Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
msn.com
msn.com
Given the bad blood between Musk and Thiel, I wouldn't be surprised if DOGE goes straight at PLTR contracts
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/palantir-plt...
Questionably reformed alcoholic day drinker with zero experience of anything approaching the budget scale and manpower of the DoD "Defense Secretary" if you really want to accurately put the screws in and add context.
I don’t trust republicans in Congress to actually do it. But it could be a historic opportunity for democrats to call their bluff and support the cuts. A once in a century opportunity to end the age of American empire and reorient America for the inevitable multipolar future.
Americans benefit a lot from being the world superpower, a lot more than they know, in ways that aren't apparent until they're gone. In 10 years it will be obvious what a mistake it was to intentionally renounce this position.
Apparently paying so that most of the world is playing by your rules isn’t enough of a benefit and we’d rather the US not have nearly as much leverage.
There is international trade not involving the US which is executed in US dollars, and country's where it's the de facto real currency compared to the local one.
If the global political situation shifts and say, the Euro becomes the global reserve, just how much power the US will have shed is difficult to comprehend.
> advantage Americans really don't appreciate
How can they? They don't get any of that $2150.- per month per citizen? They are told everything must be paid from their taxes? Doublethink is hard?
I think its proponents imagine a world where Russia slowly reassembles territories it lost in the '91 and maybe China takes Taiwan with some short wars and the United States just chills out. In practice the United States will likely aggressively pursue its interests in North, Central and South America as well as the Middle East and do so in a destructive fashion. We can also see people manufacturing consent on various male-audience podcasts for a hot war along the Mexican border in the name of destroying the cartels. The idea that an 8% or even 16% budget cut the pentagon could somehow neuter our ability to project power at our doorstep is naive.
That said, multipolar does not imply equal forces. It just means that one country doesn't make and enforce it's wishes all over the globe
Trump is meeting with Putin without any representatives from Ukraine or Europe, and claiming that Ukraine is at fault for getting invaded and should just surrender everything to Putin.
Since Trump seems to be adversarial to China but very friendly if not outright subservient to Russia, it makes the China-Russia dynamic profoundly different.
I suspect if China invaded Taiwan Trump would shrug, but if China threatened Russia that Trump would come to Russia's aid.
The ethnic and cultural landscape in the Russian “republics” that didn’t gain independence after the fall of the Soviet union is a bit more complicated than the dynamics of US territories so I’m not sure how enlightening that analogy is though. If I were inclined to argue the point I’d bring up reservations as a counterexample.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa...
Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc? We’ve killed millions of civilians in proxy wars over the last 70 years. And while we didn’t capture that territory, according to the sibling comments the justification was to maintain our status as the world’s reserve currency so I don’t see how that’s better.
However you want to frame globalism, nationalism, etc. I think it’s a perfectly rational reason to think, “huh, maybe it doesn’t just have to be pork barrel spending and to invade countries with oil…”
I'm definitely less of a pacifist than I used to be, because of Russia's nonsense, and I know believe in Armed neutrality instead.
But we don't actually need to spend $1 trillion a year to be a sufficient world police. We were absolutely removing Russia's ability to make war for pennies compared to our military spend. Best investment since Alaska.
The US military budget is sized such that we intend to be able to singlehandedly fight off literally the entire rest of the world's expeditionary militaries all at once.
We could cut hundreds of billions off our defense budget and still hold Russia out of sovereign nations, and still keep China out of Taiwan.
But we already did the thing we are doing in Ukraine back during the first gulf war, protecting Kuwait. It may have benefited us that their oil stayed being sold to us, but we were legitimately liberating Kuwait, and it was the right thing to do, and we even had a coalition with boots on the ground. Funny, there weren't a lot of people screaming about a few hundred billion dollars then.
Meanwhile Trump is insisting now that we should pull out of the nordic countries entirely, for some reason.
Weakening Europe was of course good for the US economy. Blowing up our gas pipe was also good for the US economy.
But if you want to follow the official narrative: How democratic is Ukraine now that everyone is dead and the elections have been cancelled a year ago?
You're falling for Russian propaganda. This is the usual Russian land grab. They've done it many times before and they will continue to do it.
This is bizarre. I'm not repeating any propaganda, I just went and looked at a map. You can do the same.
The truth is that NATO has not put any rockets in Eastern Europe, and has dismantled many of those that were in Western Europe.
During the Cold War, Washington used free trade as a bribe to get countries to consult with the Pentagon on security issues. It was able to do that because although it was mostly decoupled from international trade, the American economy was so large that what little international trade it did engage in (as a percentage of total US GDP) was quite valuable to smaller economies.
I guess governance quality in the US could have declined so much since the end of the Cold War that narrow business interests have gotten control of US trade policy, but for many decades Washington cared more about preventing the rise of a competitor (in the Soviet Union) that could eventually challenge it militarily than about using international trade to improve American economic performance -- because the US economy ran well without international trade.
The main reason the US had a dominant navy is that it is the most efficient way for the US to prevent the most potent military threat against it: namely, some other country's navy showing up on American shores and bombarding things or interfering with coastal shipping from one US port to another US port. The fact that this same navy has been useful for keeping the world's sea lanes free from piracy and privateering has been just a nice secondary effect. (Similarly, Britain's global empire was a secondary effect of centuries of British efforts to prevent Dutch, French, Spanish and North African fleets from raiding the British coast and raiding British ships operating near the British coast).
I think there’s a huge natural reason for both parties to get behind significant and aggressive cost cutting, which is the accumulating debt and wasted spending on interest payments. Reductions in costs, even outside mandatory spending, will have an effect on reducing the amount of debt and burden of financing. They will also make the economy more resilient since it will be less sensitive to interest rates. This is critical to retaining a stable economy even when other countries, such as China, are in difficult economic positions.
> A once in a century opportunity to end the age of American empire and reorient America for the inevitable multipolar future.
If there is a multipolar future, I hope the other superpowers are countries that are relatively peaceful and share values like free speech. I don’t trust China to be that country as long as it is led by the CCP, as long as it continues to hold onto (or threaten) territories that aren’t rightfully a part of China (like Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan). It’s in America’s interests to prevent a multipolar future since the only other competitor is China. Maybe that will change - I’d be more willing to accept a future where the other superpowers are Europe or India or whatever.
But any multipolar situation requires the US cut spending and fast. If there is a true competiting power, it will mean America will have to live with the realities of a weaker dollar, high debt, and other headwinds (like low growth, high interest rates, inflation).
Coming back to the revenue reductions: the Trump 2.0 administration is very different than Trump 1.0, and he has a lot of smart, experienced people around him to advise him. I can envision them coming up with plans that are successful in putting America back on the right track. But I certainly don’t “trust” the plan by default, for the same reason you’re bringing up. At the same time, I don’t want to be too negative about it either - we just don’t know enough about it. And maybe that’s okay, since it can be useful for the administration to not reveal their larger strategy publicly for many reasons. So I can’t square it, but I am hopeful about where all this is going. Continuing the trajectory of the last several administrations is worse.
> list of potential cuts totaling about $50 billion from the upcoming budget for fiscal year 2026 to be redirected into President Donald Trump's priorities for national defense.
So no cuts
Palantir is a force-multiplier that replaces a bureaucracy of people with raw data and AI agents.
That's why the stock is up 200% since the election.
Palantir is not a casualty of budget cuts, it's possibly the biggest single beneficiary.
He reduced the amount he's selling by 80%.
I mean, in the sense that the "market" says anything at all.
They're certainly not pricing in the fact that corruption is actually a really poor business model, especially with the current rollback of the regulatory protections: those companies are going to get paid a lot of money to be husks of their former selves. Why deliver anything when you can get paid for not delivering it as well? Why build and retain qualified engineering staff when you don't need them?
- You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore..."
But headlines such as "Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch"
Make me wonder.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, as a point, I wasnt saying there would NOT be elections, but if they were fair and not banana republic elections.