This is spot on. And I don't think either side of the aisle is all that interested in fixing it.
The Onion buys Infowars
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
If this DOGE thing is at all serious (and I’m skeptical) then we will get a chance to find out when these things get passed over to Congress.
That said, government inefficiency isn’t where the bulk of our fiscal pain comes from. But it’s a start, anyway.
At best this is a band aid. It's really nothing but theater.
I think you are trying too hard to condemn and criticize Musk. That couldn’t be because he supports Trump, is it? Musk is an innovator and a very creative guy. He has shortcomings and arguably has skin in the game. Even with that, there is nobody, and I mean nobody, better suited to change the unsustainable government paradigm than him.
Musk is okay with ending retail subsidies for EV’s. That will help Tesla and hurt others. Even though Musk is Tesla’s largest shareholder, he only owns <25%. Regardless of how much benefit he personally gets from ending the subsidy, it’s still a good idea to end it.
I think a lot of important things go on in government at every level that are not out in the wide open.
I'm guessing he's not even in the team picture for possible "best suited person" to change the govt. paradigm. I don't understand this at all.
He's a good businessman and engineer.
The problem with the federal government is the result of decades and decades of legalized corruption. Ike warned us about the military industrial complex and he was right. His warning was peanuts because the corruption he warned about metastasized into energy, health care, climate, social services, and hundreds of unproductive areas of “research” that are nothing but thousands of mini- boondoggles. I have no expectations that Musk and Ramaswamy can change this in the next four years. But I do expect them to call out the problems, and plant the seeds to begin substantial changes in our public spending, both in the so- called discretionary side, and the so-called entitlement side. It’s a tall order. But if not them who? If not now when?
He bought Twitter and fired 80% of the employees without a noticeable loss of function. He cut the cost of launching a kilo into orbit by 75%. He brought high speed dependable internet to rural America, and to most of the world, for around $100 per user per month. There is no team here. He is the guy.
I agree. I think a lot of people conflate “makes obscene amounts of money” with being good at everything.
The purpose of a firm is to make money, right? Twitter's revenue has dropped 84% since he took over!
Bill Gates is exhibit “A”. The guy has really done nothing innovative. MS Dos was created by smarter people, Gates turned that into obscene money. He has done some pretty good things with education, but he really has t changed the world in which he operates.
Musk? He single-handedly created a rocket-ship company that the whole world can’t match, including China. He made gobs of money with Falcon and Starlink. Starship, according to Shotwell, (Space X CEO) will be bigger than both.
Yep. So what? Space x and Tesla were big losers too.
There is no doubt that Musk is a great innovator and that he's the hands-on, driving force behind his businesses, but "single-handedly" is a reach. How many people does he employ?
I read an authorized biography. I think single handedly is an apt description. He was very hands on with the falcon and Merlin engine. Obviosly he hired (and fired) a lot of people. Gwen Shotwell had been with Space x from the beginning, I’d love to read her memoir if she ever writes one.
I think subsidies of any kind are virtually always a bad idea.
If the government has cause to be a buyer of something (and it often does), then that's fine. Let them be a buyer just like any other buyer. But to tax X and Y activities in order to promote Z activity (as tempting as it may be, when somebody puts a large value on Z) is sophistry.
And trying to affect that, even if you're sure you have good reason, can be extremely costly. The government-directed "transition" to EVs happening right now is a terrific example. Thus far, it's been a costly failure.
Yeah, I agree with this.
Entitlements are the major problem...and nobody has an appetite to touch them. I find that incredibly ironic, BTW. Nobody poses a bigger threat to Medicare and Social Security than people who insist they not be touched. Left alone, they will surely default. And, yet, it's the people who say we shouldn't leave them to collapse who get all the flak. I guess that's predictable, though. It's just irresistible for cynical politicians to try to gain from taking a flamethrower to anybody who even hints about doing something painful, unpopular, and necessary.
I was heartened when Obama established his fiscal commission...and disheartened (but not surprised) when he disregarded their bipartisan roadmap to fiscal terra firma.
That said, I have nothing against going after discretionary spending. I wish Elon and Vivek all the luck in the world -- they're going to need it once their suggestions are sent over to Capitol Hill.
Nobody accomplishes anything of note without the inputs of other people...all of whom are similarly acting out of their own interest.
Collectivists often point to this as an argument in favor of their worldview....basically that the individualist worldview is one which sees man as Robinson Crusoe, doing everything by himself and for himself.
This is completely wrong.
This became a matter of substantive debate back in the Obama years when he made his comment about "you didn't build that!" He actually lifted that line from Elizabeth Warren, as I recall. They were referring to public infrastructure. But they were also noting that successful entrepreneurs rely on the labors and inputs of others (employees, suppliers, contractors, creditors, insurers, etc.).
So where's the disconnect?
Well, it's that everybody does most of what they do out of self-interest. Adam Smith captured this perfectly in Wealth of Nations:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”
Collectivism and altruism are ideas that center around the concept that we should do what we do in the interest of the collective or of others...that our self-interest should come second, at best.The reason this doesn't work is that it defies human nature.
Not only doesn’t it work, the “you didn’t build that” comment makes absolutely no sense to those who actually can think, which leaves out Warren and Obama.
Everybody who lives in the United States has the same physical, human, and legal infrastructure available. The highly accomplished people can use and lead all of that and produce useful things. . Others can’t or won’t.
I understand there are issues about race and other repressive factors. Those are also real, but that is a different point from “you didn’t build that.”
I think the shared infrastructure you mentioned is what Obama was talking about. This country can be a helluva incubator for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Provided we don’t demonize entrepreneurs like Obama did with “You didn’t build that”.
In a sense.
I think it's a bit more complex than that. The altruistic instinct is also one of human nature (unless you're strictly restricting it), just as is the collective interest is often a rational self-interest.
And of course, humans are hardly rational self-interest maximizers. That notion also defies human nature.
Entrepreneurs didn't build the roads all by themselves. Or the education system. That's a fact. And that's what he clarified that he meant which makes sense in the context of his speech.
This is no different than the "very fine people on both sides" canard. I'd hope Repubs had outgrown the quote mining and out-of-context arguments.
You didn't build that - Wikipedia
There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”
In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
You give Obama way too much credit. He is firmly in the belief camp of collectives and group think being preferable to, and more productive than,, individualism. There is a place for both points of view, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize those individuals who accomplish great things with the same tools that are available to all of us.
Obama forgot where the money came from to build the infrastructure. It is from tax payers. So we did build that.Entrepreneurs didn't build the roads all by themselves. Or the education system. That's a fact. And that's what he clarified that he meant which makes sense in the context of his speech.
This is no different than the "very fine people on both sides" canard. I'd hope Repubs had outgrown the quote mining and out-of-context arguments.
You didn't build that - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”
In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
We really aren’t talking about the education, legal, and other systems we have here providing advantages. Don’t forget Musk is an immigrant who chose the U.S. The U.S. advantages are a given available to all. I think the point is that certain individuals can seize the opportunities inherent in our system and do great things while others simply can’t or need large doses of togetherness. I don’t think this point is at all out of context. There are thousands of people who shaped society because of what is between their ears, not because they retreated to the comfort of togetherness.Entrepreneurs didn't build the roads all by themselves. Or the education system. That's a fact. And that's what he clarified that he meant which makes sense in the context of his speech.
This is no different than the "very fine people on both sides" canard. I'd hope Repubs had outgrown the quote mining and out-of-context arguments.
You didn't build that - Wikipedia
There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”
In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
President Obama thanks you for making his point for him.
The real Alex Jones is in gitmo and has been replaced by a crisis actor double.
lol ... if stupid was a superpower you'd be wearing blue tights with a red cape.
This is what Obama was talking about. The baseline advantages in the US didn't just materialize.
Doing social good and self interest are definitely not mutually exclusive. Self interest doesn’t always mean more money. I think Tesla was intensely motivated by wanting to accomplish science and he didn’t care about money.
Don’t agree at all. Obama was diminishing individual effort and accomplishments. That was part of his DNA as he criticized such things as Darwin economics and often said the highest human purpose is to serve others.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on at least part of that. I don't think Obama was inherently against individual accomplishment and lifting up those who succeeded at high levels.
That said, I do believe that the serving others should be high on anyone's priorities.
of course we will always need people to serve others. But more importantly we need entrepreneurs, job-creators, inventors, builders, and all of those engaged in advancements of civilization and society.
"You didn't build that" made perfect sense and you damn well know it.
I can't believe we are still arguing this. No one who has both intelligence and integrity would disagree with you.Entrepreneurs didn't build the roads all by themselves. Or the education system. That's a fact. And that's what he clarified that he meant which makes sense in the context of his speech.
This is no different than the "very fine people on both sides" canard. I'd hope Repubs had outgrown the quote mining and out-of-context arguments.
You didn't build that - Wikipedia
There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called “this unbelievable American system that we have.”
In summary, he said: “The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
It makes no sense. The distinction between general and special benefits provided by society and government is an important nuance to understand.
It's insulting for you to accuse others of not understanding nuance, when you are incapable of even a straightforward reading of Obama's speech.
Latest posts
-
-
Providence has GOT to be tired. Late game last night- Latest: hozo4ultimate
-
-