What If the US Federal Government Was Run Like Tesla?

80 thoughts on “What If the US Federal Government Was Run Like Tesla?”

1. Social Security Reform:
   Treat all recipients as if they have a share of the ‘Social Security Retirement Fund’ proportional to the benefits to which they are currently considered entitled. They can decide how they want it paid out – continue as is (including cost of living adjustments for inflation) but see a big cut around 2033, OR take a smaller but still significant cut immediately, OR agree to cease getting COLA increases until their benefit is reduced enough to match their net projected share of benefits.
   In recognition of the federal government’s failure to resolve the impending social security crisis, half of the projected SS fund shortfall would be paid for from general funds (i.e. generating more government debt), reducing the projected shortfall of funding from around 25% to about 12.5%. The government would retain the option to increase social security withholding or otherwise reduce this debt obligation – but to date Congress has shown no willingness to apply such measures.

   In anticipation of near future Ai job elimination, use public data from companies to calculate how much each has been paying into social security, and lock that in as an alternative minimum payment as a percent of revenues net of non-labor operating expenses. New companies would be assigned a minimum payment percentage on a similar basis.

2. Healthcare:
   Use government guidelines of “reasonable and expected” pricing for drugs and medical care to watch for evidence of protection racket collusion by insurance companies and care providers to inflate prices for uninsured patients as a way to drive them to buy insurance. No more bogus claims from insurance companies that they’re able to save you 80% off medical care costs. Phase out employment-tied health insurance, which encourages that sort of criminal price distortion as a way to lock employees into non-portable health insurance plans.

   Any person insured against a condition that develops while insured will be covered by their insurance company for the duration of that condition, regardless of whether that person subsequently ceases paying for insurance or changes insurance companies. This would include recurrance of a cancer that previously went into remission. Premiums would be set at honest rates to meet that requirement. Insurance premiums must also be reduced in proportion to treatments for which the insurance company is already required to pay, ie. which therefore no longer require insurance.

   Any government mandated healthcare treatment (e.g. testing or vaccinations required for public safety) must be government paid. For some major diseases where early detection can save lives AND reduce treatment costs, health insurers might be required to pay for sufficiently frequent testing (probably yearly), but the government must pay for such testing for the uninsured.

   As a worst case alternative to individually purchased health insurance, anyone with a terminal illness or debilitating illness (including extreme old age) preventing employment, can get government paid bed and board in a ‘care home’, in return for maintaining and operating the care home to the extent they are judged able to do so. This would include inexpensive pain relief and behavioral drug treatment as necessary. Only if a cure is available and deemed a cheaper and effective alternative to such long term care, would that be provided.

3. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=AU-DE-CA-US-JP&start=2000&view=chart

   Basically US spending on Healthcare is terrible. From 2010 – 2024 it didn’t skyrocket, pretty stable. Except covid spike. For inflation and all the problems we have to thank to covid and Russians waging war against west, not goverment.

   The major spike in spending to such huge proportions was from 2000 – 2009. And guess what, who was running USA into abbys? Bush let republican goverment.

   • Healthcare has to be the #1 target.

     The US health insurance system leads the world in creating costs without adding value.

     They won’t die without a fight. They’re major political donors.

     Similar story for defense. Wildly inefficient contracting practices. Politically powerful contractors.

     Axing government employees won’t actually move the needle much. The money flying out the door is the bigger problem.

     • [ That seems a big question for many systems being within a situation for majorities with maturity to allow well-intended progress:
       “Where to put people&institutions that are proud of contributing misleading guidance to citizens, customers or patients, based on varying motivations?”

       A multi perspective and reliable data base for a current situation might be a best result from a highly specialized business network analyzing public services?
       If this includes where revenues accumulate, that could get ‘healthy’ for a ‘system’, nowadays?
       ( Perhaps even more difficult with several different systems of (military) defense forces, that if on duty, can be an opposing influence to health care _ considering ‘efficiency’?
       Who will sort&weight these numbers?
       Who will re-evaluate these decisions? ) ]

4. I believe that if the country were run like Tesla, it would be filled with overworked, stressed, unhappy people who would be forced to act like they are all for the “team”, or perhaps are unemployed. The ethos of Elon suggest a harsh, dispassionate, highly critical environment where any life balance or emotional acknowledgement somehow is bad. It is hard to see how this goes along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which means different things to different people by design. While bringing back robber barons may build rockets, more emotionally mature people tend to realize these are not the only goals worth pursuing.

   • depends on how you’re raised. This is the difference between most Protestant(non-religious)-flavoured countries (US, UK, CDN,AUS, etc) and the rest. A Work-as-Identity mindset. It’s no one’s fault, you either have a family, community, and education/institutional system that curates a sense of your skills and passions early-on as related to a useful service to society or you don’t. Overworkedness can be associated to any sport, family, job, or hobby – if you like it and are good at (which takes preparation), you can pleasantly, but doggedly, do 60 hours of it a week, with vacations and variety, with time to do all other things. It’s just that Work-focus creates wealth, comraderie, society, and, if done early and well, can set you along a path to where and how you live, your relationships, and your values. The worst thing in the world, in a rich country, is not knowing what you want to do with yourself in your 20s.

5. [ it’s about trust, (in continuity, adequacy, appropriateness and necessity)
   say a straight “A” student, a low wages worker and a CEO within United States (?)

   (Django Unchained
   and the efficiency of a story and history(?): “grossed $426 million worldwide against its budget of $100 million”) ]

6. Elon sells AI and robots, so…

   Think of the short and long-term savings if AI and Optimi, (plural for Optimus?) replaced most of the federal functionaries.

   24/7 competency would be a game changer.

   Having a radical overhaul of all levels of society based on the deployment of AI and robots isn’t going to happen, without it being shoved down the throats of entrenched bureaucracy.

   Think dentists are going to start supporting a drive to vaccinate people against tooth decay?

   Commercial dialysis corporations “lobby” politicians to hinder research into replacement kidneys, which alone would save the 25-30 billion dollars a year the Fed currently spends on “free” dialysis.

   Keeping people sick, dumb, and despondent is built in. It’s where the profits are.

   The distance between now and an AI optimized utopia is proportional to the willingness of leaders to drive right over all the people who are happy with the status quo.

   And, Elons true power is consolidating as much research and production under one roof as possible. Do everything in-house.

   The exact opposite of the diffused nature of the federal government.

   Cancel SLS? When it’s production is distributed out to every relevant congressman’s district?

   Not without a fight.

   Same holds true for every other federal expenditure.

   Not saying chaos is the way, but things might need to be smashed before people accept a replacement.

7. They’re not going to cut the military headcount by 75%. But HR is a good place to start. If they can cut ethanol mandates, then they might be on to something.

   • If we cut out half of foreign military bases – in Europe for a start – we could bring those troops home. Even if we kept them all on active duty, paying for bases in the US leaves that money in our economy, so it’s a net win.
     We could use those active troops to support a universal 2 month ‘basic training’ for young people, focused not on physical fitness/fighting but instead on basic ‘support’ skills that will be needed by the military should we go to war – which skills could also bootstrap many of them into gainful civilian employment, improving US productivity.

8. Universal health care with single payer would eliminate massive bureaucratic waste and provide the tools to control the cost of medicines while improving health outcomes for the American people. If Musk could make that happen he would have massively reduced waste paid for by the public and contributed to US competitiveness.

   • But this isn’t an administration that wants to take complete control of every area of life on the theory that government knows best. It’s an administration that believes government generally screws up everything it touches, and so it should do much less, and let the private sector have some time to clean up the accumulated damage.

     They’d be more likely to clear regulatory obstacles to an expansion of concierge medicine, really.

     • Musk says the best part is no part. Maybe the best government is no government?Ma

     • Yeah right, we see how did private health care fare well for average Joe. More of that.

       In Europe it is mostly state based, not so much for profit and guess what. Almost everybody is insured, way less stress, expenses are lower than in US (less % GPD spent) and people pay less for it, quality is good. So I agree with Vidvuds Beldavs, that works well.

       • Yes, we did. Back in 2009 I was diagnosed with two simultaneous cancers, and aside from a wistful question about other insurance I had, my ‘awful’ private sector insurance paid out the cost of a median house to cure me. Mind you, even that wasn’t genuinely free market insurance, the insurance sector has been distorted by regulation since WWII.

         Today my supposedly better ACA compliant policy costs much more, and the copay would bankrupt me if the same thing happened again. People’s wages are being eaten alive by the cost of this objectively worse insurance.

         • That doesnt mean universal health care wouldn’t cure you. Possible that everything would be cheaper. There is no price on health and practices to profit from it should be discouraged not encourageed by private sector.

           Universal health coverage, cut that middlemen – profiteers and bureaucracy. State run, you pay the bill, which is smaller. You are covered, no worries, no stress, no complications. 100 % coverage. For superstandard care you go private.

           Now you have so many interest groups, lobbying,.. to get their shares and profit. Not to mention over treatment because it is worth it.

           I don’t say it wouldn’t be hard to implement, because system is different.

           I mean the problem with minimum governent interference is that pharmaceuticals and other profiteers can do as they please if they lobby enough and the ordinary joe pays the price.

           https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=AU-DE-CA-US-JP&start=2000&view=chart

           % of GPD spent from 2010 to 2024 remains quite similar, except covid spike, which is not fault of GOV and Russians waging war against west. For inflation we have to thank to the Russians and covid, not administration. The big spike is till year 2010.

           • Do you honestly think insurance and pharma companies and other healthcare profiteers would lobby LESS if the government were the sole payer?

             As opposed to if government had no role in healthcare?
             Or at least if government’s role was limited to eliminating some currently legal (presumably due to lobbying) price-fixing by insurance companies and providers, that lets the insurance companies claim to be saving you 80% of billings you’d have to pay if you were uninsured?

             “Nice healthy body you’ve got there – it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it and you couldn’t afford 5x the price that we can get you…”

   • Agree but since USA tend to do things in a very dumb way it will fail.

     It might fly if you suggest a private system that works, like in Japan, Singapore or Switzerland.

   • I agree that a minimum level of Universal Healthcare has benefits to keep people working, productive, and off disability — keeps people’s conditions ‘professionally’ monitored and reasonably honest. But it needs to stop there.
     The issue is that People are not generally Good; they’re lazy, greedy, and stupid, but not evil – generally. So, a common benefit like Universal Healthcare is ripe for abuse and laxness (by the users, at least) — per the greatest of All Truths — The Tragedy of the Commons.
     So, that’s why absurd wait-times, inconvenient appointments, marginal competence, and dated facilities are a fair price to pay for paying ‘no price’ -outside of taxes (probably). It keeps you showing up for work, generally useful to family and community, and mitigates many long-term issues and chronic costs. Good enough.
     But! There has to be tiers of opportunity for those who wish to contribute to society above and beyond – specialized insurance, benefits to a healthy lifestyle, private medical facilities, etc. Choice. Opportunity. and a private industry to follow its own interpretation of ‘wellness’ that consumers can choose or not to buy into – the Free Market superpower. I think Australia probably has the closest to this – basic Public, robust Private.

     • Lazy, greedy, stupid? Why do people end up writing like this? It’s a mental disease that is worse than the pandemic. “absurd wait-times, inconvenient appointments, marginal competence” is a perfect description of the American health care system if you have used it at all. Insurers continue to cheat us and provide zero to negative benefit. Go to another country with a functioning universal system, you mention Australia, and see how much better it is.

9. It’s interesting to me how all the so called, smart people, are constantly deriding the regular people in the country but when you look at the actual performance of these so-called smart people they have run the country into a ditch. They used financialization to put profit earning companies into massive debt. Stole all the pension funds, fired all the workers. Some survived, some they moved the production to China but none of them helped the country as a whole or the workers. Sen. Romney, that scumbag, destroyed several companies. He said he raised capital for one company, but he didn’t talk about all the ones who had no debt that he bought with debt, and charged them $50 million in consultant fees. Which I’m sure mostly amounted to telling the managers, pay us $50 million or we will fire you and find someone who will. He bankrupted several of these mid cap simple companies that were fine before they got hold of them. And he was just one firm. There were hundreds of them feeding on the carcass of the country.

   They allowed the Asian countries to practice Mercantilism while our markets remained open. Mostly because they profited from the hollowing out of American manufacturing. It’s all fine and good to talk about free trade and how wonderful it is, but if you are the only one practicing it and everyone else practices Mercantilism, you will get your ass handed to you and eventually become nothing more than a raw materials supplier.

   And you say there’s no corruption but on 9-11 building 7 with fire on only three or four floors, we know, we have the direct video, fell the same speed as if only air held it up for over 100 feet. Now you say there’s no corruption. What is that? For those that can’t add at the minimum 10 floors would have had to have been vaporized to a gas to get this speed of falling.

   And how about the wonderful health organizations that “helped” us with the vax. Now I. obviously not of the anointed, saw earlier when they were testing these rna vaccines where they tried several times to make these for cats. Killed them all. They also did a trial in the Philippines. Killed a bunch of people. So how come with very little and faulty testing they vaxed the hell out of the country with something that had proven fatal, over and over and over?

   Now in the past the anointed got away with telling us that we didn’t have all the facts and we just didn’t understand but that’s changed. We can see that these self centered looters and lairs not only are incompetent but sometimes they are also evil and vile all together. If you are defending the current system it is incumbent on you to put forward exactly how it will make things better. If this can’t be done, and it’s likely in many cases it can not. Then they need to be hollowed out or canceled all together and we will get on with our lives without them as we always have.

   • Poison pill?

     Mixing valid theories with conspiratorial tropes?

     The weight of tile floors?

     Cat murder?

     I, sir, am NOT a cat-human hybrid.

     You’re complaints about the woman at the end of the bar are going unheard, sir.

     Thank you very much.

     • I think a person that accepts a government’s word as Bible without question is just as gullible as a person that believes every conspiracy theory.

   • As much as improved efficiency is important it really wouldn’t matter one iota in terms of spending in the next few years. In Fiscal Year 2023, the federal budget was $1.7T in discretionary spending and $4.4T in mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on the debt $0.7T). So already 72% of spending is off the table and unless Elon can get Congress to rewrite the law Trump can’t touch the money. In terms of the remaining spending $858B was spent on the Department of Defense and $130B on discretionary Veterans spending so $1T is spent on defense related items, and in an increasingly dangerous world this won’t be touched and neither will Veterans spending as we have guns and know how how to use them. This leave about $700B which while it isn’t small it’s only 2.5% of GDP and given that DoD and that the VA employ 2/3rds of civil servants it doesn’t even cover a lot of employees. It’s delusional of Elon to think he can squeeze a lot of money out of the system, especially when he promised 2 year severance packages. At the end of the Trump administration in 2028 he’d find he hadn’t save one dime. Now in a post Trump administration you would likely see savings of tens of billions a year, not the $2T he’s promising, but another President would get the credit and he could simply use the dividend to hire more civil servants or do whatever else he wanted, a pretty terrible deal for Trump and Trump doesn’t like deals that make him look bad.

10. If the US government was run like Tesla it would break very quickly.
    Just like a country’s economy cannot be run according to household rules, a government administration cannot be run according to a businessman’s rules
    But go ahead and try it will be interesting.

    • You know this for certain? Do you have any examples?

    • oh no. Countries, just like businesses can go bankrupt. Economics remains ecomonics. Ask the Weimer Republic

      • But do you think the US could actually go Bankrupt?
        While running all aspects (or at least defining all the rules and methodologies) of the financial-investment, monetary system, currency, and trading rules throughout most of the rich International world — it would be easy to bend and adjust various things to keep the economy ‘liquid’ and near-top-rated. Who would call in loans or enforce breaches? The fact of having an absurd level of debt interest load is pretty-much the only chronic irritation to possibly another level of greatness that the US could achieve internally.

        • Governments have just one advantage over private economic entities – the power to steal from the national economy (levy taxes or print money) and get away with it. But ultimately that power is limited: Steal too much from the national economy, and the source of wealth is destroyed, or flees to other countries that steal less.

          Eventually the government is forced to rebalance itself, break its promises of free lunches for all, spend less, steal money from foreigners (default on debts), and then try to limit its spending while faced with the distrust of other nations and its own citizens. Sometimes it helps if the old heads of government get replaced by new heads who pledge “WE will NEVER act so irresponsibly, cross our hearts – and here, have a free lunch so you’ll like us!”

11. At one point during the meeting, Trump joked about Musk’s continued presence in his orbit, saying, “Elon won’t go home. I can’t get rid of him.” The lawmakers insisted the statements were made in jest.

    This won’t last long. They both had mutial benefits in winning the election. I just think there is little chance they can coexist and work together in the long run. Two different worlds, Trump will just show him the door.

    • His next words were something like, “Until I want to”, so, yes, it was a joke.

      They won’t be hanging out together a lot, (Trump doesn’t want to spend that much time with an Energizer bunny who doesn’t sleep.) but no reason they can’t work together.

      • Statistics says otherwise. Trump had record office turnout in the first term, so if we look at statistics it is most likely Musk wont last long.

        • my friend n=1 says “you shouldn’t infer that”

    • They’re both alphas. Hope they get some things done before the inevitable break up.

    • The best outcome for me is that the alliance is mostly tongue-in-cheek and short, Elon does some symbolic draining of the swamp, and then he goes onto his own businesses with the tacit thanks and support of the incumbent administration to do his thing.

      While getting Elon into a real political post would be the worst for the Mars timelines.

      • Exactly right – gotta keep our priorities straight!

        Musk only got into politics because he saw the Dems breaking the foundations of democracy (i.e. trust that the government won’t abuse its power to attack political opponents). Which of course made him a target for those same power abusers.

        He probably hopes that politically biased bureaucrats will be sufficiently afraid of his association with Trump to cease their selective regulatory enforcement against his companies. Miraculously, just post-election of Trump, the 6th Starship launch isn’t being hindered by last-minute regulatory enforcement actions. And advertizers – perhaps no longer afraid of also being targeted by selective enforcement – are returning to X.

12. “Joe Justice worked at Tesla and he describes how Tesla can fully design and certify a new car in just one hour versus a year for other car companies.”

    Yes and we know how long did it take them to launch Cybertruck. How many years? Still no new model 3, Y or S/X or roadster? Tweets do not make new cars.

13. Dear Elon,
    So you say you can cut at least $2Trillion from $6.5Trillion (30.7%)? That leaves 69.3%.

    Social Security = 22%
    Medicare = 13%
    Defense = 13%
    Interest = 13%
    Total 🟰 61%

    Of the 39% of the budget left you’re going to cut at least 30.7%? Almost 80%?

    It’s almost like Elon makes s**t up…

    • The defense budget is grossly bloated. Nearly $1 trillion a year, and yet we can’t make enough 155mm shells. Artillery is the bread and butter of war. If we can’t produce something that basic in quantity, we are being fleeced.

    • Musk has no idea what he’s talking about. And his so-called efficiency is bogus; he’s always late in his product development, often over-budget and they cost more than promised to make up for that; is the Cybertruck even selling below $100k yet? His Tesla models look dated and all the same now. A lot of money is saved by ultra-minimalist controls and mediocre interiors.
      Musk, plus Trump’s alarming picks for Defense, Attorney General etc., will break the leadership, and if he gets his way to fire Civil Service professionals, no one will be left to keep the wheels on. We’ll be lucky if America can still defend itself in a war, handle a natural disaster, or control crime at the federal level (states can’t do what the FBI does).
      Trump has given Musk and his false department (it takes loads of paperwork and congressional approval to create or destroy a department, and true heads of departments have cabinet level posts; there’s not even a physical office for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency) 18 months to do what Trump couldn’t even begin to do in 4 years as president.
      Elon Musk is already over-stretched and his companies are suffering from his constant distractions on X. He’s in his mid-50s and has a dozen children and multiple mates. This new post could finish him. I’m sure his co-director Vivak Ramaswammey, is eagerly waiting to be the sole director. My guess is that well before the July 4, 2026 deadline, both will be quietly shown the door – once they have one.

      • No. He has destroyed his competition with Space X, and is doing great with Twitter. Tesla is not doing poorly either. Sounds like you are letting personal feelings cloud your judgement on his business ventures.

        • As Neil deGrasse pointed out, SpaceX is doing nothing significant that NASA didn’t do 50 years ago…except for landing lower stages so they can be reused and save lots of money. Starship can’t get out of orbit without refueling or learning how to strap even bigger boosters to the sides, and it’s unsafe for humans so far. Yes, better computers and ergonomics, but that’s not from Musk mostly.
          Twitter is worth half what it was when Musk overpaid for it, even if membership is up, for now. There are competitors everywhere, but it’s hard to gain the kind of mass that Twitter already had when Musk bought it.
          Tesla’s models look dated and not everyone likes the super-minimalist functionality. FSD will never happen because of unavoidable insurance liabilities and the tendency of FSD to fail when it’s least expected to, meaning you can never really trust it. There are a whole mess of problems with autonomous vehicles described here: https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=dxZebeK0r5VgIcr9 and some of them just have to do with cars in cities in general. Musk has a sort of retro futurism outlook, that envisions suburban single family homes when more people are moving to the cities, and car dependency, when fewer people are getting cars or even licenses, especially young people.
          Yes, Elon Musk is still the world’s leading technologist, because technology is HARD. But he’s likely to look obsolete in 10 years or so, if not just plain too old and exhausted by then. Meanwhile, even Trump and his acolytes are tiring of him: “He won’t go home” said Trump publicly, though gently cause he still needs Musk’s money and influence.

14. Sounds like austerity policy under David Cameron’s government in the UK. Privatization of government functions by selling off to billionaire supporters of the administration. Then maximizing investors return overrides supplying quality to the customers. Investment in infrastructure stops until a crisis occurs, the private owners say they have no money, the government buys it back at a loss and pumps the necessary cash in to get it functional again. Bottom line short terms saving leads to long term losses and disgruntled customers.

15. Musk is spending so much time tweeting; I wonder how much he is at his companies these days. No wonder Cybertruck took forever to launch…

    He can always use political power to help his companies,…

    I mean, it depends on the government, but I think everyone is inefficient; it depends how much.
    But we need laws and regulations; otherwise, people would abuse power and make it hard for ordinary citizens to be protected against explotation. I mean, it is possible for Musk to make improvements and save money, making it better for others. But since Trump is so corrupt, it could lead to dictatorship. They would use efficient problems… as rational excuses, pretextes to secretly implement dictatorship. 

    One are actual promises and another what are real actions beeing done and implemented.

16. Cutting government services (and the personnel that go with it) will be used more for political purposes than the desire to make government more efficient. Don’t like certain regulations? Cut the department. Don’t like taxes and audits? Cut the staff and funding for the IRS. Don’t like someone because they are an obstacle to your agenda? Fire the person in the name of efficiency. We are in dark times.

    • Not at all. The Government regularly abuses it’s authority, grows larger and more efficient year after year. And they do it on the backs of working people.

    • Lawrence O’Donnell says Elon Musk is basically a lobbyist with his faux Dept. of Government Efficiency (real departments have to be created in Congress): https://youtu.be/aJW0WSUgmmk

17. Match government expenditures to previous years tax receipts.
    “Thou shalt not spendeth more than thou maketh in any given year expecting the time of war.
    Hoping against hope that this doesn’t give government the impetus to make a new war every year.

    • Match taxes to last year’s spending. If you want your taxes reduced cut spending.

18. I think part of the problem here is that companies like Tesla have objective success criteria. Did the product work? Does the public buy it? How are costs and production rates trending?

    For a lot of the government, nothing like that exists. The benefits are entirely subjective or hypothetical, so you can’t do objective cost/benefit analysis. And the ‘customer’ doesn’t have a CHOICE about ‘buying’ it.

    But there are a lot of potential areas where our expenditures produce nothing at all. For instance, the FDA has not protected the US from a single solitary mistaken drug approval, relative to its European counterparts, since Thalidomide. But is HAS dramatically slowed new drug approvals and developments.

    We could basically abolish the agency, and just automatically approve any drug approved by a majority of European counterparts, and get the exact same result for free and a lot faster.

    • It would be nice if greater efficiency was possible. It seems to be in direct conflict with the entire Trump administration approach to governing which is to maximize elected and appointed officials power to arbitrarily (and corruptly) exert influence and make decisions. Authoritarianism can seem more efficient for awhile because junking rules can get useful things done faster, but it also means there are no more barriers to government serving whatever the officials choose to do for personal reasons which is the exact opposite of efficiency from the public’s POV. The Federal government started with The Spoils system before the creation of a civil service so we’ve been here before.

      • Authoritarianism? It is the current administration that has been abusing it’s authority.

        • No party or administration for a century has tried to seize direct political control from the civil service and courts, the “deep state” that this is directed at. This is what “Authoritarian” government means. The people in power dictate what happens NOT the rules and the institutions that administer the rules.

          • “The people in power dictate what happens NOT the rules and the institutions that administer the rules.”

            Like the rules against censorship that was constantly violated by the Biden Administration. Not they needed to do much prodding when the FBI was already covering up the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and passing the blame onto Russia in order to help Biden win 2020. There were enough Biden voters who would have switched votes or not show up that it would have overturn the election.

19. Right. and when the ‘light’ goes on and these noble czars and luminaries discover that 50 to 75% of people, even in a rich country, are average, unmotivated, and of little ambition, where will they put these ‘underachievers’? Deport them? Shoot them? ‘Efficiency’ camp? You can’t layoff a ‘citizen’. Great countries and great companies and great teams are not made up of great people — they are made up of average people who are well-motivated, well-managed, well-organized, and with significant incentive and opportunity, as transparently provided by a great organizing entity/ management/ system. This is the US, Uk, Australia/Canada, and maybe a few other G7/G20 places’ difference. That’s why unions are the lowest form of life and how monster (and uncapped) public pensions are the sinks of the drudges, malcontents, and ne’er-do-wells. Which isn’t to say that those who seek work/life balance or a ‘work-to-live-rather-than-live-to-work’ existence should be rounded up and forced to work at an Amazon enslavement Centre, though it would be good for them… but to give them choice. That’s why we have small-town podunks, 500 miles from an urban area, with houses for less than $150k, and total freedom — as a temporary or permanent respite from productivity, usefulness, and significant cotribution — nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, ‘trickle-down’ often provides these places, eventually, with ongoing improvements in connectivity, quality of life, and opportunity.
    I welcome the attempt to squeeze efficiency and creativity out of our bureaucracy — but in 4 to 6 years? Manhattan project. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to immigration in such a cost-cutting and re-juvenation-type mindset. Perhaps big cuts – even in green cards.

    • I foresee the major fight in public pensions and other such entitlements. A culture of ‘I worked for 30 years’ so I deserve to sit on my otherwise healthy butt for 15 to 20 years on the public’s dime, is a hard mindset to crush. A ‘I should finance my own retirement’ until 1 – 3 years before my death may not be a viable mentality, especially when increasing numbers of people are not expected to pay off their mortgage (or even have an ‘owned’ house/ condo) before 65 and actual inheritance levels sink to a tiny percentage of a year’s living.

      • Actually, there are probably some non-rational and sentimental pro-economic ‘systems’ and norms that could benefit from loosened stringency: such as families. A move toward policies that encourage transfer of inter-generational wealth by minimizing capital-gains taxation and inheritance claw-backs when there are multiple properties and assets within tight and direct family structures. Many countries penalize second residences, non-primaries, and other items that could be ‘kept’ in the family. These (usually) high-trust relationships are key to increasing population size and assisting in having more kids earlier, in better areas in larger homes, rather than wasting ‘productivity time’ paying off various early-life debts such as student loans, car debts, and down-payment (borrowing).

        • Tax cuts for the rich won’t make people have more kids; real change comes from making life affordable for young families, not coddling inherited wealth.

20. 1. The election was won because the average low skilled citizen from the backwoods of Pennsylvania was mostly concerned about the price of a box of eggs. They are in for a shock.

    2. The US government really isn’t corrupt, there isn’t much money to be saved here.

    3. FBI, Department of Education, Nuclear Regulatory Commission are unnecessary?! Christ….

    • It doesn’t need to be corrupt to be inefficient. It can be perfectly above board and functional but still be inefficient. The more regulations that exist, the more that has to be administered. It’s likely that if Elon gets his way, he will cut far more than is optimal and then put stuff back as needed.

      • Maybe but it’s a delicate balance. What is efficiency to one interest group is simply corrupt autocracy to another.

        This is Elon’s approach for his own companies – which are by their nature autocracies and that’s OK within a civil society where it’s within the rules. When it’s about government it’s about dictating with a monopoly on force and the other side’s only real option is challenging that monopoly – which is civil war.

    • Well, ya saw the percentage of uneducated folks, especially men, votin’ for Trump. But let me tell ya somethin’, this ain’t just an issue in the US. Over here in Germany, it’s pretty much the same. Folks with little education votin’ for confirmed right-wing extremists or parties like the “Alternative for Germany.”

      • So only the stupid vote for Trump? Arrogant elitists in their echo chamber mocking the legitimate concerns of the working class people who prop up their lifestyle is how civil wars start.

        • We can only hope the “supposed” educated are double vaxed.

        • Half the country has an IQ of less than 100. Trump figured out how to speak to them and won maybe with a little help from racists and xenophobes also. Our civil war was started by racist slave owners. I don’t hear a lot of mocking except from the red side of the aisle as that is essentially all they did along with attacks for four years in the House. How many lies and crimes from these guys will it take for Rob to realize he is what Trump calls a “basement dweller”?

        • What kind of educated person votes for a president that vows to push the world toward a 3C rise?

          What kind of educated person votes for someone who will put prayer in the class room and do away with national education standards?

          What kind of educated person would vote for someone who attacks academic freedom?

          What kind of educated person votes for someone who doesn’t understand the concept of comparative advantage in world trade?

          What kind of educated person votes for someone who will bring back inflation with crazy tariffs?

          What type of educated person votes for a president who puts JFK jr in charge of the NIH?

          I’ll tell what kind of educated person. An educated person who only thinks of themselves and the profit they will make out of making everyone else worse off.

          • Marcus
            As long as there are tests there will be prayer in public school….

      • They are so pro Russia. I think it is probable that Russia is spending billions to influence public vote and get people who support their agenda elected.

    • Well, saving on government spending is a way to achieve more money left in the hands of the voters, right?

      And to your second point, a department doesn’t have to be corrupt to be inefficient, right? You can have people doing useless things without taking bribes.

    • The US is very corrupt. And a whole lot of people are concerned at the price of eggs, not just the working class that you seem to look down on. And it’s not that the FBI is unnecessary, but abuses it’s power. The FISA court is one example.

      • Not looking down, the government should never look down. The price of eggs was a legitimate concern for that citizen so he voted for Trump. But if the fail-quickly paradigm is being tested on the US government, Honest Bob the coal miner is about to find themselves the bacteria at the very bottom of the petri dish.

    • I would hate to see these fine institutions go. We have a huge deficit of pet squirrel and raccoon executions. What will we do without them?

    • 1. A response that any elitist snob would be proud of. And you wonder why working class voters hate the current system.

      2. Except for medical experimentation performed on the public without their knowledge or consent (Tuskegee Experiments, MKUltra, multiple instances where the public was sprayed with chemical and biological agents, Agent Orange, Gulf War “syndrome”), domestic wiretapping by the CIA, CIA connections with Jim Jones who was responsible for the Jonestown Massacre, NSA surveillance, the FBI pressuring social media to censor “misinformation” that was proven late to be true, the weaponization of the IRS to deny 501c3 status non-profit groups opposing the Obama Administration (though the practice of using the IRS to go after political opponents goes back to FDR, JFK, Nixon, and Clinton).

      3. Maybe if the Dep. of Education spent less time teaching children that they have 500 genders & and that they should be taking hormone blocks and having their body parts removed and more actually time educating children, we wouldn’t be talking about abolishing the Department of Education

21. If they could reduce the work force by 10% it would be fantastic. But anything above that is probably unrealistic. The workers and the media will fight tooth and nail to show how “necessary” all of these positions are.

    • Anything above 100% is unrealistic for most departments.

      • Shoot, many federal agency functions are duplicated by state agencies. Examples include health departments, fish and wildlife, environmental protection, education, energy governance, etc. We could gut a number of federal bureaucracies and the state agencies would remain to do the cherished job of counting the crabs in my basket, making sure the deer I took has at least 6 points in zone 63, telling people they can’t backfill the swamp on their property and blocking corporate acquisitions without proper bribery (board of public utilities in NJ).

    • So all this government spending y’all are complaining about goes primarily to Americans. Even the bulk of the Ukraine money went to Americans making weapons. Cutting the supply of government spending also cuts jobs for those receiving it. Let’s make sure we are already for massive unemployment and a sharp contraction in the economy. When everything falls apart, new fortunes will be made by the rich who can still afford to buy everything at rock bottom prices. Just like every depression/recession, the rich will get richer.

      • “…So all this government spending y’all are complaining about goes primarily to Americans…”

        There’s a bit of shiftiness in this statement. While mostly true, it doesn’t actually say, which Americans got the money, an important variable. I read California has spent something like 25 billion on the homeless. The numbers are something like $150,000 per homeless or so. But did the homeless actually get this? No, it was eaten up by the government workers and various other “social services” groups. For that cost, they could have built small concrete apartments. Very small, but a place to live. But the point is not to help the homless, but to line the pockets of those who complain about how heartless we are for not spending more on the homless. They don’t give a damn about the homeless. If they did, they wouldn’t be homeless. Once they spent around $10,000 for tents for each homeless. I added up some of the cost they put out and they could have bought $1,000 tents AND bought them a parking space in a parking garage for 30 months for what they spent. For what they are spending we could have a place for them and a, at least, primitive place for them to stay. As it is, they spend their resources on token pretend missions and the rest is spent towing off their RV’s they live in, harassing them and driving them off periodically to different parts of the city.

        Now you may hate the homeless, I don’t, they do have a lot of problems. Some are drug addicted and alcoholics, but some are not. Some are a lot of trouble, those we have jails for, but some are not, and we need somewhere for them. Whatever their problems, it can’t help that they live under bridges and on sidewalks. They can’t afford to live where they are, and they don’t have resources or jobs to move where they can afford it.

        The point is, they spend vast sums of money and never really solve anything.

        “…Just like every depression/recession, the rich will get richer….”

        Now this is conspiratorial talk which of course no real person believes, but, it would not surprise me if the homeless problem drove off vast numbers of people, lowered their houses values and these were snapped up a bargain prices by the financial class but then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, the homeless were rounded up and summarily ejected from anywhere near these bought up properties and the people that bought them made huge profits on the rise in property prices. Of course, this is foolish talk but, we’ll see.

        • asking chatGPT about globally accumulated wealth (btw, seems missing some of Asia’s impact&influence?, but maybe another ‘unbiased’ POV):
          “The accumulation of wealth, capital, and influence over the past century has been shaped by significant transformations in global economies, industries, and social structures. Different groups—ranging from social groups to business sectors and capital-related entities—have profited from these shifts in varying degrees. Below, I’ll categorize and examine the groups that have grown the most, profiting from capital accumulation over the recent 3 decades (1990s–2020s), the past 30 years, and the past century. These groups will be presented separately, with a focus on social groupings, business sectors, capital-related groupings, and others that have most benefited from the accumulation of capital.
          1. Recent 3 Decades (1990s–2020s)

          In the past three decades, the global economy has undergone major changes, driven by globalization, technological innovation, and the financialization of markets. During this period, wealth has become increasingly concentrated, particularly within certain groups, sectors, and regions.
          A. Social Groupings

          The Wealthy Elite (Top 1%):
          In many countries, particularly in the U.S., wealth has become increasingly concentrated among the top 1%. This group has profited the most from capital gains, the rise in financial assets, and the inflation of asset prices (stocks, real estate). They hold a significant portion of national wealth due to their investments in stocks, bonds, private equity, and real estate.
          The U.S. has seen a dramatic increase in wealth among the top 1%, largely due to the expansion of financial markets, the stock market boom (especially in technology), and the rise of capital income as opposed to wages.

          Billionaires:
          The number of billionaires worldwide has exploded, especially in sectors like technology, finance, consumer goods, and real estate. The global wealth of billionaires has grown rapidly, especially in the U.S., China, and Europe, driven by investments in tech (e.g., Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft) and finance (e.g., private equity, hedge funds).

          B. Business Groupings

          Tech Giants:
          The technology sector has been the biggest winner over the past three decades, with companies like Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta (Facebook), and Tesla amassing trillions in market value. Their accumulation of capital has been fueled by the digital transformation, including the internet, cloud computing, AI, and e-commerce.
          The rise of software-as-a-service (SaaS), digital advertising, and data-driven business models has enabled these firms to generate massive profits with low marginal costs. The “winner-takes-all” nature of tech markets has allowed these companies to dominate their sectors and accrue immense wealth.

          Financial Sector:
          The financial services sector (especially investment banks, hedge funds, private equity, and asset management firms) has seen huge capital accumulation. The growth of capital markets, global finance, and the increasing dominance of stock buybacks, financial engineering, and derivatives trading has made finance one of the biggest wealth-generating sectors.
          The private equity boom, in particular, has created massive wealth for those in charge of these funds (e.g., BlackRock, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs).

          Energy Sector (Oil & Gas):
          Despite the rise of renewables, fossil fuel companies (particularly oil and natural gas) continue to generate massive wealth due to the ongoing demand for energy. Companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell have remained highly profitable, especially during periods of high oil prices.
          The emergence of energy trading and shale oil has added to the profitability of energy firms.

          C. Capital-Related Groupings

          Private Equity & Venture Capital Firms:
          Private equity firms and venture capitalists have seen a significant rise in wealth, especially as these entities have gained control over increasing portions of businesses, infrastructure, and emerging markets. Investors in startups (especially in tech, biotech, and fintech) have experienced tremendous returns.
          Global Real Estate Investors:
          The real estate sector has seen massive wealth accumulation through the gentrification of cities, global property markets, and luxury real estate. Major investment firms and wealthy individuals have bought up property as a safe haven for their capital, especially in cities like New York, London, Hong Kong, and Paris.

          2. Recent 30 Years (1990s–2020s)

          The past 30 years, while largely consistent with the above trends, have seen the rise of globalization, digitalization, and the expansion of financial markets. Key developments include:
          A. Social Groupings

          Professional & Managerial Class:
          As the knowledge economy and service sectors (e.g., finance, tech, law, medicine) grew, the upper-middle class—comprising highly educated professionals—saw significant income and wealth growth. The rise of tech hubs (like Silicon Valley) has increased the wealth and influence of professionals in specialized fields.
          Tech Entrepreneurs:
          In particular, tech entrepreneurs have amassed fortunes over the past three decades. The individuals behind Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Tesla (e.g., Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg) have benefitted immensely from the value of their companies and the rising stock market.

          B. Business Groupings

          Technology Firms (Software and Hardware):
          The software and hardware sectors have boomed, particularly those involved in cloud computing, big data, AI, electronics, and internet services. The dominance of companies like Apple and Microsoft has continued, while emerging firms like Uber, Airbnb, and Alibaba have become dominant players in their respective markets.
          Financial Tech (Fintech):
          Fintech companies have capitalized on the increasing digitization of financial services. Companies such as PayPal, Ant Financial, and Square have rapidly grown by disrupting traditional banking and enabling digital payments, cryptocurrency, and peer-to-peer lending.

          C. Capital-Related Groupings

          Institutional Investors:
          Institutional investors, including major pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, have grown significantly in influence and capital. Entities like BlackRock and Vanguard have become some of the largest holders of global corporate stocks, influencing the direction of capital markets.

          3. Recent 100 Years (1920s–2020s)

          Over the past century, the wealth accumulation process has gone through several major transformations, particularly influenced by the rise of industrial capitalism, globalization, the digital revolution, and the financialization of economies.
          A. Social Groupings

          Capitalist Class (Corporate Elites):
          Over the last century, the wealthiest individuals have transitioned from landowners and industrial magnates (e.g., steel, oil) to corporate elites in sectors like technology, finance, and media. Wealth was largely inherited or accumulated through ownership of large corporations during the early to mid-20th century, such as Ford, Standard Oil, and General Electric.

          Financial Elite (Banking & Hedge Fund Managers):
          As economies became more financialized, the banking sector became the main driver of wealth accumulation. Individuals in banking (e.g., J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs) and hedge funds (e.g., George Soros, Ray Dalio) have seen their wealth and influence grow substantially through stock market booms and financial innovations.

          B. Business Groupings

          Oil, Gas, and Mining Companies:
          Historically, the oil, gas, and mining sectors have been central to global economic wealth creation. Families and corporations like Rockefellers (Standard Oil), Saudi Aramco, and ExxonMobil built vast fortunes from energy and natural resources extraction.

          Manufacturing Giants (Automobiles, Steel, etc.):
          In the first half of the 20th century, the automobile, steel, and construction sectors (e.g., Ford, General Motors, General Electric, US Steel) played a huge role in driving wealth accumulation, particularly in the U.S. and Europe.

          Technology Giants (Late 20th Century):
          From the 1980s onward, technology companies began to dominate. Microsoft, Intel, and later Apple and Google became dominant players. These companies transformed the economy, creating immense wealth through the software and hardware industries.

          C. Capital-Related Groupings

          Multinational Corporations (MNCs):
          The rise of MNCs over the last 100 years—especially after World War II—has been a defining feature of capital accumulation. These corporations have expanded globally, securing enormous market share and capital. The most notable include Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Nestlé, and Procter & Gamble.

          Institutional Investment Firms:
          As the global financial system matured in the post-WWII era, institutional investors (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, mutual funds) became major players in capital markets. Their size, capital, and influence have increased exponentially.

          Conclusion

          Recent 3 Decades: The wealthiest 1% and tech entrepreneurs have been the biggest beneficiaries of capital accumulation, as technology, finance, and energy sectors (especially oil) have seen massive growth.

          Past 30 Years: The rise of global tech giants, fintech, and institutional investors has defined wealth accumulation trends, with a strong focus on technology and financialization of capital markets.

          Past Century: Oil, gas, and mining industries, as well as corporate elites in manufacturing, have been key wealth accumulators, while financial elites and multinational corporations gained prominence in the latter half of the century.

          Across all time periods, the tech sector, financial services, and energy resources (both fossil and renewable) have been the biggest engines of capital accumulation, with the wealthiest social groups increasingly coming from finance, technology, and globalized industries.”

Comments are closed.