5 ms·

Whatever they promised and people voted for by believing in those promises. People wanted a strong man, and they basically got it. I understand markets can be i

Whatever they promised and people voted for by believing in those promises. People wanted a strong man, and they basically got it. I understand markets can be irrational blah blah, but still surprised how people with money aren’t shipping it away or storing it somewhere more safe looking at the current situation.

maxerickson 2y ago
I would frame that as being motivated to satisfy their base, vs being motivated to succeed. Success usually has a positive connotation, and they don't seem to be doing a particularly good job if you take the "reduce the size of the government" goal at face value (they are making messes everywhere they go, with the government shrinking slower than normal attrition...).
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
  Their bases in this context is also one or two men, not voters.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Their base is the MAGA gestalt. They like you imply do follow the will of one man however, so that's not far from the truth, but they also have a guaranteed 30% of the voting population no matter what the gestalt Prime does to them or the USA
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  Success is subjective and is defined by common people’s expectation in this scenario.
drivingmenuts 2y ago
They also wanted people who wouldn't spend money on "stupid programs", which is basically anything there isn't an immediately obvious reason for. A lot of work that government programs do is data-gathering and preparation for other, more obviously helpful programs. But these clowns don't seem to understand that, at all. They also don't seem to understand that a lot of work isn't profit-oriented (which is the only thing the Trump administration believes in). Some programs exist because they were a benefit at the time (and yes, those need review) and may still be of use, but they always were intended to be a service for everyone, even if some people didn't use. them. No one seems to understand the concept of government service. It's government business or nothing.
- jimmydddd 2y ago
  Some have said that the folks running DOGE follow an Anarcho-capitalist philosophy. According to Wikipedia, that philosophy "seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies." If so, I don't think they care if it's a "good" program or a "bad" program, they just want to reduce the size of government. Some might say, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but their goal might be to throw out the baby, bathwater and the tub.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Afghanistan has that. Instead of landlords, they have warlords, just a different term for the same thing. Why is anybody interested in repeating that thing? I've been told that billionaires think differently than the rest of us, but I still can't fathom why someone would want to be the king of a shit hole when they could be richer as a regular citizen of a liberal democracy. Why do they hate our success?
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Is life really that much better for billionaires of today than kings of last millennium? Sure you can acquire a private fleet of jets and cars now. But given that you rarely if-ever drive them it's no different than a fleet of rare animals. Sure you can play video games and watch sports on TV but is that really much better than watching sports from a private suite? I will conceded that their life expectancy has basically doubled but I don't think there's anything you can do as a king to fix that. If you don't hoard all the wealth it's not like life expectancy immediately doubles. A rising tide raises all ships but the tide takes centuries to do that lifting.
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        In fact things are worse for them today. In Versai it was the norm for the king to take a dump in a bucket in front of the whole court. Today's billionaires have to pay people to watch them do it and have to keep it hush hush.
sambull 2y ago
They are getting their cash reserves ready for the fire sale. That Buffett guy is a good example. They know thy have the opportunity to buy up the assets and to cash in on the chaos.

maxerickson 2y ago

I would frame that as being motivated to satisfy their base, vs being motivated to succeed. Success usually has a positive connotation, and they don't seem to be doing a particularly good job if you take the "reduce the size of the government" goal at face value (they are making messes everywhere they go, with the government shrinking slower than normal attrition...).

TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
Their bases in this context is also one or two men, not voters.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Their base is the MAGA gestalt. They like you imply do follow the will of one man however, so that's not far from the truth, but they also have a guaranteed 30% of the voting population no matter what the gestalt Prime does to them or the USA
tokioyoyo 2y ago
Success is subjective and is defined by common people’s expectation in this scenario.

drivingmenuts 2y ago

They also wanted people who wouldn't spend money on "stupid programs", which is basically anything there isn't an immediately obvious reason for. A lot of work that government programs do is data-gathering and preparation for other, more obviously helpful programs. But these clowns don't seem to understand that, at all. They also don't seem to understand that a lot of work isn't profit-oriented (which is the only thing the Trump administration believes in). Some programs exist because they were a benefit at the time (and yes, those need review) and may still be of use, but they always were intended to be a service for everyone, even if some people didn't use. them. No one seems to understand the concept of government service. It's government business or nothing.

jimmydddd 2y ago
Some have said that the folks running DOGE follow an Anarcho-capitalist philosophy. According to Wikipedia, that philosophy "seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies." If so, I don't think they care if it's a "good" program or a "bad" program, they just want to reduce the size of government. Some might say, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but their goal might be to throw out the baby, bathwater and the tub.
- analog31 2y ago
  Afghanistan has that. Instead of landlords, they have warlords, just a different term for the same thing. Why is anybody interested in repeating that thing? I've been told that billionaires think differently than the rest of us, but I still can't fathom why someone would want to be the king of a shit hole when they could be richer as a regular citizen of a liberal democracy. Why do they hate our success?
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Is life really that much better for billionaires of today than kings of last millennium? Sure you can acquire a private fleet of jets and cars now. But given that you rarely if-ever drive them it's no different than a fleet of rare animals. Sure you can play video games and watch sports on TV but is that really much better than watching sports from a private suite? I will conceded that their life expectancy has basically doubled but I don't think there's anything you can do as a king to fix that. If you don't hoard all the wealth it's not like life expectancy immediately doubles. A rising tide raises all ships but the tide takes centuries to do that lifting.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      In fact things are worse for them today. In Versai it was the norm for the king to take a dump in a bucket in front of the whole court. Today's billionaires have to pay people to watch them do it and have to keep it hush hush.

sambull 2y ago

They are getting their cash reserves ready for the fire sale. That Buffett guy is a good example. They know thy have the opportunity to buy up the assets and to cash in on the chaos.