpose.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
<< They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate. That is arguable, but let us assume it is true for the sake of the argument. If that is true, would you agree that US hegemony seriously waned over the course of at least 4 administrations before Trump?

throwawayq3423 2y ago

So, like terrorists.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
More like National Socialists.
- astrange 2y ago
  They believed in government. It's more like Italy.
- electrondood 2y ago
  At least it's an ethos.

fallingknife 2y ago

The problem is that it wouldn't get done. To do it that way you would need the cooperation of the bureaucracy and they are just not going to cooperate here. And who can blame them? I wouldn't do a good job if my bosses asked me to do an analysis of how to cut my job. The conclusion would be "the collateral damage would be catastrophic." I think that's why large corporate layoffs are always a shitshow too.

vharuck 2y ago
What about early retirement for unnecessary bureaucrats? You give them their most recent salary and benefits until they're 65 or would've been eligible for retirement, then handle their retirement plans as though they'd been working all that time. So that's fewer bureaucrats, less resistance to the change, more people moving to the "more productive" private sector, and the money still flows to communities via federal wages. This kind of plan would be crazy for a private company that needs to fight to survive each quarter, but it works for governments who should be planning decades ahead.

genewitch 2y ago

> that involves dismantling things slowly and incrementally Yeah? been waiting, consciously, for over 35 years and all we managed to do is give billions to industries for no return for citizens, tenfold our debt, potentially bankrupt Medicare, and so on. Democrats have been in power about equally (20 vs 14 years but just president isn't enough to be "in power"); so neither side is interested in fixing this country for the people instead of themselves.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
This. In fact, since the system is built for gridlock, both parties happily pretend to care about given's electorate red meat, while blaming the other party for failing to do X. It is a perfect scenario for an elected official: do nothing -- the hardest thing to do in politics.
- watwut 2y ago
  The lock is VERY one sided. Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas. The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate. It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    << The lock is VERY one sided. Hmm. Is it though? You are making rather broad statement here. Would you be willing to offer an example supporting that statement? << Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas. 'Were'? It is a real question, but the spirit is the same as above. Can you offer an example you have in your mind. I suspect I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume too much. << The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate. Same as above. << It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it. No. This is pure silliness and I am frankly tired of hearing this point so I will just call it out. I like to see things as they are. If things happen to work in a way that I happen to not like, then I do not like those things, but it does not mean said those things are invalid, simply because it was a 'kneejerk' reaction to it. And even trying to cast it as kneejerk is amazingly inaccurate. This resentment has been building for a long time now ( does anyone even remember Vance's CNN commentary that basically said 'can you hear us now?' ), which kinda sucks for the political class as they will need to figure out a different model ( and it seems they may have already ) to bamboozle the population. I am happy to discuss further, but you need to give me a little more.