That's a bit of a bad faith observation. I support feeding people. I don't support theft. When I see people stealing food I am not dismissing the former.
I wouldn't mind a proper auditing process, but you can also do that without breaking multiple laws. And yes, I also do not think DOGE is acting in good faith. They are spouting about a bunch of non-sense tech solutions to the treasury like buzzwords on an earnings call. They completely failed on their suppoesd transparency claims when formed and are now outright keeping others from working with private guards (that's not how you do a proper audit). They've given me every reason not to trust them.
-------
As a not so hot take, if you want to cut costs, encourage efficiency. The way a lot of government budgeting works is in a "use it or lose it" capacity. Your reward for efficiency is a smaller budget "because you didn't need it last year". Individuals can save surplus income for rainy days, I don't see why governmental organizations can't.
Last year he was suggesting the democrats run Jeff Bezos as a candidate saying the party would rally behind him.
The dude realized he was completely out of step with the democrats, so despite constantly trolling Republicans, as you suggested he finally decided to just throw in with them despite still feeling superior to all them (which you can tell by his little "wisecracks" and subtle fuck-yous to the average Repub voter).
True. Not just the All In Guys, but also Tulsi and RFK, even Trump used to be a democrat.
I particularly disliked listening to them openly talk about the clout they were developing and, I don’t know, bragging and boasting about their popularity. Ego is repulsive when it’s laid on so blatantly.
I'll also give honorable mentions to some of their most outrageous takes:
1. Friedberg predicting that NYT and CNN would be replaced by blockchain based news reporting.
2. Chamath predicting the Ukraine/Russia tensions were just blustering prior to a deal being signed.
3. Sacks promoting the story that claimed Biden ordered the Navy to blow up the Nordstream pipeline.
A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy.
I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.
1. It's philosophically acceptable since it's not the government doing it, even if I don't like the deal.
2. I shouldn't be forced to have insurance in the first place.
3. That wouldn't happen since I could buy insurance from another competitor that doesn't require it.
It can be hard to tease out since, contrary to belief, gas taxes end up mixed with the general fund in most cases. If you look at total road expenditures against gas tax revenues, drivers don’t come close to paying for the road infrastructure they use.
Note: This isn’t a comment on whether drivers should fully fund roads, or if it is perfectly fine given the external benefits of a robust road network. It is simply a comment about real numbers vs perception.
Either way, the point is that there's a conflict between the demands of "never charge me an extra cent" versus "don't poke your nose into my business."
My point is that gas taxes don’t even cover a majority of it. US roads are paid for out general funds, and pretending that they are paid for out of gas taxes exclusively, or even in a majority is dishonest.
Any argument that argues that gas taxes are a use tax for the road is dead in the water.
I find it shocking and absurd too, but in moments of self-honesty I notice myself doing it too. My sense is that the only contribution one can make to changing this pattern is to notice it in oneself and then shift a bit. That's the only place one has a chance to modify anything.
Getting mad at other people for doing it doesn't change anything, and nobody can be persuaded to change.
"It’s obvious they treat Musk like a god."
"Unfortunately, it seems that everyone does it. Can you point to anyone who doesn't?"
^^
> "blindly support everything one of their own does".
And of course the same in the opposite direction, blindly opposing everything the other tribe does.
As Orwell described it https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
But doing it all the time? No. It's something to overcome. None of us may be perfectly non-partisan and intellectually honest all the time, of course, but there are still two general directions: giving in to that, and wading out of it.
To be super mean about it, because that's how I feel about it in my heart of hearts: insofar people were just an extension with a tribe they identify with, they could be replaced by another member of that tribe. And if every member in that tribe had no content and only a reference to the tribe, the whole thing could get garbage collected.
There's a real mechanism where we don't even feel the need to examine, much less justify, things we claim or support just because we feel we're with the in-group. As in, I don't know what I'm talking about or what it means, I just need to know that it's approved by those with the biggest stick, or that "history will judge me correct" or anything like that. But IF I can argue the point on my own, what do I care that others agree? And if I can't, what does it help me?
Calling that out isn't necessarily "getting mad at it" tho, it's just calling it out. Anyone who makes a podcast or gets behind any other type of podium, even this comment, is up for scrutiny. But I'd agree that we shouldn't get self-righteous about it. As in, I criticize this for being partisan because being partisan is thoughtless, but not because I never do it, and also because I want "my own" to criticize me in the same way, where applicable.
And yes, it's much easier to see how crude it is, how gross to cloak something in supposed wisdom, nuance or other good things when it's really just partisan hackery (when the rationalization came after the decision to be loyal no matter what), when others do it with something we disagree with. We overlook it constantly when people do it in service of what we think is good, and the blind spots when we ourselves do it are giant. But that just means more work cut out for us :P
I mean I think we've most all seen literally the exact same thing at any reasonably large institution.
No wonder Musk wants to deregulate everything. Regulation interferes with the telemedicine, gut bacteria powders and various other nonsense that these gentlemen invest in.
The (deliberate?) chaos that Trump/Musk create provides great opportunities for those in the know.
I watched Chamath call in live to a spac scammers live stream. This scammer drove a beater and would pump various spac warrants on his way home from the warehouse job on twitch.
I was like wtf is a former FB executive doing showing up on this scammer live stream.
This particular scammer got lucky on one of his spacs when it actually made a deal and from that he made quite the following.
Chamath used this guy to pump his spacs because if the spac was pumping before there was even a deal it was easier for him to make the deal.
I think all of Chamaths spacs are penny stocks now with multiple reverse splits to stay above $1.
Edit: Except for SOFI the one good deal he made.
I mean, there are outcries. But nowhere near the outcry proportional to how dire this is. So maybe the host is right?
Seriously, have you ever heard them say anything bad about Elon, Trump, or the Republican agenda even one time in the last year? We know that none of those entities are perfect, they know that none of these entities are perfect, and yet they dare not say it. This is same as having politicians that are bought, and it’s maddeningly frustrating how two faced the whole ordeal is. The hosts will look at you directly in your eyes and tell you they’re being honest, and they just want to know the truth like you do. But the lie is hiding in plain sight, and everyone sees it.
What’s the point of it all? They're so narcisstically working and using the show to further their own interests. Especially sacks for whom it paid off handsomely. And they do this at the direct expense to their audience who (many of whom may not know better), doing their part to build a more morally confused and bankrupt nation in the process.
I still tune in every week, to happily outrage myself the convolution and lies and insane double standards that they get find themselves in in each conversation. I don't know why I do, I guess there's no other show that I find discusses politics and tech otherwise in a way that's satisfying. I wish a moderate panel (or even a liberal) one existed to counterbalance all of their BS but I haven't found that.
Celebrities to him are almost what commoners are to rich people. Joe Rogan, the biggest podcaster, has <0.1% net worth. Most have far less: they actually need to make money from podcasting and can't afford certain things, whereas 0.001% of Musk's net worth is enough to live an entire life well-off. And it's not just money; I'm sure far, far more people learned about Rogan when he interviewed Musk than vice versa.
Wealth, attention, and power influence people. If you had more of them, or a solid chance at more, you'd be influenced too.
He’s like a cross of Rush Limbaugh in his early prime, Howard Stern and Art Bell. Exceptional broadcast talent with a safe space to deliver a message.
Lets not forget how in his “comedy” special, he literally says he is like Elon’s puppy following him around believing whatever he says because he’s a “genius”. He changed.
Honestly, he reminds me alot of Rush. Early Rush was very conservative, but also very irreverent. At some point it flipped and turned into the angry guy issuing the talking points of the day.
These dingos are wealthy because they've got money in banks and stocks in brokerages.
If the US dollar is managed like the 1980s iraqi dinar, and the stock market is regulated as strictly as the 1980s baghdad stock exchange, what happens to their wealth?
Apologies to the lackeys of Saddam Hussein, some of whom I'm sure were quite professional.
https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/3790568619352-go...
What is money if there's someone out there just "number go up" people's accounts?
Say they start fudging numbers at DoL, so only them would know real truth and everyone else is just blundering in the dark.
Combined with ownership of power structures, there is no need for money per se, you can acquire all of the critical infrastructure by applying blunt force. Check your nearest dictatorship for an example, we have plenty to choose from in recent history.
The government is currently $36 trillion in debt with that debt growing at an exponential rate. Our annual expenditure of interest on the debt has exceeded $1 trillion per year and will soon exceed the entire discretionary budget of the US.
And this is happening as growth starts to slow and other countries continue to reduce both their reserves and dependency upon the dollar.
Many don't see this as sustainable, or really even remotely sustainable. And so working to create more sound governance and spending today is motivated precisely by an effort to prevent a catastrophic crash.
Like think about to back before the housing crash. There were numerous shows on TV about people getting a house (often with near 0 deposit), adding granite counter tops, and then reselling it within weeks for a $20k+ profit.
Anybody could see that that sort of economic system could not possibly be stable, but most people have this instinct that a status quo must inherently be stable, but that's just not true. That unstable things have not crashed today is hardly an argument against them crashing tomorrow.
That's not even considering that these agencies can have positive, not negative, financial impact. A well-regulated economy can avoid disastrous recessions and thereby pay for itself manyfold. Hell, the CFPB was put in place to prevent the exact housing crash situation you just mentioned, but now one private citizen is getting rid of it because... he doesn't like it?
USAID's budget was upwards of $50 billion, so cutting that single organization brings us 5-10% of the way there.
And its primary purpose was propaganda of the sort that, when effective, just ends up driving us into conflicts half way around the world and making it very difficult to ever truly improve relations with 'foreign adversaries.' I'm tired of being at war with Eastasia.
And Musk has zero power. He can only make recommendations. The 'President Musk' stuff is a transparent effort to try to foment antagonism between Trump and Musk by exploiting Trump's insecurities.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united...
https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-...
[1] - https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
We're only 3.8% above our 1945 peak.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-t...
The 1940's and 1950's reduced it through raising taxes, not cutting social services. There was actually a large expansion of social services and infrastructure projects at the time.
Slash and burn economics/austerity are not the only option.
It plummeted afterwards because of dramatic spending cuts after the war ended in 1945. The budget in 1946 cut discretionary spending (which is what funds the military) by 43% (38.5 billion), and then it was cut another 41% in 1947. Inflation adjusted the spending cut in 1946 was $619 billion.
The 'great expansion' of social services began in the 60s which led (in part, Vietnam and other issues obviously played a huge role) to the US defaulting on its economic obligations under Bretton Woods in 1971, which is when our current economic era of unconstrained completely fiat spending began.
I'm fully aware (as everyone is).
The 1950's expanded social services considerably, including major infrastructure projects like housing and highways. The cost of the GI bill alone after WW2 was $140 billion in today's dollars.
Cutting military spending is an option but doesn't seem to be on the table.
It's likely to preempt media attacks claiming Trump is undermining US defense and security by cutting military spending, especially if DOGE manages to find some large areas to cut (one can only imagine the headlines...). It's unclear if they would agree (especially when there's going to be immense distrust), but this sort of rhetoric is the most rational and logical that I've seen in decades.
Having a leader with messianic delusions is not necessarily a bad thing it might seem, at least for now.
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/trump-china-russia-nuclear-bbc1c7...
Ultimately, wealth, beyond what you physically control, is only real if everyone else agrees that it's real. Otherwise you're just tapping a rock on another rock and walking out of the store with eggs.
And that 36 trillion in debt was created with a complex dance out in the open; I've got some paper who wants some paper I'll give you number go up in a year if you give me number now! And we can all look at the ledger and there are people in robes in a locked room who protect the ledger when we're not looking.
If instead we've got a ledger, left floating around the house and garage, and all the people in robes have been fired, and all of a sudden we don't need that tedious "pass laws" stuff to "balance the budget" and the ledger's full of sharpie scribblings, what are the numbers in that ledger? The fewer people who believe that number or ledger, the fewer eggs you'll be able to buy by tapping your rock on someone else's rock.
The same goes for other ledgers -- stocks -- the US stock market is trusted only because people trust the numbers that are reported. If you've fired all the regulators, auditors, and enforcers, your stock market will lose trust, and again, the numbers will be the same but worth less because nobody will believe anything.
Of course all that would do is make the dollar worthless and completely destroy the US economy. I think you would obviously agree.
That also means that we must agree that 'money printing' taken to an extreme can have catastrophic effects. So where we disagree is where we are on the line between the points of inherently valuable and stable currency, and lol funny money.
When the interest on the debt is starting to exceed our total discretionary budget, let alone at a major inflection point in global economics/relations, I tend to think we're prettty far down that line.
So we can start on a solid foundation where we both agree. The thing I have trouble with is I don't think the people in government right now talking about reducing the debt by cutting waste and fraud agree with you and me.
The reason I think this is because last time they were in full control of the government they also had talked a good game about reducing the debt, but instead they cut taxes for the richest Americans and added to the debt, substantially. They told us it would pay for itself -- that didn't happen.
They also did it the time before that, during the Bush Administration. They ran up trillions in debt on a war that we didn't need to go into and we ended up losing, erasing an inherited budget surplus.
Now they are talking about ethnic cleansing Gaza, and giving themselves yet another tax break. On the other side of it, they're slashing and burning programs that they oppose on ideological grounds, which as a percentage of the budget won't even move the debt needle a smidge. And they can't show these programs were actually fraudulent or wasteful.
So my question is: why do you trust these people to cut the debt and deficit if they haven't been able to do so at any point in the past 20 years, a period during which they had majority control of the government multiple times, and they're proposing the same failed playbook?
Mandatory is made up of things like social security, pensions, medicare, and so on. That's all automatically funded with no role played by Congress. The money that's left over after is what Congress actually decides how to spend in those thousands of pages long budget bills that nobody reads - that's discretionary spending.
In 2024 the discretionary budget was $1.7 trillion. Exclude the military (which is also discretionary) and you're down to $900 billion for all the projects people typically associate with government - transportation, education, infrastructure, and so on. USAID took up ~$50 billion of that. That's a major reduction!
This discretionary:mandatory divide is also why DOGE is going after the Pentagon next. Slashing mandatory spending is hard, though you might be able to cut e.g. administrative costs. But discretionary spending is just chock full of pork and corruption with negligible accountability.
I agree they're cutting ideological programs - I don't agree this is intrinsically ideological. They're cutting e.g. DEI and atheism propaganda, but not just replacing it with e.g. color-blind society and respect for religion propaganda. They're just dropping the propaganda funding altogether. I'd like to see this carried out everywhere, even in cases where the propaganda might align more closely with my own biases.
You walk into a store, pick up a box of eggs, bonk your rock on another rock, the other rock makes a happy beep or turns green, and you walk out.
There's no scarcity or demand or anything going on besides "everyone with the rocks trusts the rocks"
We're all going to pretend to trust the rocks as long as we can, because the alternative is violent chaos.
This is the reason your money becomes worth less when we print more. A vendor selling whatever will want even more because his product is just as scarce as it was before, but what you're trading for it has become less scarce, and so has less value.
And taken to extremes this value can approach 0 quite rapidly. Trust, belief and all these things don't matter if you're trying to trade me something I see as less valuable than what you want in exchange for it.
Growth at all costs. Just like a startup. Just like Rome.
I think in this case, it attracts the avaricious rather than changes their beliefs. Joe Rogan can be influenced by poor lunatics as much as rich ones. As much as I can tell of peoples' opinions of the All In pod (never listened), it sounds like they were always sell-outs (or their beliefs have not strayed)
At the same time, I don't think anyone can truly understand what power does to the human brain in general and their brain specifically. It doesn't mean everyone with power is corrupt and certainly doesn't excuse those who are, but IMO it does mean one can't underestimate power's influence and assume they're one of the incorruptible "good ones"*.
* There are ways to mitigate being corruptible, such as planning ahead, delegating power to others, and finding other sources of truth besides your unreliable judgement. They're the same techniques to avoid impulsiveness, dumb crush behavior, and other mental distortions.
But you purport to? :)
Power is such a nebulous term and can mean a lot of things. Of course, persuasive power, such as by reputation or actual charisma (not the case here), is a thing. But I think also in this case, at least as much as I can glean from others, Musk already had them at hello.
If nothing else, listen to his Tesla earnings call and take note of how much he talks about the actual current business vs. his fantasy of consumer reboots in 2027.