Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[mongers]

I'm reminded of HHGTTG:

The President in particular is very much a figurehead—he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had—he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.

Yep, and Trump has an ego the size of a planet and that on only one head; Zaphod was a light-weight in comparison.

[dist]

They clearly have some incentive to try and keep things from breaking too much or from breaking things that they value.  They broke the Department of Energy and fired the technical staff responsible for nuclear weapons, and now they're trying to do a 'takie-backsies' on it.  There are some things that they're not willing or able to just walk away from. 

But that clearly demonstrates the worst part of it, or what should make us shiver: they don't understand what they are breaking.

[crazy canuck]

They clearly have some incentive to try and keep things from breaking too much or from breaking things that they value.  They broke the Department of Energy and fired the technical staff responsible for nuclear weapons, and now they're trying to do a 'takie-backsies' on it.  There are some things that they're not willing or able to just walk away from. 

Even libertarians agree that nuclear weapons/the military should not be privatized. I don't take any comfort that the move to privatize won't go full speed in other areas.

[Neil]

They clearly have some incentive to try and keep things from breaking too much or from breaking things that they value.  They broke the Department of Energy and fired the technical staff responsible for nuclear weapons, and now they're trying to do a 'takie-backsies' on it.  There are some things that they're not willing or able to just walk away from. 

But that clearly demonstrates the worst part of it, or what should make us shiver: they don't understand what they are breaking.

Indeed, that's my point.  Tech guys don't understand anything.

[Oexmelin]

Remember: these are the guys who proudly announced they invented public transit.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with your disagreement. The winning play for private corporations in general - and tech-bros and VC in specific - is to walk away from what breaks and let others pay for the consequences of the breakage. That may not be a sustainable strategy for a government - especially if it's accountable to the people.

What do you mean by "break" in this context?

[Jacob]

What do you mean by "break" in this context?

Two main things:

1) If it's not profitable to serve the customer base I've built for my product, I can always just walk away from the whole business altogether. That the customers no longer have their needs served is not my problem.

2) If there are externalities (including surprises) "good" business practice encourages you to offload them to "the commons" and/ or the government. If that doesn't work, refer to point 1 above.

This creates a very different attitude towards taking risks.

[Josquius]

Remember: these are the guys who proudly announced they invented public transit.

It now seems virtually certain the whole hyperloop thing was to sabotage investment in rail right?

[dist]

Indeed, that's my point.  Tech guys don't understand anything.

They do understand things. The problem with Musk and DOGE is that they absolutely don't understand the complex systems they are currently dismantling and how their actions will impact Americans, national politics, worldwide economy and stability. And in Musk's case, he probably thinks he understands, and if he knows he doesn't, he clearly doesn't care.

As others have pointed out, they are clearly aiming at privatizing any of the possible spoils, and leaving unfilled voids wherever else. I expect them to try to roll out an AI or AI augmented air traffic control system to solve the issues they exacerbated by firing FAA air traffic controllers.

The coming "audit" of the Pentagon will be in any case enlightening about what Trump & Co thinks is the basis of the American power. If they go at it the same way they have been slashing everything else so far, they will destroy the tools they need to exploit/extract resources from their allies and maintain America's current status. Wouldn't be surprising, they already destroyed America's research.

After Musk's comments on the F35, I kind of expect that program to be slashed to the profit of Space X combat drones and perhaps an abandonment of some of the new carriers.

I guess we will know soon enough.

[The Minsky Moment]

The objective here is to create a fourth constitutional revolution (1776, 1866, 1930s), with the goal of the complete destruction of the current constitutional order and its replacement by elective Presidential dictatorship, with the President advised by a technical elite. Thus, we are very much on the "doesn't care" side of things.  Destroying agency efficacy is the goal, not the unwanted side effect.  The claims of efficiency and audit are just smoke and mirrors to confuse the public and the media and distract their attention.

The tip-off is how Trump's people are responding to the lawsuits.  They are specifically saying that Musk has NO ROLE in DOGE, the pseudo-agency he allegedly leads.  They are not grounding his authority as head of a government bureau (even a fake one like DOGE) because the goal is to destroy all powers of all the bureaus.  Rather, they are saying his authority comes from his role as personal advisor to the President, conveying Presidential orders.  That is, Musk's authority is viceregal - it comes not from serving in an appointed position with Senate advice and consent but as the voice of the President himself.  It is the ultimate logical endpoint of the theory of the unitary executive, where only the President's voice has authority, but that authority is total AND it can be exercised by delegation at the President's personal whim, thus escaping the constitutional fetters of advice + consent and legislative oversight.

[Valmy]

I do have to wonder what the value of controlling the President, even a theoretical dictatorial one, if there is no administration to carry out his will.

[DGuller]

I do have to wonder what the value of controlling the President, even a theoretical dictatorial one, if there is no administration to carry out his will.

The math of authoritarianism is that having a full control of a diminished asset is much preferable to having partial control of a healthy asset.  For the people who still have control, that is.

[mongers]

The objective here is to create a fourth constitutional revolution (1776, 1866, 1930s), with the goal of the complete destruction of the current constitutional order and its replacement by elective Presidential dictatorship, with the President advised by a technical elite. Thus, we are very much on the "doesn't care" side of things.  Destroying agency efficacy is the goal, not the unwanted side effect.  The claims of efficiency and audit are just smoke and mirrors to confuse the public and the media and distract their attention.

The tip-off is how Trump's people are responding to the lawsuits.  They are specifically saying that Musk has NO ROLE in DOGE, the pseudo-agency he allegedly leads.  They are not grounding his authority as head of a government bureau (even a fake one like DOGE) because the goal is to destroy all powers of all the bureaus.  Rather, they are saying his authority comes from his role as personal advisor to the President, conveying Presidential orders.  That is, Musk's authority is viceregal - it comes not from serving in an appointed position with Senate advice and consent but as the voice of the President himself.  It is the ultimate logical endpoint of the theory of the unitary executive, where only the President's voice has authority, but that authority is total AND it can be exercised by delegation at the President's personal whim, thus escaping the constitutional fetters of advice + consent and legislative oversight.

So the establishment of a monarchy for an emperor.

[Tamas]

I do have to wonder what the value of controlling the President, even a theoretical dictatorial one, if there is no administration to carry out his will.

The math of authoritarianism is that having a full control of a diminished asset is much preferable to having partial control of a healthy asset.  For the people who still have control, that is.

Exactly, having control of what is left is the key to maintain power, based on Orban's work which is the one I have been able to follow, so to speak. He has been willing to cut funds coming into the country, for example, if those funds would not be coming into or through his direct control. D

[crazy canuck]

I do have to wonder what the value of controlling the President, even a theoretical dictatorial one, if there is no administration to carry out his will.

Power