Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s plan for FIRE on a national level

[Telecaster]

The reason why Twitter revenue and valuation has declined so sharply is political, not technical. Elon Musk put his thumb on the politics of Twitter and shifted it sharply to the right. Which is the sole reason why he bought Twitter in the first place.

Shifting Twitter to the right drove away a significant portion of its left-leaning userbase, and more importantly, drove away advertisers. These purely political decisions were disastrous for the financials of Twitter, but apparently that was the price that Elon is willing to pay to push his right wing viewpoints.

Not according to him! Up to sale and even the press release announcing the sale he said he wanted a "digital town square" and "free market of ideas."  He didn't say anything wanting to shift Twitter to the right.   Even in his pitch deck to investors he didn't say anything about being wiling to lose advertisers and userbase.   He said he was going to grow the userbase and by quite dramatic amounts too.

Now, I suppose you could be right.  He could have been lying when he said he was going to grow users and revenues while intending to drive them away.  But in this case, I take him at his word.   I think he really intended to expand Twitter into a much more far reaching and profitable platform.    He just wasn't up to the task.   To be charitable, you could argue he has not yet accomplished his goals, but I don't see how any clear reading of his statements would indicate he intended to tank Twitter as badly as he has. 

Every major tech company has outages. Amazon Web Services has had numerous outages over the years that brought the entire Internet to its knees. But nobody laid off 80% of the workforce at Amazon Web Services.

I don't think that's quite the own you think it is.   Twitter's mission is to sell ads. That's what they do.   Twitter is private, so we have to guess a bit at their financials, but Fidelity (who is an investor in Twitter), estimates their investment has declined by 2/3 since the purchase (almost exactly two years ago).   I don't know how they figure that exactly, but presumably it is IP, goodwill, brand, and an estimate of future revenue.   I'd guess, most of it is the latter.   Regardless, Fidelity has calculated their investment has lost the majority of its value in just two years. 

In other words, regardless of the workforce size, Twitter is doing worse at selling ads than it was before the sale.  Sure, they are keeping ap running but they are failing at everything else.   

On the other hand, we do know AWS's financials and in Q3 they reported a banger:   Operating income up 50%, revenues up 19%, and margins are an eye-watering 38.1%.   

So what's the better metric of efficiency?  Increasing revenues by 19% with 38% margins, or laying off 80% of your workforce which results in worse performance?   If I could only invest in one company, I know which it would be.

And again let's be fair.  Perhaps Musk has not yet succeeded with Twitter.   But you cannot claim he has been successful because he clearly has not been.   

[franklin4]

In other words, regardless of the workforce size, Twitter is doing worse at selling ads than it was before the sale.  Sure, they are keeping ap running but they are failing at everything else.   

On the other hand, we do know AWS's financials and in Q3 they reported a banger:   Operating income up 50%, revenues up 19%, and margins are an eye-watering 38.1%.   

So what's the better metric of efficiency?  Increasing revenues by 19% with 38% margins, or laying off 80% of your workforce which results in worse performance?   If I could only invest in one company, I know which it would be.

And again let's be fair.  Perhaps Musk has not yet succeeded with Twitter.   But you cannot claim he has been successful because he clearly has not been.

Elon had a long discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast Monday. I just finished watching and there is some really interesting discussion. Elon said much of his motivation buying twitter was to stop the censorship. I don't keep track of twitter but I imagine that change has been made - financials are not the only measure of success.

Back to the main topic, there was also discussion about too much regulation and how that can be cut.

[elysianfields]

Anyone who thinks they can cut $2 trillion from the Federal budget has not spent a lot of time looking at what the Federal government spends money on.

Yep.  They'd have to make huge cuts to social security, and/or medicare, and/or the defense budget.  Otherwise, if not cutting those three items, then they'd have to cut almost every other bit of federal spending.

This.

It's simply impossible to balance the budget without:

1.) Cutting government programs and funding for poor people and/or old people.
2.) Cutting the defense budget.
3.) Increasing taxes on rich people.

Guess which one Elon will do?

PTF - I agree with the above. They will also likely mask SS and Medicare cuts and SNAP cuts with zombie concepts like "state block grants". People just don't pay attention to the details. The details is where they will get the $$$.

My guess is they will privatize everything that isn't nailed down and hand the contracts to their billionaire donors, costing taxpayers more  and providing lower quality services. That's why Musk is cosying up.

Yes and a similar program worked well to establish the oligarchs in Russia.

[elysianfields]

I am mostly concerned that the planned changes to the ACA will render it unreliable for people with preexisting conditions. They tried to repeal it last time, and very nearly succeeded. JD Vance is on the record recently saying they want to diversify the risk pools. Without more specificity as to what exactly is proposed, I don't want to presume. But in general, diversified risk pools means that people who are riskier pay more. This means that anyone who FIREs takes a gamble that they aren't going to ever have an expensive health condition.

It's entirely possible that the ACA will remain in place in roughly the current form through this administration. However, it's far from a certainty.

I'm forty, and looking to retire maybe next year. But it would require a big bet that neither me nor my wife get, e.g., cancer, between now and 65 when we'd be eligible for medicare. In fact, there's a 10-20% chance that at least one of us would be diagnosed with a disease like that in that time period. If there's no ACA, we'd effectively have to self-fund the treatment after the first year, because the HCI company would drop us when it is time for renewal. We don't need to guess about this -- we know because this is exactly what happened to people before the ACA.

Now, we have oodles and boodles of money saved up. Maybe enough to self fund treatment for any reasonably foreseeable form of cancer. We also do not have any particular risk factors for this disease or any other. But it's still giving me pause.

This discussion reminded me of this blog post from Living AFI the last time: https://livingafi.com/2016/11/11/obamacares-uncertain-future-and-the-impact-on-early-retirement-planning/

[bacchi]

In other words, regardless of the workforce size, Twitter is doing worse at selling ads than it was before the sale.  Sure, they are keeping ap running but they are failing at everything else.   

On the other hand, we do know AWS's financials and in Q3 they reported a banger:   Operating income up 50%, revenues up 19%, and margins are an eye-watering 38.1%.   

So what's the better metric of efficiency?  Increasing revenues by 19% with 38% margins, or laying off 80% of your workforce which results in worse performance?   If I could only invest in one company, I know which it would be.

And again let's be fair.  Perhaps Musk has not yet succeeded with Twitter.   But you cannot claim he has been successful because he clearly has not been.

Elon had a long discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast Monday. I just finished watching and there is some really interesting discussion. Elon said much of his motivation buying twitter was to stop the censorship. I don't keep track of twitter but I imagine that change has been made - financials are not the only measure of success.

1) He bought Twitter because a judge was going to force him to buy Twitter.

2) He's going to run the Efficiency department. Financials had better be the main measure of success! Or are we really looking for a political commissar and just calling it "efficiency?"

[GuitarStv]

Elon had a long discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast Monday. I just finished watching and there is some really interesting discussion. Elon said much of his motivation buying twitter was to stop the censorship. I don't keep track of twitter but I imagine that change has been made - financials are not the only measure of success.

Musk has a long history of saying one thing and doing another.

Today, Musk's Twitter regularly censors information and people.  Specifically, journalists critical of Musk (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/), and political fundraising accounts for Democrats (https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/8/13/the-right-wing-lurch-of-x-under-elon-musk) have both been censored by Musk.

Censorship under Musk's leadership has changed in nature.  Previously it targeted hate speech and misinformation.  Currently it targets individuals and political groups that Musk doesn't like for censorship.  Whether you like the change or not, it's absolutely untrue to say that Twitter doesn't censor information today.  If it was Musk's goal to control a large number of people for political gains, then his purchase of Twitter has been incredibly successful.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I applaud Derp engaging in a tough discussion in 'the enemy camp'.  With Twitter, sure Musk 'kept it running' with a slimmed down workforce, but what we don't see is what Twitter should have been if the workforce were kept intact.  Ask Ron DeSantis how he feels about Twitter keeping up with other platforms like Twitch, Kick, and YouTube when it comes to 'working well'.  In fact, Musk is still having trouble going live - Elon Musk cancels X town hall event minutes after it started following yet another round of technical problems.

As far as balancing the budget, Musk feeds in to the disruptive chaos that Trump loves.  I don't doubt Musk will be ruthless, and Trump plans to gut  departments and programs.  I'm not as skeptical on the austerity side as I am on the increased income part of the equation, especially since Trump plans to extend the TCJA and cut remaining taxes further.  Tariffs seem to be his only answer.  If the economy slides in to recession and loses a percent of GDP, we will have cut government spending and have nothing to show for it.

I won't be surprised one bit if we get massive inflation and continued trillion dollar deficits.  Instead of sovereign wealth, the US will be worse off in four years in every single way - less social programs, lower GDP, higher inflation, more pollution, crumbling infrastructure, less education attainment, and a lower standing in the world order.  But we will have less illegal immigration, just like Trump pulled off in 2020 (nevermind that Covid lent a helping hand back then), and he'll probably tout it as a success.  On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

[dandarc]

I applaud Derp engaging in a tough discussion in 'the enemy camp'.  With Twitter, sure Musk 'kept it running' with a slimmed down workforce, but what we don't see is what Twitter should have been if the workforce were kept intact.  Ask Ron DeSantis how he feels about Twitter keeping up with other platforms like Twitch, Kick, and YouTube when it comes to 'working well'.  In fact, Musk is still having trouble going live - Elon Musk cancels X town hall event minutes after it started following yet another round of technical problems.

As far as balancing the budget, Musk feeds in to the disruptive chaos that Trump loves.  I don't doubt Musk will be ruthless, and Trump plans to gut  departments and programs.  I'm not as skeptical on the austerity side as I am on the increased income part of the equation, especially since Trump plans to extend the TCJA and cut remaining taxes further.  Tariffs seem to be his only answer.  If the economy slides in to recession and loses a percent of GDP, we will have cut government spending and have nothing to show for it.

I won't be surprised one bit if we get massive inflation and continued trillion dollar deficits.  Instead of sovereign wealth, the US will be worse off in four years in every single way - less social programs, lower GDP, higher inflation, more pollution, crumbling infrastructure, less education attainment, and a lower standing in the world order.  But we will have less illegal immigration, just like Trump pulled off in 2020 (nevermind that Covid lent a helping hand back then), and he'll probably tout it as a success.  On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

I pointed out to my sister that there's a potential for a lot of babies to starve if they do the cuts and WIC lands on the chopping block. "Oh they'll never do that". Never? I mean I personally think probably not, but "never". I support WIC in a large red state and I've seen other good things go by the wayside. Then she admitted the bigotry is what played with her we're just done here.

[GuitarStv]

On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

Duterte's war on 'drugs' involves regular police raids that gun down innocent and guilty alike with little to no oversight and no legal process.  These attacks are regularly targeted against political enemies and people Duterte just doesn't like.  Duterte has openly said that he will kill human rights defenders ("I'll kill you along with drug dealers") and has encouraged attacks, threats, and harassment of them.  Duterte's government has killed at least 12 journalists, 8 labour rights activists, and 76 land/environmental rights defenders in his war on 'drugs'.

This is your positive side to Trump's rule, is it?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

Duterte's war on 'drugs' involves regular police raids that gun down innocent and guilty alike with little to no oversight and no legal process.  These attacks are regularly targeted against political enemies and people Duterte just doesn't like.  Duterte has openly said that he will kill human rights defenders ("I'll kill you along with drug dealers") and has encouraged attacks, threats, and harassment of them.  Duterte's government has killed at least 12 journalists, 8 labour rights activists, and 76 land/environmental rights defenders in his war on 'drugs'.

This is your positive side to Trump's rule, is it?

I'm doing the best I can to try to squint and see positive.  I think drug use is a massive problem among America's youth.  We all know that Trump is going to brutalize American norms in pursuit of achieving the mandates he believes he has been given.  Maybe not quite as bad as Duterte and Xi, but Trump extolls how great and effective these guys are, so we'll get to see how far an unchecked government can go, especially in Republican states like Texas.  I'm just hoping that the ends justify the means, because, I'd argue, we're getting the means either way.  Trump has repeatedly said that the only way to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling is to set an example that 'it's not worth the risk'.

[Tigerpine]

On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

Duterte's war on 'drugs' involves regular police raids that gun down innocent and guilty alike with little to no oversight and no legal process.  These attacks are regularly targeted against political enemies and people Duterte just doesn't like.  Duterte has openly said that he will kill human rights defenders ("I'll kill you along with drug dealers") and has encouraged attacks, threats, and harassment of them.  Duterte's government has killed at least 12 journalists, 8 labour rights activists, and 76 land/environmental rights defenders in his war on 'drugs'.

This is your positive side to Trump's rule, is it?

I'm doing the best I can to try to squint and see positive.  I think drug use is a massive problem among America's youth.  We all know that Trump is going to brutalize American norms in pursuit of achieving the mandates he believes he has been given.  Maybe not quite as bad as Duterte and Xi, but Trump extolls how great and effective these guys are, so we'll get to see how far an unchecked government can go, especially in Republican states like Texas.  I'm just hoping that the ends justify the means, because, I'd argue, we're getting the means either way.  Trump has repeatedly said that the only way to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling is to set an example that 'it's not worth the risk'.

Your sentiment is entirely understandable, but if the results do indeed "justify the means" that just encourages future governments to adopt the same means until they truly become intolerable.  I sincerely hope that the results have the opposite effect, showing enough people that unethical means only bring bad outcomes that the next generation is inoculated against them.

[Scandium]

Laying off 80% of the company and still being able to keep the platform running about the same was a stunning technical accomplishment. When Elon fired all those people, everyone said it was idiotic, that the website would break down and cease to function because the people who knew how to keep it running were all gone. But Twitter kept running. Yet again, Elon pulled off the impossible.

I don't know where you get this nonsense.. It's either gullible, or uninformed. He didn't "shift it to the right", like it was a conscious decision. He just fired the moderation people, which let to an inflow of (actual) nazis and their content. And to nobody's surprise; Pepsi don't want their ads next to gas chamber jokes! I bet communist was and still can post on twitter, it just hasn't been a problem in the same way. Somehow discussion on the means of production isn't quite as offensive

Twitter kept running? No it doesn't! It help crash a presidential campaign! It's worth <1/4 what it was. Saying "kept running fine" when it cost the owner 30 billion fucking dollars?? That's like saying the fire didn't damage my house, because I still have a heap of 8 bricks left..

everyone said it was idiotic,

They said it was idiotic, because it was. And the results shows why.. QED: Elon is an idiot. Watch him at the Bund rally to see further proof 

[Telecaster]

Elon had a long discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast Monday. I just finished watching and there is some really interesting discussion. Elon said much of his motivation buying twitter was to stop the censorship. I don't keep track of twitter but I imagine that change has been made - financials are not the only measure of success.

Back to the main topic, there was also discussion about too much regulation and how that can be cut.

Indeed he did say that prior to purchasing Twitter.  He was quite clear on that point.   He also said that reduced moderation would lead to more user engagement and higher ad revenues.  Instead the opposite happened.   Is getting the wrong outcome a good measure of a success?   Anybody can break stuff.  Building things is hard.   

Thing is, I've seen this movie about cutting regulations a bunch of times before, most recently in 2016.  Trump didn't like environmental regulations, so he cut head count at EPA.   So EPA was doing all the things was before but slower.   Which is bad for business who need EPA to act.   Trump doesn't like taxes so he cut head count at IRS.  So IRS has to do all the same work, but not as well.  Which hurts everyone who pays taxes.  Trump tried to roll back CAFE standards because it is a regulation (let the free market provide clean air!).   He got pushback from, wait for it, the automakers because they had already made big investments in meeting the existing standards and didn't want to go backwards.   Trump want to get rid of the ACA (let the free market cure your asthma!), but never proposed any alternatives.   Instead all he did was nibble around the edges, like shortening the open enrollment periods.  That's fine unless you need healthcare, then it makes your life worse.

My eyes glaze over when ever a politician promises to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, or promises to cut regulations.   They are just buzz words used to excuse laziness and lack of critical thinking. 

[skp]

I applaud Derp engaging in a tough discussion in 'the enemy camp'.  With Twitter, sure Musk 'kept it running' with a slimmed down workforce, but what we don't see is what Twitter should have been if the workforce were kept intact.  Ask Ron DeSantis how he feels about Twitter keeping up with other platforms like Twitch, Kick, and YouTube when it comes to 'working well'.  In fact, Musk is still having trouble going live - Elon Musk cancels X town hall event minutes after it started following yet another round of technical problems.

As far as balancing the budget, Musk feeds in to the disruptive chaos that Trump loves.  I don't doubt Musk will be ruthless, and Trump plans to gut  departments and programs.  I'm not as skeptical on the austerity side as I am on the increased income part of the equation, especially since Trump plans to extend the TCJA and cut remaining taxes further.  Tariffs seem to be his only answer.  If the economy slides in to recession and loses a percent of GDP, we will have cut government spending and have nothing to show for it.

I won't be surprised one bit if we get massive inflation and continued trillion dollar deficits.  Instead of sovereign wealth, the US will be worse off in four years in every single way - less social programs, lower GDP, higher inflation, more pollution, crumbling infrastructure, less education attainment, and a lower standing in the world order.  But we will have less illegal immigration, just like Trump pulled off in 2020 (nevermind that Covid lent a helping hand back then), and he'll probably tout it as a success.  On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

I pointed out to my sister that there's a potential for a lot of babies to starve if they do the cuts and WIC lands on the chopping block. "Oh they'll never do that". Never? I mean I personally think probably not, but "never". I support WIC in a large red state and I've seen other good things go by the wayside. Then she admitted the bigotry is what played with her we're just done here.

I have a friend who worked at WIC. She told me that they get a budget of X every year and even if they have a surplus they have to find a way to spend it or their budget would get cut. This is how government waste occurs. I have no problem with WIC but it could be run more efficiently.

[Telecaster]

I have a friend who worked at WIC. She told me that they get a budget of X every year and even if they have a surplus they have to find a way to spend it or their budget would get cut. This is how government waste occurs. I have no problem with WIC but it could be run more efficiently.

Every single government agencies can be run more efficiently.  All of them.   For the most part, the people who hate the inefficiencies the most are the people who work at those agencies.

Cutting the budget does not make things more efficient.   It usually just makes things less effective and equally as inefficient.   

When a politician says they are more going to make things more efficient without saying HOW they are going to do it, the are really just saying  "I'm too lazy to figure out the problem."   

[jrhampt]

I applaud Derp engaging in a tough discussion in 'the enemy camp'.  With Twitter, sure Musk 'kept it running' with a slimmed down workforce, but what we don't see is what Twitter should have been if the workforce were kept intact.  Ask Ron DeSantis how he feels about Twitter keeping up with other platforms like Twitch, Kick, and YouTube when it comes to 'working well'.  In fact, Musk is still having trouble going live - Elon Musk cancels X town hall event minutes after it started following yet another round of technical problems.

As far as balancing the budget, Musk feeds in to the disruptive chaos that Trump loves.  I don't doubt Musk will be ruthless, and Trump plans to gut  departments and programs.  I'm not as skeptical on the austerity side as I am on the increased income part of the equation, especially since Trump plans to extend the TCJA and cut remaining taxes further.  Tariffs seem to be his only answer.  If the economy slides in to recession and loses a percent of GDP, we will have cut government spending and have nothing to show for it.

I won't be surprised one bit if we get massive inflation and continued trillion dollar deficits.  Instead of sovereign wealth, the US will be worse off in four years in every single way - less social programs, lower GDP, higher inflation, more pollution, crumbling infrastructure, less education attainment, and a lower standing in the world order.  But we will have less illegal immigration, just like Trump pulled off in 2020 (nevermind that Covid lent a helping hand back then), and he'll probably tout it as a success.  On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

I pointed out to my sister that there's a potential for a lot of babies to starve if they do the cuts and WIC lands on the chopping block. "Oh they'll never do that". Never? I mean I personally think probably not, but "never". I support WIC in a large red state and I've seen other good things go by the wayside. Then she admitted the bigotry is what played with her we're just done here.

I have a friend who worked at WIC. She told me that they get a budget of X every year and even if they have a surplus they have to find a way to spend it or their budget would get cut. This is how government waste occurs. I have no problem with WIC but it could be run more efficiently.

Eh, this is how my megacorp works too.  Most large orgs *could* be run more efficiently.

[reeshau]

Personally, I think Elon Musk will cut $2T from the government just after he launches the $30k robotaxi.

[dandarc]

I applaud Derp engaging in a tough discussion in 'the enemy camp'.  With Twitter, sure Musk 'kept it running' with a slimmed down workforce, but what we don't see is what Twitter should have been if the workforce were kept intact.  Ask Ron DeSantis how he feels about Twitter keeping up with other platforms like Twitch, Kick, and YouTube when it comes to 'working well'.  In fact, Musk is still having trouble going live - Elon Musk cancels X town hall event minutes after it started following yet another round of technical problems.

As far as balancing the budget, Musk feeds in to the disruptive chaos that Trump loves.  I don't doubt Musk will be ruthless, and Trump plans to gut  departments and programs.  I'm not as skeptical on the austerity side as I am on the increased income part of the equation, especially since Trump plans to extend the TCJA and cut remaining taxes further.  Tariffs seem to be his only answer.  If the economy slides in to recession and loses a percent of GDP, we will have cut government spending and have nothing to show for it.

I won't be surprised one bit if we get massive inflation and continued trillion dollar deficits.  Instead of sovereign wealth, the US will be worse off in four years in every single way - less social programs, lower GDP, higher inflation, more pollution, crumbling infrastructure, less education attainment, and a lower standing in the world order.  But we will have less illegal immigration, just like Trump pulled off in 2020 (nevermind that Covid lent a helping hand back then), and he'll probably tout it as a success.  On the positive side, I do think Trump will take a hard line and reduce the US drug problem, maybe even along the lines of Duterte.

I pointed out to my sister that there's a potential for a lot of babies to starve if they do the cuts and WIC lands on the chopping block. "Oh they'll never do that". Never? I mean I personally think probably not, but "never". I support WIC in a large red state and I've seen other good things go by the wayside. Then she admitted the bigotry is what played with her we're just done here.

I have a friend who worked at WIC. She told me that they get a budget of X every year and even if they have a surplus they have to find a way to spend it or their budget would get cut. This is how government waste occurs. I have no problem with WIC but it could be run more efficiently.

You can say that about literally any operation anywhere. The question is to what degree, and I'll tell you right now there just is not much waste in the WIC program overall. People think there's 1/3rd of all government budgets everywhere along these lines of "use it or lose it", but in my experience that is at least an order of magnitude larger than the case actually is.

What WIC specifically and desperately needs right now is more people out in the field, but at least in the state I'm in, between nearly full employment and horrific difficulty in setting a wage that will attract qualified people, the problem just gets worse and worse (and much more so when we have economic problems hit, because participation goes up dramatically and quickly when that happens). So if you gave our state WIC program another $20 million in administrative budget with no restrictions as to where it could be spent and could magically lift all the hurdles to get wages and positions approved, all of it would be spent pretty much immediately on additional staff and increasing pay in an attempt to retain the fantastic people we are very fortunate to already have.

Where MAJOR efficiency gains could be had would be to drop income requirements for the program. But that's, frankly, a pipe-dream. Drop all our paternalistic nonsense in approach to welfare and the program could become "want help feeding yourself and your baby? Here's some money - and some classes, breastfeeding support that might interest you". That would be a huge efficiency gain. As it is, we're constantly needing to figure out how to get more done with less staff - literal decades of that and things are pretty damn efficient already.

[skp]

[

Eh, this is how my megacorp works too.  Most large orgs *could* be run more efficiently.
[/quote]
Eh, like no biggie???  Waste away?  This kind of stuff effects how people vote.
I am probably never ever going to vote for another library levy.  They insisted they didn't have enough money and were going to cut library hours.  The levy passed.  What did they do with the money?  Built a huge administration building
I am probably never going to vote for another park levy.  Why.  They sold the voters on a huge levy, saying they were going to stockpile money to purchase interesting peices of property for conservation.  The county resoundingly voted yes.  Then we find out, you aren't allowed to stockpile money.   Whatever you collect taxes you have to spend THAT year.  So now instead of property, we have multiple fancy lodges that people can rent out for parties, a climbing wall, a zip line.....

[Telecaster]

Eh, this is how my megacorp works too.  Most large orgs *could* be run more efficiently.

Totally.  Donald Trump went bankrupt multiple times trying to run a casino.  I'm not sure he gets to claim the efficiency mantel. 

[dandarc]

I try to encourage people at our church (there's a "no on any change" contingent even at our supposedly progressive church) to look for the stuff that you do like, and realize that there are people around you that do like any stuff you don't. Granted, church votes on an overall budget in an environment where money is a constraint (not to the extent people pretend it is, but that's way out of scope), but there's gotta be a lot to like about your library system and there are benefits to that new building for someone out there.

[Scandium]

we have multiple fancy lodges that people can rent out for parties, a climbing wall, a zip line.....

and this is a problem why?

[Scandium]

Personally, I think Elon Musk will cut $2T from the government just after he launches the $30k robotaxi.

What if the "robot" driving is an illegal immigrant in a carboard box robot costume, being paid $2/hr?

[skp]

we have multiple fancy lodges that people can rent out for parties, a climbing wall, a zip line.....

and this is a problem why?

This is a personal finance forum.  Everyone here doesn't spend every dime they get.  We all to a varying degree put money away.  Why should the government be any different.  Why does the park district have to spend every dime it gets that fiscal year and is not allowed to stockpile  it for the purpose the voters were told it was for-  land for conservation.  (Plus I feel lied to)

 In my WIC example.  If there is money left over at the end of the year, you don't decrease the budget.  That only encourages waste. 
It seems to me the government is incentiviizing wasting money

[classicrando]

Personally, I think Elon Musk will cut $2T from the government just after he launches the $30k robotaxi.

What if the "robot" driving is an illegal immigrant in a carboard box robot costume, being paid $2/hr?

Sort of like that Amazon AI cashier tech, where the AI in question was an Actual Indian worker?

[Scandium]

  We all to a varying degree put money away.  Why should the government be any different. 

well, maybe because they're different?

And usually government issue bonds for these purposes (buying land)

[sixwings]

I thought about putting this in Off Topic because it is a political thread, but I think it is also related to FIRE philosophy so I decided to put it here.

It seems like Elon Musk and Donald Trump have a plan to do the following:

• Massively cut government spending by ~$2T, balance the federal budget, and create a surplus.
• Establish a sovereign wealth fund similar to what Norway has, funded by tariffs and the budget surplus.
• Use the sovereign wealth fund to invest in “great national endeavors” in a sustainable way that doesn’t drive up the national debt.

I for one am all for this plan. I wish the United States was more like Norway and had more investments than debts. The United States spent $726B on debt last year. That money could have gone to provide free healthcare or something, instead it just got burned up into thin air. Every year, the debt payments just go higher, diverting money from our social safety net and lowering the standard of living.

Establishing a sovereign wealth fund can in theory enable social programs to be funded in a long term sustainable way, as is done in Norway:

• Be fiscally responsible. Have a budget surplus.
• Use the budget surplus to fund a sovereign wealth fund which will continue to grow every year as long as there is a surplus.
• Use the sovereign wealth fund to fund social programs in a long term sustainable way (i.e. 2-3% withdrawal rate), increasing the standard of living for the entire country.

This is FIRE on a national level. I am super excited about this plan!

If there is anyone who can slash ~$2T from the federal budget, it is Elon Musk. He is just as ruthless and effective at slashing expenditures as the best mustachians on this forum. He lived on “a dollar a day” grocery budget for a period of time in his youth. Under his leadership, SpaceX has been massively more financially efficient than legacy aerospace companies, while also innovating faster. Unlike many other auto companies, Tesla has always had more assets than liabilities and funds its growth in a financially responsible way. He somehow managed to fire 80% of the workforce at Twitter and the platform still runs about the same.

If there is anyone in the world who can implement this bold plan, it is Elon Musk, with the support of the US executive branch and congress.

Most of us here despise Donald Trump, but the silver lining of the incoming Trump administration is that we finally have the opportunity to implement FIRE on a national level.

However, many people, including Elon Musk, say that the proposed austerity measures will have a “negative impact on the economy.” Personally, I was willing to make the ruthless sacrifices necessary to build my own sovereign wealth fund, and support similar sacrifices at the national level if those short-term sacrifices can lead to long-term prosperity.

Thoughts?

Related links:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-cut-2-233018038.html

https://www.investopedia.com/sovereign-wealth-fund-biden-trump-8709282

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4222216-elon-musk-federal-budget-cuts-trump-economy

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/elon-musk-once-lived-spending-1-a-day-on-food.html

Edit:

Here’s an interesting article which talks about past efforts to make the government more efficient:
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/10/trump-and-musk-want-create-government-efficiency-commission-its-not-new-idea/400693

When they talk about cutting costs, it's going to be to regulatory bodies like the IRS, EPA and FDA so Musk and his rich oligarch buddies can fuck stuff up and pass the consequences down to individuals. This is going to be a huge smash and grab.

[Herbert Derp]

Sometimes I wonder if my viewpoints are just too out of line with other people. For example, I am genuinely optimistic that Elon Musk might be able to ruthlessly slash expenses from the federal budget. If you read my journal, you would know that I am a ruthless cost cutter and a relentless optimizer. It has always been one of my dreams that someone could take this philosophy and apply it to the federal government. If someone put me into the federal government, I would try to do exactly what Elon Musk claims he wants to do.

Apparently, people here are too cynical to even believe that such cost cutting is even possible at all, or that people who say they want to cut costs actually want to cut costs. Honestly, I was a bit surprised about this, especially coming from this forum. Well, I say I want to cut costs and I actually want to cut costs.

[Kris]

Sometimes I wonder if my viewpoints are just too out of line with other people. For example, I am genuinely optimistic that Elon Musk might be able to ruthlessly slash expenses from the federal budget. If you read my journal, you would know that I am a ruthless cost cutter and a relentless optimizer. It has always been one of my dreams that someone could take this philosophy and apply it to the federal government. If someone put me into the federal government, I would try to do exactly what Elon Musk claims he wants to do.

Apparently, people here are too cynical to even believe that such cost cutting is even possible at all, or that people who say they want to cut costs actually want to cut costs. Honestly, I was a bit surprised about this, especially coming from this forum. Well, I say I want to cut costs and I actually want to cut costs.

I can't imagine what about Elon Musk's personality leads you to believe he will do that, instead of basically weakening all of the regulatory agencies he doesn't want to have to deal with, gut any agencies he has any personal beef with, and push for further tax cuts for billionaires.

[Herbert Derp]

I can't imagine what about Elon Musk's personality leads you to believe he will do that, instead of basically weakening all of the regulatory agencies he doesn't want to have to deal with, gut any agencies he has any personal beef with, and push for further tax cuts for billionaires.

I honestly believe, from the bottom of my heart, that like me, Elon Musk is a ruthless and relentless cost cutter who is obsessed with efficiency for its own sake. And that he has the track record to prove that he is one of the very best in the world at it. I genuinely admire this aspect of his personality.

We are free to disagree on this point, but that’s where I stand.

[Kris]

I can't imagine what about Elon Musk's personality leads you to believe he will do that, instead of basically weakening all of the regulatory agencies he doesn't want to have to deal with, gut any agencies he has any personal beef with, and push for further tax cuts for billionaires.

I honestly believe, from the bottom of my heart, that like me, Elon Musk is a ruthless and relentless cost cutter who is obsessed with efficiency for its own sake. And that he has the track record to prove that he is one of the very best in the world at it. I genuinely admire this aspect of his personality.

We are free to disagree on this point, but that’s where I stand.

Yeah, we are definitely going to have to disagree on that.

[Herbert Derp]

I'm all for funding great national endeavors like feeding and educating the most vulnerable among us. A sovereign wealth fund is great if you have it. Want to guess how long it will take to pay for US healthcare from a sovereign wealth fund? (1/2.5%)*4.5 trillion is 160 trillion dollars. Somewhere between 1/4 to 2x the amount of money in the world and 5x the US GDP. I hope we have a bigger savings rate than 2 trillion a year or we might be here a while.

This makes sense. I am not optimistic that a fund of that size could be created, so it doesn’t seem like the United States could become FIRE and live on 3% per year like we can. Not that that even makes sense in the first place, because if everyone in the US stopped working then how would our securities be worth anything in the first place?

So it is not exactly clear what great benefits can be achieved from a sovereign wealth fund for a country the size of the United States. I agree that it won’t fund free healthcare.

That said, I am still all for ruthlessly increasing government efficiency.

[GuitarStv]

I can't imagine what about Elon Musk's personality leads you to believe he will do that, instead of basically weakening all of the regulatory agencies he doesn't want to have to deal with, gut any agencies he has any personal beef with, and push for further tax cuts for billionaires.

I honestly believe, from the bottom of my heart, that like me, Elon Musk is a ruthless and relentless cost cutter who is obsessed with efficiency for its own sake. And that he has the track record to prove that he is one of the very best in the world at it. I genuinely admire this aspect of his personality.

We are free to disagree on this point, but that’s where I stand.

Musk has a long history of abusing his employees.  Unsafe working conditions, union busting, termination without notice/cause, punishing employees for discussing their pay or working conditions, firing employees who criticized management, failing to pay due severance, race discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.

Optimization is one thing . . . mistreatment of people in order to enrich yourself is something quite different.  His history of the latter should raise some concerns.

[bacchi]

Sometimes I wonder if my viewpoints are just too out of line with other people. For example, I am genuinely optimistic that Elon Musk might be able to ruthlessly slash expenses from the federal budget. If you read my journal, you would know that I am a ruthless cost cutter and a relentless optimizer. It has always been one of my dreams that someone could take this philosophy and apply it to the federal government. If someone put me into the federal government, I would try to do exactly what Elon Musk claims he wants to do.

Apparently, people here are too cynical to even believe that such cost cutting is even possible at all, or that people who say they want to cut costs actually want to cut costs. Honestly, I was a bit surprised about this, especially coming from this forum. Well, I say I want to cut costs and I actually want to cut costs.

Frugality is the means to an end (FI) on this site but income level is the oft forgotten part of it. It's much easier to reach FI when you're a software developer rather than a social worker. Not impossible, of course, but a $120k salary can gloss over more mistakes.

To bring this back to the federal debt, it's much easier to fix our over-spending problem when we have a good income. That is, if taxes are constantly cut, then we have to cut more and more expenses. That is one aspect of the problem we face and it's usually Republicans who do the cutting and who then proceed to over-spend as usual ("[The 2003 Republican] Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor." -- McCain), though Democrats aren't afraid to spend money too.

The real root of the problem, however, is that the changes you want, and the changes that Elon wants, are going to be wildly different from what others want.

[achvfi]

OP must have benefited from Tesla stock or other Elons ventures. If so I understand how that can color your views. 

First there needs to be will to reduce expenses or reduce debt. There is no indication Trump or Elon is focussed on that.

Both are born rich, self centered, vindictive and narcissistic. They will do what personally benefits them or stokes their ego.

[PeteD01]

I can't imagine what about Elon Musk's personality leads you to believe he will do that, instead of basically weakening all of the regulatory agencies he doesn't want to have to deal with, gut any agencies he has any personal beef with, and push for further tax cuts for billionaires.

I honestly believe, from the bottom of my heart, that like me, Elon Musk is a ruthless and relentless cost cutter who is obsessed with efficiency for its own sake. And that he has the track record to prove that he is one of the very best in the world at it. I genuinely admire this aspect of his personality.

We are free to disagree on this point, but that’s where I stand.

Well, there is a problem for the GOP and MAGA and Musk will run into this: we are basically looking at some sort of defund MAGA campaign - MAGA is not going to like it and Musk's personality isn't going to make a difference here.

Transfer payments, Medicare, Social Security, SNAP etc., have become an ever increasing part of the income of non-metro residents.

Currently, transfer payments which go largely to rural areas are around 2/3 of the federal budget and the payments continue to increase.

About 1/4 of rural incomes are now from transfer payment and they got where they are from negligible amounts to 3.8 trillion as of 2022.

The causes are largely twofold: 1. a persisting political and economical environment of wage repression 2. large increases of healthcare and other costs.

Musk must have looked at the numbers and warned of hardships which is obviously a grotesque understatement.

As for metropolitan areas, transfer payments are of negligible economic importance - in fact, a massive reduction in the federal budget by way of eliminating the bulk of transfer payments would likely greatly benefit metro areas by stopping the bleed of tax dollars to the countryside.

And here is the problem: Musk´s efficiency plans could well be summed up as mainly a rural defunding campaign and that is equivalent to kicking MAGA in the teeth.

Of course, there is another way to decrease the share of transfer payments of rural incomes but that would be increases of work and other income. It goes without saying that decreasing transfer payments amounts to economic repression of rural America and is counterproductive if the objective is to increase economic activity in order to increase wages.

So that is the problem the GOP is facing, MAGA must suffer much more than their perceived liberal enemies living in the cities and blue states which would be able to substitute loss of federal $$ with state generated tax income.

In short, the numbers show that it is MAGA who is in the incoming administration's crosshairs and it's going to be interesting once MAGA finds out who the mark was all along (and we haven't even talked about the proposed massively inflationary tariff policies):

The Great Transfer-mation

Not long ago, money from government programs like Social Security or SNAP — known as transfers — featured minimally in Americans’ personal income.

Only people in areas of chronic economic distress depended on transfers for meaningful shares of their income in the 1970s.

By the 2000s, transfer income featured much more prominently in local economies.

Today, the majority of counties rely on transfers for a significant portion of their income, while low-transfer places have gone from the norm to nearly extinct.

Americans derive their income from three main sources: work, investments, and transfers. Transfer income comes from government programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits.

In 2022, Americans received $3.8 trillion in transfer income from the government. If that were split evenly across the entire US population, it would be about $11,500 per person.

https://eig.org/great-transfermation/

[GuitarStv]

Sometimes I wonder if my viewpoints are just too out of line with other people.

I'm on a crusade to better learn how all this works. Maybe I just drank the Wait But Why: What's Our Problem? kool-aid too deeply, but I think information polarization is a massive, massive problem. Especially for "normal" people that don't have the money and power and influence to tip the scales of media organizations (including news, social, etc.)

So... my main question to you: Where do you go for daily news or information?

Sub-question: Do you have a process for avoiding biases / slants in your sources for news?

This is a bit auxiliary because we all have a lifetime of influence that builds our own biases that create filters in us that make us say "NPR looks like it just gives me the news, Fox is all lies" or "NPR is way too liberal, Fox is where I can get information." (Those are just popular examples - I am not suggesting you read Fox News, but I would like to know where you do read it.)

I don't believe that US news sources are generally very good.  I read the BBC, CBC, and the AP.  If I had to pick a US news organization . . . maybe NPR or Forbes?  Reading from multiple sources is usually a good idea, and it's worth checking your news sources against a website like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/ to get an idea of how much stock you should put in the reporting that they do.

[neo von retorch]

I don't believe that US news sources are generally very good.  I read the BBC, CBC, and the AP.  If I had to pick a US news organization . . . maybe NPR or Forbes?  Reading from multiple sources is usually a good idea, and it's worth checking your news sources against a website like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/ to get an idea of how much stock you should put in the reporting that they do.

Exactly. My primary news source is AP, but I like to keep BBC in the rotation, and occasionally check NPR. I even check Fox News from time to time, less so for "information" but simply to see how it is presented. The imbalance is striking, of course. (Another source/reference for media bias: Media Bias Chart | AllSides)

Today I learned about Louder for Crowder, which is quite far right. And it's quite clever (said with disdain) as it cherry-picks relatively far left news publications, brings out the most "extreme" quotes and stories, and paints a picture of far left extremism. But it has all liberal sources so you can trust it! I had an inkling the "edge" news worked vaguely like this but definitely learned a bit more about how the sausage is made.

With Fox, it can be less blatant, but both more digestible and effective. One striking example I saw was discussion of Harris and Trump's economic plans (based on analysis from economics professors). While AP provided numbers for both candidates, and let it be glaringly apparent that Trump would balloon the deficit, Fox shared the same story with a very different slant. Basically it said "both candidates could increase the deficit, see what Harris has planned" and goes on to highlight Harris' deficit increase with the worst numbers of the range while completely omitting any numbers for Trump, letting the reader take away a very different message.

[Herbert Derp]

I'm on a crusade to better learn how all this works. Maybe I just drank the Wait But Why: What's Our Problem? kool-aid too deeply, but I think information polarization is a massive, massive problem. Especially for "normal" people that don't have the money and power and influence to tip the scales of media organizations (including news, social, etc.)

So... my main question to you: Where do you go for daily news or information?

Sub-question: Do you have a process for avoiding biases / slants in your sources for news?

This is a bit auxiliary because we all have a lifetime of influence that builds our own biases that create filters in us that make us say "NPR looks like it just gives me the news, Fox is all lies" or "NPR is way too liberal, Fox is where I can get information." (Those are just popular examples - I am not suggesting you read Fox News, but I would like to know where you do read it.)

In no particular order:

• r/technology
• r/worldnews
• r/space
• r/spacex
• The Guardian
• CNN
• Fox News
• Al Jazeera
• Global Times (China)
• The Jerusalem Post
• World Socialist Web Site
• Foreign Affairs
• Ars Technica
• MIT Technology Review
• TechCrunch
• SpaceNews
• CleanTechnica
• Electrek
• InsideEVs
• Peter Zeihan

I read the news obsessively, for hours a day, every day. I am just very curious about what is going on in the world and the topics that I am interested in.

My general philosophy is that all news is propaganda, so the only way to understand the “truth” is to listen to as many disparate sources as possible and separate the signal from the noise.

When something controversial is going on, I try to read the narrative from both sides, for example I started following r/israel and r/palestine during the Gaza war, and r/politics and r/conservative during the election.

I avoid Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and other algorithmic feeds like the plague. I have no desire to let an algorithm think for me.

[Herbert Derp]

Well, I guess I would say "order" kind of matters, and maybe where you "start" your day or if you have a "primary" news source. Presumably you do not consume all of those Reddit feeds and read a dozen stories on each of those sites each day. Do you start somewhere to get a sense of headlines before trying to pick a few opposing sites to read from?

If you really do read all that you listed every day, consuming all stories, you might be AI.

Screen Time says I’ve currently got 9h 39m per day over the last week. I spent most of it reading news, or recently, engaging in this forum. For corporate and state media, I spend the majority of my time on The Guardian, CNN, and Fox News, the other ones are much less frequently consumed by me. I can’t say that any one of them is my favorite. They just have different flavors to me. I read all of the subreddits and technology blogs on a daily basis.

I guess Reddit, CNN, and Ars Technica are the closest thing I have to a starting point. Also I frequently start from Google or DuckDuckGo to find a topic I’m interested in, and use that as my entry point to news websites. But just as often I’ll just go to cnn.com or whatever directly and read what’s on the front page.

Historically I’ve spent anywhere from 4 to 8 hours per day on my smartphone, and it is almost always reading news. It has been like this every day for at least the last decade.

Also it’s worth pointing out that I left the United States two years ago and all of the people I interact with on a daily basis have significantly different views than the typical American. I have worked in an elite corporate office environment for the past 12 years, and the viewpoints expressed therein are also different from your typical American. I also spent some time living out of my car in a hippie commune in the woods.

[Telecaster]

Apparently, people here are too cynical to even believe that such cost cutting is even possible at all, or that people who say they want to cut costs actually want to cut costs. Honestly, I was a bit surprised about this, especially coming from this forum. Well, I say I want to cut costs and I actually want to cut costs.

Everybody wants to cut costs.   There's a saying where I come from "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, and I'm a damn fool."*

Trump already ran on this platform in 2016.  He promised to cut regulations by 70% and balance the budget in four years.   Even taking into account COVD, those promises were a big bunch of bullshit.   How dumb are we if we believe him a second time?   


*I paraphrased that last bit. 

[rocketpj]

Anyone who imagines Trump is going to do ANYTHING whatsoever that doesn't benefit him and his various cronies is dreaming in technicolor.  He has never accomplished anything that couldn't be summed up as 'ripping off a lot of people for large amounts of money'.  This will be no different.

Musk has been useful to him for getting into power, but he'll end up in the wood chipper just like everyone else who bellies up to the trough.

[reeshau]

Yeah, will be a shame to have Susie Wiles's name dragged through the mud in 18 months or so.  She seems quite sane--not a trait for longevity in a Trump White House.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

My suspicion is that Trump will use "efficiency" as cover for closing the Department of Education.  Mostly that means students who need financial aid for college (Pell Grants) will lose it (perhaps in both senses).

If I could make +400% to +800% per year like the U.S. government, I'd put a ton of money there until the returns fell.  The most profitable thing the U.S. government can do is fund the IRS.

"That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues."
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444

[partgypsy]

Anyone who thinks they can cut $2 trillion from the Federal budget has not spent a lot of time looking at what the Federal government spends money on.

Yep.  They'd have to make huge cuts to social security, and/or medicare, and/or the defense budget.  Otherwise, if not cutting those three items, then they'd have to cut almost every other bit of federal spending.

This.

It's simply impossible to balance the budget without:

1.) Cutting government programs and funding for poor people and/or old people.
2.) Cutting the defense budget.
3.) Increasing taxes on rich people.

Guess which one Elon will do?

This right here.

[partgypsy]

And this makes you think he'd be a good Cabinet member of Efficiency how exactly?

Elon Musk has a proven track record of being able to ruthlessly optimize large organizations for financial efficiency.

I don’t trust Elon’s politics. But I trust in his ability to financially optimize complex systems.

Elon is a good Robber baron. He will be good for the few at the top would can harvest stock gains. He is not good for sustainability. Even Tesla which should have been no lose (they were the first on the scene, positive image etc) has been steadily lost market share and it's image is which a bit tarnished from association with Elon. Efficiency is actually NOT the goal for the us government. The way that the gov works, and the way a stock market company works are quite different. the US gov is to provide services to people. We don't get rid of the USPS because it doesn't turn a profit. We don't get rid of the VA because they cost more than private care, becuase the VA qualitatively is different than private care, bottom line it cannot turn away vets from care, and they are medically more complex with higher comorbidity than the average population. More importantly, we made a promise to take care of them. The purpose of the national parks in turn is not to turn a profit. I can go on, but you get the point.

I do think there should be effort to balance the budget. But its frankly SILLY to cut taxes on the top 1% and defund the IRS so they cannot collect legally due taxes but then cry poor. Also the fact that defense spending is incredibly huge and imho not worth it. If Trump truly wants to be an isolationist and walk away from our obligations to our allies, he has no justification to keep defense spending at this level. I predict 95% chance that NOTHING will be done re: how much defense spends, because I'm sure some of Trump's friends make a bunch of money (including Elon) from those contracts.
 

[Telecaster]

I do think there should be effort to balance the budget. But its frankly SILLY to cut taxes on the top 1% and defund the IRS so they cannot collect legally due taxes but then cry poor. Also the fact that defense spending is incredibly huge and imho not worth it. If Trump truly wants to be an isolationist and walk away from our obligations to our allies, he has no justification to keep defense spending at this level. I predict 95% chance that NOTHING will be done re: how much defense spends, because I'm sure some of Trump's friends make a bunch of money (including Elon) from those contracts.

The exasperating part is we've heard this same line of bullshit before.   In 2016 Trump promised to balance the budget.   In reality Trump was the worst president in history as far as peacetime deficits go (not counting the COVID years).   This is at a time of economic growth and low unemployment too.    A monkey could have decreased the deficit and it was still too hard for Trump.   

Also back in 2016 we heard a big bunch of bullshit about how Trump was going to make the government more efficient by slashing regulations.   He did slash regulations.  For example, federal agencies are not allowed to consider climate change for things like flood insurance or resource management.    That is definitely less regulation.  Also definitely stupider.  Or for example there were a bunch of new safety regulations for off-shore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon.  Trump got rid of those. 

Is stupider the same as more efficient?  I'm thinking no.

[caracarn]

Sometimes I wonder if my viewpoints are just too out of line with other people. For example, I am genuinely optimistic that Elon Musk might be able to ruthlessly slash expenses from the federal budget. If you read my journal, you would know that I am a ruthless cost cutter and a relentless optimizer. It has always been one of my dreams that someone could take this philosophy and apply it to the federal government. If someone put me into the federal government, I would try to do exactly what Elon Musk claims he wants to do.

Apparently, people here are too cynical to even believe that such cost cutting is even possible at all, or that people who say they want to cut costs actually want to cut costs. Honestly, I was a bit surprised about this, especially coming from this forum. Well, I say I want to cut costs and I actually want to cut costs.

Herbert the main issue with your desire for point #1 is there is only $1.7T in the entire discretionary budget of the US so to cut $2T you need to eliminate 100% of that, which is ridiculous on it's own because there are a lot of programs that have a purpose and while could be made more efficient should exist unless we want to be draconian and ruthless.   Musk has a huge history of that, so your admiration of him I think comes with a huge blind spot on what a heartless bastard he is.  Then we need to dig $300 million out of the non-discretionary budget just to hit the target and yes that ends up being SS and other things. 

I am refraining from getting to involved in responding just yet.   I'm still very raw that people have no idea the shitshow they voted for and not just laughing at you all when your life falls apart along with all the rest of ours as they enact stuff that really no on wants that will likely crash the economy when they though they were voting for someone to "fix" it.

[partgypsy]

I have for a while had this idea, economic models that depend on constant expansion, while resources have a flat level of replenishing, or in some cases negative (fossil fuels) we are going to run into a wall. Based on game theory, at some point people will defect from a mutually altruistic strategy, to when resources seem finite and disappearing, to a selfish strategy (the grazing of the commons). I have been wondering when at what point societies will descend into what I call  "the big grab". Governments and coalitions across countries COULD theoretically be protective and far sighted, working against our somewhat irrational selves to make the best use of resources and human power and use our big brains to create sustainable societies. But, people the world over perhaps sense "scarcity" are scared (or are having their fears actively encouraged) and this causes voters to vote against cooperation and mutual aid. And at the US I believe we have bad actors, who are going to accelerate "the Big Grab" for their own benefit.  The resources of the US are like a fat pig which has been left unattended.

At the extreme end, wars are caused by "big grabs". The "creative destruction" of pure capitalism with no rules or guard rails (or the rich make the rules) is another. There is a lot of volatility and breaking down of norms and systems, with the majority being very much harmed, but a few disproportionately benefit. Everyone wants to be that few, so they go along with the big grab (or there is nothing they can do, instrumentally to get out of the situation).

What is the solution? On the big level I do not know. I know that mutual altruism can thrive in situations where people personally know you, and you can judge their behavior on their past behavior. In smaller groups altruism and mutual support can still be beneficial. I also feel that to reduce the impact of the big grab, all of us needs to think of ways to still survive in an environment where the gov has "abdicated".   
For the record. 'm a federal employee. I invest in the mutual funds, I like "society" and like stability and continuity. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how things might change.

[Posthumane]

While I think it's possible that Musk could make significant cuts to the budget and increase "efficiency" (defined purely as the ratio of output to input), I think this would come at a cost of the effectiveness and availing of government services that are being slashed.  The reason those services are being provided by the govt rather than the private sector is that effectiveness and availability are seen as more important than efficiency in some cases.

As a hypothetical example, let's say there is a service (say, healthcare) that costs the govt $300Bn, and is used by all 300 M people. That costs the taxpayer an average of $1000 per person. But of course, some people cost less and others cost more. If you eliminate coverage for the above average cost cases you can bring the cost down to $100Bn, while still providing coverage to 200 M people. You've increased efficiency and saved money. Success? Depends who you ask.