The site The Nerd Reich has an analysis of the seeming chaos being inflicted upon the US from within at the moment. Specifically, Elon Musk's attempt to destroy the United States government is a methodical execution of the "network state" blueprint, not random chaos.
Everything Elon Musk and his tech cronies are doing to our government is what Balaji Srinivasan spelled out in his network state cult manifestos – a tech CEO takeover of government, the purging of institutions, the rise of crypto corruption as a dominant economic force, the quest for new territory. But nobody wants to talk about it.
For those of you who are new to this newsletter, I spent last year writing a New Republic series on the network state. Sadly, everything spelled out in those stories is happening now. What Musk and Marc Andreessen are doing to our government is precisely what Srinivasan envisioned. A purge of Democrats, a merging of tech and right-wing forces to remake government and media institutions. Some reporters now observe that Musk is doing to the government what he did to Twitter, but Srinivasan was way ahead of them:
"Elon, in sort of classic Gray fashion ... captures Twitter and then, at one stroke, wipes out millions of Blues' status by wiping out the Blue Checks," he said, describing how a government could be reformed in a similar manner. "Another stroke ... [he] renames Twitter as X, showing that he has true control, and it's his vehicle, and that the old regime isn't going to be restored."
The idea of network states is that they are primarily digital entities without geographical boundaries though they do acquire territory and governance structures. The author of the book introducing the attack, Balaji Srinivasan, arranged a small conference on the topic in Singapore back in September of 2024, and one the year before in 2023 in Amsterdam.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday February 03, @09:33AM (2 children)
Exclusive: Musk aides lock workers out of OPM computer systems [reuters.com]
Musk says he is working to shut down “beyond repair” USAID [reuters.com]
Musk team given access to sensitive federal payment system - reports [bbc.com] - that's the Dept of Treasury, folks
Elon Musk is reportedly taking control of the inner workings of US government agencies [techcrunch.com]
The Young, Inexperienced Engineers Aiding Elon Musk’s Government Takeover [wired.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday February 03, @10:18AM
Top Official to Quit as Musk Tries to Get Hands on Key Payment System [msn.com]
Trump’s “Buyout” Offer for Federal Workers Is Already Backfiring [newrepublic.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @08:02PM
> ... The engineers are Akash Bobba, Edward Coristine, Luke Farritor, Gautier Cole Killian, Gavin Kliger, and Ethan Shaotran. ...
Where are the parents and grandparents of these confused young men? Isn't it about time for some parental discipline or at least some wise words (from a "dutch uncle") pointing out that following a cult leader never has a good ending.
If they manage to mess up any significant amount of gov't payments (like social security, medicare, etc) they may never see the light of day again.
Now, get off my lawn!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday February 03, @10:53AM (2 children)
Whacky crank looks at Trump manifesto, bolts on his own stuff forecasting some doooommm, then when manifesto is implemented says "told you so, now DOOOOMMM is coming". Sells book.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday February 03, @12:26PM (1 child)
Whacky crank Trump discloses there will be pain [abc.net.au] only after being elected on campaign pledges to reduce grocery prices and end wars [vanityfair.com].
He doesn't sell books anymore (just crypto [smh.com.au]), likely because he loves the poorly educated [reuters.com] and doesn't want to stop loving them if they get into the reading habit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, @03:15PM
Buddy, he's been in office like 2 weeks. Save your meltdown for a few months in.
I'm willing to take a little pain based on economic reality. In the case of the last administration I was taking it for nothing.. or rather basket weaving gender studies programs in Pakistan.
If they do "destroy" government institutions, there won't be anyone to bother you and you can wear all the dresses you want.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday February 03, @11:05AM (11 children)
USAID is now branded criminal organisation. By Musk.
I am disappointed a bit, they should be branded terrorist organisation instead. Bioweapons and stuff.
Still waiting what really happens to EcoHealth Alliance, an USAID's puppet and the main antagonist in Covid-19 global incident affair.
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Monday February 03, @05:00PM (8 children)
USAID is not an AID organization. It's an International Development (ID) organization.
I wanted to say shutting down foreign aid is shortsighted and will hurt our international soft power, but it looks like my knee jerk reaction is wrong. Both USAID and NED (National Endowment for Democracy) appear to be thinly veiled and poorly overseen slush funds for the CIA.
The last straw for me was our direct payments to Afghan farmers for destroying poppy fields. Paying $700 per acre to destroy poppy fields sounds like a fantastic idea, IFF you've never heard of "Perverse Incentives". With childlike naivete, we did it for years through USAID.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Monday February 03, @05:07PM (4 children)
No different than paying US farmers subsidies not to grow corn.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormreaver on Monday February 03, @07:29PM
In reality, it was quite a bit different. The Afghan farmers grew the poppy, then destroyed the fields and collected payments, then grew the poppy again and repeated the process until someone finally realized how badly conceived the plan was. Not that either plan was smart, but they were quite different in their executions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @07:51PM (2 children)
Well, slightly different. The money paid to the US farmers has some chance of staying in the USA and circulating in our economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @08:36PM (1 child)
Maybe US farmers could grow poppies too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @09:49PM
> US farmers could grow poppies too?
Why would they bother unless there was a subsidy? They certainly wouldn't do it to refine to opium, that market went to lower wage countries long ago and (if it ever was here) I really doubt it is a candidate for "on shoring".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @08:01PM (2 children)
If Trump launched a normal investigation in to USAID, audited it, reported to the people, and had legislation proposed, even to abolish it; that would be well within his right. What they're doing instead is taking a wrecking ball to every institution and alliance. This isn't reform. It's a coup. Might there be benefits? Yes. That's the pernicious thing about fascism. "The trains ran on time", but we don't have trains so it's gonna be like... "We got rid of some things that we thought were bad, and we got to coal roll in California", or something like that... while the world slowly comes around to realize that we're an evil that needs to be stopped, while brainpower drains, while increasingly virulent "leaders" reach for increasingly outrageous "solutions" to the problems they're creating, until "trade war" simply becomes "war", which we will lose because the cause of freedom attracts the best and the brightest, those filled with humanity's deepest desire to live free wheres the cause of fascism attracts the ignorant, lazy and fearful.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, @03:24PM (1 child)
I agree with part of your premise. I would love for the government to be able to operate in that way. A normal investigation, an audit, accountability. Sadly if he attempted it, nobody in congress would have agreed, bureaucrats would stymie it and then in the end trump would be gone in 4 years while we still had USAID stealing our money.
If he does fash out, it's up to all of us to call it. Not this reddit style crying fascism at everything not in line with radical progressivism. The world already hates us because of the evil institutions like this perpetuated.
You can't be a "coup" when you were elected. The people who want freedom have had enough of the machine so it's time to turn it off and ensure they don't replace them with another. Don't trust politicians, even the ones you agree with. Judge them on their merits with your own mind and not some reporter's.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday February 04, @08:13PM
In D&D there are movement and combat penalties when players enter Swamp terrain, but creatures native to the habitat, e.g. Swamp elves, take no penalties.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Monday February 03, @08:29PM
Trump gave a presidential order authorizing Musk to, among other things, review budget and employee records. So, when USAID head and employees refused letting Musk's DOGE [wikipedia.org] employees access, it was indeed them committing a crime and even going rogue at the agency level.
Now, the question is whether Trump's presidential order and DOGE's operations are legal. Problem is, there's very strong precedents for this sort of commission even in recent history so it's going to be an uphill battle to argue that USAID's refusal was them putting the law over an illegal presidential orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_reorganization_authority [wikipedia.org]
Honestly though, I suspect it was illegal of them to refuse DOGE's men regardless since there wasn't any imminent danger to lives and safety of Americans if they complied with the order while also appealing to congressional oversight on the matter concurrently.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 03, @09:39PM
The terrorist claims come after they concoct and plant "evidence". showing.... Whatever they want to say.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday February 03, @12:25PM (12 children)
Not sure if staying in your position out of spite or some deluded belief that you are "the rebels" is going to work out. After all this offer of getting months paid to quit is going to go away. Some will take it and leave. Next time the carrot won't be as juicy and the stick will be bigger. Then it might just be the Trump classic of "you are fired!" or downsized or whatever the explanation will be. After all if your agency is on the shit list then so are you, USAID seems to be the next target but it won't be the last.
I wonder how long until the public starts complaining, after all some or a lot of government service will start to get even worse. You thought standing in line at the DMV sucked before, that it sucked to check on your social-, retirement- or health- benefits or whatnot. Everyone seems to think it's the fat or the worthless employees that will go or be made redundant, those are probably the once that will stick around as they have been there for so long and have no place to go. The once that can leave and have offers will probably do so. So the self-fulfilling prophecy of the lazy government worker will manifest and come true.
After all the once that have been there for 20-30 years are not leaving. They know the system. They can red-tape Trump and Musk ten times over per day before they even go on their lunch break. They know all the rules and loopholes.
Unless your fantasy for the future is one of them Ayn Rand-fantasies. A disturbing amount of tech-bro people appear to love her. Good luck with that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 03, @12:33PM (3 children)
My guess: when the supply of groceries take a downturn due to loss of cheap labor and the imports are slapped with tariffs.
For many enough it may happen in the same time social security services go downwards too. I'm sure someone like MDC will feel them firsthand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @01:01PM (1 child)
Back to work. You need to be hardcore to work here. It's a privilege to work. Etc. etc.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 03, @01:22PM
Even modern times were more humane (eg in re health care [youtu.be]).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @09:10PM
Yeah, well if they can't code then all those ex-fat-cat bureaucrats can learn to pick vegetables. They can replace all the illegals who got kicked out. Labor problem solved. Just ask khallow. /s
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Monday February 03, @12:57PM (2 children)
You have three options in that scenario:
Anyone with a clue will be doing option #3 as soon as they realise their department or whatever is on the chopping block, is being proactive and already doing it just in case, or is so drunk on the Kool-Aid they haven't realised that DOGE et al doesn't really give a fsck who you voted for; they just want to run a wrecking ball through government to create the Oligarchy they want, and right now they're focussed on the payroll as a means to cut costs and seize control.
And yeah, it's going to suck for everyone because almost all the people able to get a position will indeed move on, one way or the other, leaving behind only the dead wood and PHBs that know the system and red tape. The US might like to think it's #1 at almost everything, but #1 on fsckedcountry.com (already registered, I checked) is not a place you want to be.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 03, @09:45PM (1 child)
Donnie already folded on Mexico after they agreed to redeploy 10,000 troops they put on the Guatemala border for Biden to their Northern border for tRump.
Do you think he will settle for a bottle of Maple syrup to get Kentucky whiskey untariffed in Canada?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, @02:51PM
lol! it was even easier than that: canada just went after elon!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Monday February 03, @01:28PM (3 children)
No matter what happens Trump will blame Obama or DEI or CRT ('member that?) or whatever scary buzzword Fox uses this week. Nothing is ever his fault.
(Score: -1, Troll) by aafcac on Monday February 03, @04:29PM (2 children)
That's common ground. The Democrats are also never responsible because of reasons. Harris could have had her Rogan interview, but her people were stuck up and entitled.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday February 03, @05:10PM (1 child)
Harris offered to interview but Rogan would have had to travel and declined. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/29/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/joe-rogan-kamala-harris-interview-conditions-00186008 [politico.com] Do you really think she would have swayed anyone in his listener group anyhow?
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by aafcac on Monday February 03, @09:58PM
That's not an accurate description of what happened. Her people waited until the last minute and then refused the time that he was willing to make available. She was offered an early morning interview on 10/26 and her people declined it. The fact that he was willing to go that far out of his way to let her have the time after they had months to reach out is very generous of him
And no, I don't expect that it would have swayed anybody, but it's a good example of the bumbling incompetence and lack of any sort of significant outreach to a pretty big chunk of the electorate. Tim Walz was having some luck with it, but was then told to knock that off.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday February 04, @05:36PM
They'd be fools to trust that offer. Musk still hasn't paid out to Twitter employees who accepted a similar offer.
The Florida Orange Man is infamous for not paying people for work done.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Touché) by VLM on Monday February 03, @02:12PM
Its a people vs the state battle, where the people think thats great and the institutions think thats horrible.
Nobody likes the institutions or what they have been doing, except the people already inside them, the people trying to get inside them to get a sinecure, and the usual TDS cultists.
(Score: 1, Troll) by bart on Monday February 03, @02:30PM (23 children)
What a pile of baloney. The Elon hate goes deep. We have an eccentric guy, very rich, that loves the original principles the US stands for, and thinks (and he's right) that the Federal budget situation is completely unsustainable. And he wants to do something about is.
The whole nazi salute thing has served one purpose well; showing which media channels are just pushing an agenda (Musk hate) instead of doing their research. Musk is not a nazi, hundreds of hours on public interviews, and his actions (visiting Auschwitz with the Israeli prime minister for instance) show this. People that know him well (Lex Fridman for instance) have publicly stated that of course Musk is not a nazi.
(Score: 5, Informative) by day of the dalek on Monday February 03, @02:59PM (16 children)
Yes, running annual deficits of two trillion dollars is unsustainable. Yes, we need to do something about it.
We know the original principles the US stands for. They're written in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power of the purse. No other branch of government has authority over this, only the Congress.
Following the original principles the US stands for means following the Constitution, and that means working through the Congress to balance the budget.
Elon Musk has some kind of de facto relationship with the Executive Branch, not the Congress. His employment status with the federal government is totally unclear. Apparently Musk has an office in the White House, and somehow has access to a lot of government computer systems, including at the Treasury Department. He wasn't elected, nor has he been confirmed by the Senate to hold any position within the cabinet. Musk is presumably accountable to the president, but it's not clear that there are any other oversight mechanisms.
Because the language in the buyout offer to federal employees is similar to language used at Twitter, many people believe Musk was behind those emails. In 1994 and 1995, the federal government offered to buyout the jobs of federal employees [washingtonpost.com]. The buyouts offered by the Clinton administration were legal because they were authorized by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. That authorization expired in March of 1995. The Congress has not authorized Musk or Donald Trump to buyout the jobs of federal employees. Because the power of the purse is given solely to the Congress, the current buyout offers appear to be illegal.
Musk can act as a private citizen and use the same freedom of speech that all Americans have to make suggestions to the president. Those suggestions might influence the budget recommendations the president submits to the Congress. That would be legal, and Musk has a platform that he can use to broadcast his message to millions of people. Or Musk could use his freedom of speech to encourage members of Congress to balance the budget. That's also completely legal. Or Musk could run for Congress and, if elected, would be able to serve on committees and vote on the federal budget. Again, this is totally legal.
Musk's actions within the Executive Branch, however, appear to violate federal law and the Constitution. These objections aren't about Musk's character, and that's a straw man. This is about following the original principles of the US, which are written in the Constitution. if Musk's actions are unconstitutional, then that's not following the original principles of the US.
Some of those that burn crosses, are the same that hold office [youtu.be]
(Score: -1, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Monday February 03, @03:16PM (8 children)
Funny how that same the people screaming bloody murder about an unelected, unaccountable person advising President Trump were dead silent on the unelected, unaccountable people who ran the country for the incapacitated Joe Biden.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by day of the dalek on Monday February 03, @03:58PM (4 children)
Get with the times! Joe Biden isn't president any longer.
You seem to be arguing that the Biden administration did a bad thing, therefore it's okay for Donald Trump's administration to do bad stuff, too. That's basically saying that two wrongs make a right, and that the Biden administration somehow justifies the Trump administration ignoring the Constitution and federal law.
You seem to be implying that the alleged hypocrisy of some people (who, exactly?) about Biden and Trump is somehow relevant to whether Elon Musk's actions are constitutional. This alleged hypocrisy actually has no bearing whatsoever on whether Trump and Musk are following the Constitution.
Many news articles report that Elon Musk has a high level of access to federal computer systems, including the US Treasury. But bringing in outside staffers, having a White House office, and obtaining high level access to federal government computer systems is not consistent with Musk just advising Trump, like you claim.
Your argument is fallacious and makes no sense at all.
I posted that the current administration needs to follow the law and the Constitution. Why does someone saying the administration should follow the Constitution motivate you to post an attack?
Some of those that burn crosses, are the same that hold office [youtu.be]
(Score: 3, Touché) by EEMac on Monday February 03, @04:11PM (2 children)
> You seem to be arguing that the Biden administration did a bad thing, therefore it's okay for Donald Trump's administration to do bad stuff, too.
No. The problem is media people screaming about things under X, when they were completely silent about the same things under Y.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @05:18PM
Specifics please, not vague pronouncements.
Unless, of course (which is the case) you've got nothing else.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by day of the dalek on Tuesday February 04, @06:58AM
The media is not a singular entity. The word is the plural of medium, and there are a vast number of media entities that span the political spectrum and offer varying levels of factual content. Even if you're talking about the largest media outlets, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have very different political biases from the MSNBC and the New York Times. I assume you're saying that some media outlets are guilty of hypocrisy.
Is that true? Quite possibly. But it's noise that distracts away from the real issue. Outlet A said it was okay for President X to do action B, but it's not okay for President Y to also do action B. None of this has any bearing on whether it's actually okay for either president to do action B. It's useful for creating controversy and outrage, but it rarely contributes to productive political discourse.
It's not inherently wrong for Media Outlet A to change their position on an issue. Perhaps the editorial staff at Media Outlet A previously believed that action B was acceptable, but they were persuaded by logic and new facts that action B is actually wrong. As a result, their position on the issue might have changed. We should be supportive of people being open to facts and reason, listening to others, and changing their opinion when presented new evidence. We would be better off if more people would be willing to reconsider their opinions when presented with new evidence.
There's also the possibility that Media Outlet A is biased or just hypocritical. That might be absolutely true, but that just means that Media Outlet A isn't a particular good source of journalism. It doesn't mean that "the media" is biased or bad, because that's an unhelpful generalization. It also has no bearing on whether action B is good or bad, or about whether presidents X and Y acted appropriately.
Your argument, as you've presented it, is an unhelpful distraction. It's noise. There's a lot of noise out there, and it dumbs down our political discourse. This is very good at creating a sense of outrage, but it does nothing at all to encourage us to adopt better policies.
Even naming specific media outlets and identifying their biases might be helpful. That's part of what fact checkers do, encouraging people to choose better sources for their news and to avoid echo chambers. A (former?) user of this site whom I rarely agreed with politically, Runaway1956, talked about using a site called Ground News to try to avoid echo chambers [soylentnews.org] and to get a better quality of news. That was the right idea, and why I didn't agree with him very often about politics, at least he deserves credit for trying to find better sources.. It's helpful to identify the bias of specific outlets, because that might spur people on to get a more diverse range of opinions from higher quality sources. But just complaining about "the media" isn't helpful at all.
Some of those that burn crosses, are the same that hold office [youtu.be]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @09:16PM
While I don't like either of them, swap Biden and Trump in that sentence and that was pretty much the entire democrat defense of anything and everything anyone complained about during the Biden years.
(Score: 4, Touché) by epitaxial on Monday February 03, @04:02PM
Name them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @04:18PM (1 child)
I swear, you have to be the stupidest poster here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @08:38PM
Nominative determinism.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pTamok on Monday February 03, @03:56PM (6 children)
Not necessarily. Ask a Keynesian macroeconomist and you'll get a nuanced answer.
There are several options. The approach favoured by the Republican Party is only one of several. Don't get caught by the politician's syllogism:
1) Something must be done!
2) This is something.
3) Therefore it must be done!
There is more than one way of managing a large governmental deficit. Governments are not businesses, and thinking that simplistic 'business-based' 'common-sense' solutions apply is incorrect - or at least not the whole story, which is critically important..
There are many people that make the mistake of thinking government finances are like the finances of the businesses they run, or like their own domestic family economy. They are not, and it is misrepresentation to allow people to think so, and sometimes self-delusion by people who have the capability to know better.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday February 03, @09:48PM (3 children)
I would argue that being so far in debt that one can't make interest payments and then continuing to rack up more debt on top of that would be considered bad even by a Keynesian macroeconomist.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday February 04, @12:52PM (2 children)
It would, but that is not necessarily what the USA is doing. The key point is the expectation that the USA will be able to make interest payments on government debt.
As long as people lending money believe (whether well-founded or not) that the USA will make the future interest payments, the merry-go-round can continue.
Whether relying on other people's beliefs is a good idea or not...that is another question.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday February 04, @10:40PM (1 child)
I'm curious about your repeated statement "not necessarily". On the face of it, it seems that the US is absolutely living beyond its means and has possibly already reached the point where they can no longer pay back their debts.
What other reasonable explanations can be provided for the current state of affairs? I get your point that there are some countries who may never expect the US to pay them back (and to perhaps use that as political leverage). My question is more about the strategy from the US' side of the equation. Is there a reasonable explanation for what they are doing that doesn't rely upon the kindness of their lenders?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday February 05, @12:47AM
If government revenues are less than the cost of interest payments needed to service the debt, then things do look irretrievable. This is true.
However:
1) Government revenues could be increased, e.g. by raising taxation. Politically unpopular.
2) Government expenditures could be reduced, freeing up revenue to pay interest. Also politically unpopular if government services are cut.
3) Debt can be refinanced - if you can get a loan at a lower interest rate than one you are currently paying, it could be possible to pay off the original loan with a new one and decrease your interest costs. That will depend on external factors, and the terms of current loans.
None of this is impossible, but becomes increasingly difficult or unlikely.
Temporarily spending more than you earn is not usually a problem, if for some future period you can earn more than you spend such that you can erase the debt (and its servicing costs, if there are any) - or you have a 'nest egg' you can break in to. The USA has been 'temporarily' spending more than it earns for several decades, with a break for a few years, which is why it has a large debt compared to its GDP. There is no defined point where you can say the debt is too large, but it gets increasingly unlikely that it can be managed, so at some point a reckoning will arrive. Many economists regard the USA as being on a trajectory to come to that reckoning 'soon' - likely within a couple of decades or less, if nothing is done to change the trajectory.
The USA is in the position of a skydiver hurtling towards the ground. Most observers expect the skydiver to pull the ripcord, but the effect of doing so is likely to be painful: but less painful than hitting the ground. The skydiver is saying "I'm fine, so far.", and putting off the decision to pull the cord until it becomes absolutely necessary. Some observers think the decision has be put off too long. Others think taking action now is a good idea, and a few daredevils/fools reckon they can keep going for a while. Most Americans don't know how close the ground is. Some who do want to pull the cord now. Others want to defer the shock and pain of the parachute opening and are adamant that waiting is possible, and that someone else will give them a jetpack, or add airbags at their landing point so they don't have to do anything. The financial markets currently believe America will pull the rip-cord in time, but are open to changing their collective mind.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by day of the dalek on Tuesday February 04, @05:30AM (1 child)
It's been awhile since I read books like The Origin of Financial Crises [google.com] and learned about the ideas put forth by John Maynard Keynes, so I apologize if I'm getting some of this wrong. That book was written during the Great Recession and makes some intriguing arguments about how bad economic policies helped to cause the recession.
Keynes did agree with running deficits during recessions and times of slow economic growth to stimulate the economy. That could involve actions like cutting taxes and lowering interest rates. But Keynes also believed that the government needed to take the opposite approach during rapid economic growth to prevent excessive inflation. That would involve raising interest rates and perhaps increasing taxes. This implies that the additional tax revenue might be used to pay off any debt accumulated during prior budget deficits. The main idea is that regulating the economy both during recessions and periods of rapid economic growth could essentially smooth out the boom-bust cycles that might otherwise happen.
If I remember correctly, the book's author, George Cooper, argues that politicians are happy to lower taxes and for central banks to cut interest rates. Politicians love to take credit for those things and say that they're responsible for economic growth. But politicians don't really want to raise taxes or have central banks raise interest rates on their watch. The result is artificially low interest rates, having large deficits, and creating cheap credit that leads to bubbles.
I believe that Keynes supported having deficits and the government taking on debt during recessions. I don't believe he supported running large deficits for prolonged periods of time, or in adding to the deficit during periods of strong economic growth. We also shouldn't assume that the government spending more money or having larger deficits inherently leads to more economic growth. There's a lot of fraud and waste in some areas of the federal government, and I say that with defense spending mind, though I know there's plenty of other wasteful spending as well. Today's economic policy only follows part of Keynes' ideas, but we're much less willing to raise taxes and increase interest rates during rapid economic growth. Raising taxes and decreasing government spending to cool the economy would also help to pay down the debt, except that we don't really practice those parts of Keynes' ideas.
Keynes supported taking on debt in some instances. I don't believe he would support the US government running massive deficits for prolonged periods of time like we're doing.
Some of those that burn crosses, are the same that hold office [youtu.be]
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday February 04, @04:12PM
Thank you for the considered reply.
You are quire right about Keynes advocating for governments taking on debt 'in bad times' and raising taxes 'in good times' to even out boom-and-bust.
You are also quite right in pointing out that US fiscal policy has not followed that closely.
The key point is that government debt is not necessarily bad, if there is an expectation of future (sound) fiscal policy. Or even, simply an expectation that the government will be able to manage its debt interest payments.
The thing is, unlike a domestic household, a business, or even a bank, government have more freedom of action. The government has control of the currency, and, for example, can 'create money from thin air', which is usually described as printing lots of currency notes with no backing asset (other than the government itself), or minting a trillion-dollar coin [wikipedia.org]. This is generally inflationary, and a large debt can be made into a small debt by inflation. You don't want to experience hyperinflation, but in 2008, a trillion Zimbabwean dollars was worth very little, whereas in 1980 the Zimbabwe dollar was worth more than a US dollar. If you hold government debt denominated in the currency of the country in question, you are at risk of inflation rendering the income from interest on that debt worthless.
If a country stops paying interest on government debt to people who hold it, it is in default. That's an oops, and generally disliked by the financial community - which has not stopped Argentina doing precisely that more than once - in fact, it has happened a lot. In the worst case, a defaulting country simply adopts the more stable currency of another country - which in the past has meant 'dollarisation' of many badly-managed economies - and loses control of the currency in use within its own borders.
The global financial markets demand a 'risk premium' for buying government debt, which increases the more likely it is deemed that a government might default and/or inflation erodes the value of debt priced in a local currency, So the cost of servicing government debt will vary according to how much the financial markets trust the government issuing the debt. Sometimes, debt will be unsaleable. So, as long as the global financial markets trust the US government to pay interest payments now and in the future, the risk premium will remain low, and the debt can be serviced by government income. If sentiment changes (or government revenues decrease) problems arise.
Many observers, including the US GAO, say that current US fiscal policy is unsustainable in the long term, and many also say that the financial markets expect policy changes to be implemented within the next two decades to address this.
Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania: When does Federal debt reach unsustainable levels? (6th October 2023) [upenn.edu]
US GAO: The Federal Government Is on an Unsustainable Fiscal Path (12th March 2020) [gao.gov]
US GAO: The Nation's Fiscal Health: Road Map Needed to Address Projected Unsustainable Debt Levels (15th February 2024, GAO-24-106987) [gao.gov]
Over the past decades, the behaviour of successive American administrations has been to run a budget deficit, building up a large debt. As a trajectory, it is unsustainable and points towards a catastrophic collapse at some point in the coming decades unless that behaviour changes. Running a deficit for part of a fiscal cycle is not unsustainable. Running a surplus less frequently than necessary is unsustainable.
Methods of improving the numbers included raising government revenues (usually raising taxes) and decreasing expenditures (usually cuts in government services), or a combination of both. This paper:
Tax Foundation: The Unsustainable US Debt Course and Impacts of Potential Tax Changes (14th January 2025) [taxfoundation.org]
outlines the problem and gives some broad-brush views of possible remedies, coming to the conclusion that combined tax-raises and expenditure cuts are better than either one, or the other.
The point is, running a deficit for a limited period is not necessarily unsustainable, but the USA needs to credibly manage the current policy so that surpluses can be generated, likely by a combination of tax increases and expenditure cuts. That is politically unpopular. The current administration has a problem, inherited from decades of inadvisable behaviour, kicking the problem into the future: the future is arriving soon.
(Score: 5, Informative) by pTamok on Monday February 03, @03:29PM (4 children)
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct). He is not a card-carrying member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party [wikipedia.org]. It doesn't exist any more.
He does, however, appear to be, voluntarily, strongly associated with a government and political party that has a lot in common with Umberto Eco's [wikipedia.org] characterization of fascism [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Monday February 03, @04:29PM (1 child)
Umberto Eco published the above in 1995.
To quote another Italian intellectual, Primo Levi [wikipedia.org], writing in an Italian national newspaper [primolevicenter.org] (Corriere della Sera [wikipedia.org]) in 1974:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 06, @01:44AM
Very interesting...
You must call someone by their nominated pronouns, anything else is unacceptable!
Fake news - on both sides
Hiring celebrities to distort truths or appeal to emotion
Hunter Biden case!
Harvard...
hmm... someone take this one
and this one...
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday February 03, @09:56PM (1 child)
Thank you for posting this - it's very interesting and definitely appears at first glance to be a tick list for the new administration.
What I find particularly interesting is the way in which Trump often decries his opponent for (supposedly) doing something that Trump himself is actually doing, or plans to do. He often accuses (rightly or wrongly) the Democrats of #s 4, 8, 10, 13 and 14.
(Score: 3, Informative) by evilcam on Tuesday February 04, @05:35AM
I believe the psychological term to describe that behaviour is called projection [theconversation.com]...
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday February 04, @06:07PM
When said principles benefits him. When they don't, well, out the window they go. The Free Speech AbsolutistTM regularly bans users for talking about things he doesn't like.
I agree. He (like the Florida Orange Man) is an opportunist. Both have discovered that the MAGAts are credulous fools who are easy to manipulate. That salute only made him greater in their eyes.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Spamalope on Monday February 03, @03:10PM (10 children)
As I understand it, these departments especially in DC are over 95% single political party.
How, exactly, did that happen? Did it go along with using the FBI to fabricate investigations as a Casus Belli to excusing firings in the 90s or is it more recent? ('travelgate' would be an example)
If you entertain the coup premise at all, this is a counter-coup isn't it given the mono-culture? (given the USAID/NGO revelations it looks more like a corruption cleanup wholesale - like what must be done with completely corrupt police forces - though it has the populist uprising branding) I assume it'll turn into a grift feeding frenzy as with any big upheaval. I can't see how they'll steal more than a 50+ year entrenched siphon system, but with institutional control of media outlets we'll surely hear about it non-stop.
I'm happy to be over here in the cheap seats as I don't see the poo flinging slowing down anytime soon.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Monday February 03, @04:05PM (7 children)
What are the departments and can you cite a source on 95%?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday February 03, @04:30PM (5 children)
Of course he can't. But the larger question would be: Since when are civil servants grilled about their political leanings or voting preferences in the first place? Unfortunately the answer to that is "never until now".
I see the right wing shitheads here are in full force with the troll posts. Maybe that'll stop when the the trash fire this entire country seems destined to become is actually burning around their feet. Assholes.
I was born in this country during the Eisenhower administration and have never been genuinely concerned that it was in danger of completely collapsing...but I very much am now. Lost for words.
(Score: 2) by evilcam on Tuesday February 04, @05:58AM (3 children)
I'm but a plucky 30-something living in the antipodes (or near enough), so my life experiences aren't on par with your own... Whilst on the one hand I think America has been responsible or at the very least complicit in an increasing number of the worlds atrocities (both directly and through total apathy), so maybe it is time for the union to fail and something new and better to rise out of the ashes.
On the other hand, I am also a human with apathy, and so I despair at the pain and suffering, not just within your borders but across the planet, that will be felt by the power vacuum that follows such a geo-political upheaval.
Ideally, your voting populace would take their civic responsibility to be informed and vote in the best interest of not just themselves but the entire Union seriously, and elect politicians whole were prepared to sacrifice and toil for the betterment of your nation, but I think we're long past that. With a state and federal election in my home rapidly nearing, and the early signs of similarly Trumpian rhetoric [abc.net.au] from the local conservatives, I am genuinely afraid for the welfare of our planet.
People think things are expensive now; how much will things cost when a class of robber barons control the largest government on the planet. What about when Taiwan and their chip foundries becomes too juicy a target for China to ignore, emboldened by the US withdrawing support for their allies in Europe and Ukraine in particular... And all of that is without getting into the massive cost that climate change will force upon us, like the estimated 1.9% reduction in global wheat production [iop.org] or the anticipated 20% reduction in global GDP [oxfordeconomics.com] by 2050...
Oh! To live in boring times.
(Score: 3, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday February 04, @02:54PM (2 children)
This was the only part of your post I have to take exception with. If the union "fails" it's a certainty it will get replaced by a dictatorship, and we're already on our way there. Any notion that the way to fix things requires destroying everything and starting over is propaganda from this new class of right wing fucks that have clearly decided that dictatorship actually is the way to go. Do NOT fall for it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 06, @03:45AM
but but you guys gave guns right? Wasn't the narrative that it'll be used to fight tyranny? So you'll be fine collectively based on that reasoning yea?
(Score: 2) by evilcam on Friday February 07, @02:01AM
100% agree with you, hence the next sentence decrying the inevitable suffering that would follow... The unspoken corollary being that the union can't be allowed to fail, because there is too much at stake.
My concern is that the Dem's are so totally inept at fixing things, partly because they don't want to disrupt the existing hegemony and status quo, but also because even if they did, they're never in power long enough or with a significant enough majority to actually achieve anything. Look at Obama's 8 years in office and he just barely managed to get a watered-down version of the ACA over the line...
Unfortunately, I don't have the solutions, although ranked choice (i.e. preferential) voting and compulsory voting is probably a good place to begin the search, but I do see that your nation, and by extension, much of the west, sits on a razors edge.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, @03:36PM
I've seen articles with pols/data on how DC and the workers of these institutions donate and vote. Same for academia. If I post them you will find some other way to sea-lion. They sure as hell aren't rw or republicans. You can moderate replies whatever you like to maintain your echo chamber to feel better if you'd like.
I long notice on this site every post that doesn't agree with the groupthink is marked "troll" or "spam", insightful or not. When I legit "trolled" and used prog talking points to spout literal bullshit, somehow scored 4s and 5s.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, @08:54PM
USAID: 96% per this paper, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/BG3781.pdf [heritage.org] page 2, built on data from https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/ [fec.gov]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 04, @01:55PM (1 child)
None of these positions are political, not appointed you booger eating moron. They are 100% of the "interviewed and hired" party.
Now, if you choose to divide in to parties of "will break the law for Trump" and "Won't break the law for Trump" then yess, 95% or more are in the second party. Which is exactly why this is unfolding the way it is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday February 04, @11:33PM
THANK YOU. I refuse to even reply to the fucking nonsense that's been posted in reply to my post above. All these supposed "statistics" as to what party civil servants happen to be? Even if that wasn't most likely bullshit, so fucking what!? NO president EVER has given a fuck about the political leanings of those who choose to work in the public sector until this authoritarian fuck. Also, again even if this were true, what does it prove?? No possible WAY would, or COULD these agencies ever ask prospective hires about their political leanings, which point to a total coincidence (or possibly just that left leaning people may have more interest in civil service).
The ONLY thing any of this is about is an attempt to totally dismantle the government in order to replace it with an autocracy...period...full fucking stop.
And these shitheads act like they're making some valid argument. They all really really need to FOAD.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Username on Monday February 03, @03:50PM (4 children)
I didn't know Elon had his own military, and took control over the white house, exiling Trump to hawaii or something.
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Monday February 03, @03:59PM
It's certainly nae a Turra Coo [wikipedia.org] though.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03, @08:09PM
When things get all sideways like today, I turn off the news and listen to John Coltrane, "A Love
Supreme".
Whatever torment I might be imagining, it's merely a little first world problem compared to the emotion that Coltrane put into that recording.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 04, @01:58PM
Trump is a programmable device with a simple instruction set. Insert a compliment to activate, point out something that he does not like- such as ridicule of him, or anything non straight white male succeeding. Then give the words you want to flow out of his face hole. After the noises are produced, hand him a written detailed order to sign. he won't read it. Can't, really. he signs it and you go on your merry way while the next evil fuck in line queues up for their turn programming the toy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 06, @03:48AM
Maybe Elon is Dr.Evil maybe he's not... don't really affect me who is not an American...
But repurposing words like "coup" just sounds like wokeness repurposing what a woman/man is... hard to take someone seriously once they go down that path