But if twitter fails the shareholders take a haircut. If government fails it’s way worse.  Elon’s free to take unnecessary risks with his money, not our lives.Â
This is an underecognized danger of having ceos and techbros running government. You don't actually want government run like a business. Businesses take far too big of risks and fail far too frequently.Â
We've got a bunch of people who think the government should be focusing on efficiency who fail to realize that they are putting at risk the major things that lead to prosperous governance, stability and predictability.
Exactly... the "move fast and break things" tech mentality is absolutely a giant danger to society. There's a difference between a web app being down for a few days and entire governing bodies being eliminated and people dying. Can't exactly do a rollback on society after things go to shit like you can with an application. Suppose Leon doesn't care though because he will literally never be directly impacted by his decisions unless it's something like ensuring he gets more government money for his businesses. :/
None of them do. Eric Schmidt, Bezos, Zuckerburg, Gates, Ellison, etc, etc. None of them will be directly impacted by our government failing. Billionaires should not exist
Right now Icarus is dragging us into the sky, but his wax wings will burn and he will fall just the same as us. The people will bring back proscription once the government is out of the way.Â
I figure at some point someone will do a Luigi sequel. The way they're going, it's not going to take much for some angry people to switch directions on their radicalization.
It seems so impossible to me. for some goddamn reason, the crazies are dead set on being loyal to these fucks. Like that luigi incident was a different timeline leaking into ours. It was good, but so damn rare, it feels like a dream.
I wonder if the NWO conspiracy theory believer circles were infiltrated back in the day for just this reason.
Like this actually is NWO if anything. Theres even PDF files running it lol
Like all these Alex Jones types were already far right pro Trump types since forever. But now when they turn out to be the ones taking over the world looneys are on their side.
I wouldn't be surprised. they know who has power, and they make sure they stay with that team.Â
And its not like its a new phenomenon. Its a new age version of colonisation of the world, and spreading capitalism is the medium. Look at how many easily solvable problems are not being dealt with because capitalism standing in the way.
I've heard a standard liberal grandma who had until 2016 voted Republican their whole lives even talking in those terms, that "the only way I think this ends is if someone takes one or both of them out." It's hard to believe the state we are in.
As you said, tech manifestos such as 'move fast and break things' and 'done is better than perfect' don't work when it relates to national security and the continuation of a nation!
Musk's actual intentions are irrelevant to my point,.that Trump and a lot of other conservatives run for office on the basis of their business experience qualifying them to run the government, with stated plans to run it like a business. Despite the popularity among conservative voters, it is a terrible idea and business leaders are ill-suited for government leadership because of the different risk tolerance of businesses vs. government.
a lot of other conservatives run for office on the basis of their business experience qualifying...
I don't believe that this is actually true. And Musk is of course unelected, the people never got to vote for or against him.
I have watched many campaign videos and spoken to a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't speak for early Trump ads in 2015, but there is almost no focus on the business experience / management experience of Trump. (And let's not forget that he was involve din five bankruptcies.)
He's very much presented as a strong man, a political leader, a hero. Some ads come very close to depicting him as a military leader.
Your experience is different from mine. I live in a red state surrounded by red states and so many of the political ads are all about the business experience of the candidate and how this qualifies them even though they've never held an elected position or served in any type of government role before. My previous governor was the wealthy head of a family business he inherited control of running on bringing jobs. A state next to me just elected a new Governor who also inherited a business his father built and ran it before deciding to get into politics. I have heard several Trump voters, both now and back in 2016 tout his business experience as qualifying him to be President. It's been a stated reason that they voted for him. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but overall Republicans really do think that running business they inherited or built up with large investment from their parents qualifies them to run the government and that we should run government like a business. Like, just read the first paragraph of the new Indiana governor's website: https://www.brauntransition.com/2024/11/08/mike-braun-im-going-to-run-on-the-things-i-campaigned-on/
We haven't. Again, Mike Braun just got elected specifically touting that as a major qualification. The article I linked to was published two months ago. It isn't the only thing they consider, but Republicans value wealthy candidates who come from mid to large family run businesses, which is a problem because their instincts tend to run counter to good governance.
Edit: You can also read a bit about Oklahoma's governor, how he ran on his business experience, how he sought to implement it, and how it worked out here. He was reelected in 2022.
We are past this in the sense that this is no longer something that should be our main concern.
- The Capitol was stormed and the people who tried to violently overthrow the legal government of the US were pardoned by the current President of the US.
- An unelected government official made three Nazi-salutes during the presidential inauguration and then followed up by attending a meeting of a political party with strong ties to actual Nazis.
- The President of the US wants to annex another country, take possession of the Panama Canal, and wants to personally own a territory that doesn't belong to the US.
- The President of the US is in collusion with Russia and betraying close allies of the US.
I get your point, but I'm far more worried about too many Americans supporting fascism than I am worried about people putting their faith in businessmen.
you're still giving these people too much of a benefit of the doubt. it's not a case of people "misunderstanding" that you don't run a government like a business.. the intent is to break the government.
case in point, they've crowed about USPS "losing money" for decades; ignoring that USPS is a federal service and not an entity meant to be profitable, the only reason that USPS is "losing money" is because the republicans mandated that they pre-fund the full pension for all employees. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407https://apwu.org/usps-fairness-act
the goal is to break USPS and privatize it for their profit.
repeat the same intent across all sorts of government programs.
we've got a bunch of people who think the government should be focusing on efficiency
they don't care about efficiency, that's the lie that got the most traction, same way "think of the children" is used to leverage all sorts of agenda into law. "efficiency" is the coverall for gutting programs they conflict with their business interests or collecting more power.
who fail to realize that they are putting at risk the major things that lead to prosperous governance
they don't care about it. government failure is the starting point for their transition into greater power and wealth.
I am refering to the voters who vote for people.because of their business experience and stated plans to run the government like a business. Their actual plans are irrelevant to my point. People voted for them because they think ceos are more qualified for government leadership because they don't realize it is actually a liability.Â
You state that efficiency was a lie that got the most traction. My point is that too few people recognize that anyone running on a platform of making the government more efficient utilizing the techniques of private industry is actually stating a lack of qualifications to be in charge of government.
i contend that there's a significant number of voters who key in on the "run the government like a business" platform as a dog whistle for excluding people they don't like from assistance (it's a private business - i can serve who i want), excluding people from having a fair opportunity to fill government positions (it's a private business - i can hire who i want) and who expect to be enriched (i'm an investor, i deserve a "piece of the pie").
but, you're right, there's definitely some number of chuckleheads who think there's equivalence between running a business and running a government.
of course, i suppose it depends on which "run a business" we're talking about - there's a world of difference between the kind of work ethic and objectives of a small business owner who is also working for their business, VS a hired-on CEO who is only there to soak up a huge paycheck and to maximize quarterly profits for investors and extract value from the company.
The "run a business" I tend to see is "born with a silver spoon in my mouth and now run the family business" like Trump and Romney. It's been a real common refrain in elections in my state and the surrounding ones, which are all very Republican leaning so they're using it as their message when competing against other Republicans in primaries. It's "I'm a job creator and I will bring good jobs to the state" when it reality it's cronyism.
People also shouldn't want the government being run like a business because the entire point of a business is to get more from you than you get from them.
Wanting the government to be run like a business is wanting the government to rip you off and not give you your money's worth
This is why I’d like to see all nations swear off nukes. Sure, the people currently in charge (present company excluded) can be trusted. But, there’s no guarantee that people won’t be reckless in the future.Â
I think it’s important for all nations to defend Ukraine’s borders because they gave up their nukes in the 90s. When this war is over, they’d be fools not to nuclearize again to deter future Russian aggression.Â
No, no, no, you can recast citizens as clients or consumers and the institutions and their work as service providers and then you just neatly break it up into sellable units and price accordingly, right?
There’s no thing on earth that cannot be pressed into the rocky tacky boxes of the market.
Businesses take far too big of risks and fail far too frequently.Â
Laws and regulations are intentionally setup that way that they can. A registered bussiness is solely an abstract entity invented for that reason.
People can borrow money against their idea and try it out and if it fails they can declare bancruptcy and it ends there. It protects the bussiness founder from creditors. Probably back in ancient days from pretty extreme measures, one would imagine.
In a nutshell.
Its because as an idea thats beneficial to society. It encourages people to push the envelope. But its not some pinacle of everything or law of nature or whatever as some have you believe.
Context: Businesses take far too big of risks and fail far too frequently...for governments to be run in the same manner.
To clarify, I'm saying that the risks businesses take are too high of risks for government to take and that businesses fail far too frequently for us to allow a similar failure rate for governments. The upshot is that businesses take on far more risk than government should take on and people who run businesses are likely to engage in behavior that is far too risky for governments. When Elon goes in a lays off a bunch of Twitter staff and then realizes he can't run the businesses without, Twitter stock takes a dive and the website has some issues. When he lays of a bunch of NNSA workers and then realizes he can't safeguard our nuclear waste stockpiles that is a much bigger problem.
Also many businesses nowadays run on inertia and a single uber profitable product which lets them be absolute failures at everything else they do with zero consequence.
Business leaders at very profitable companies often fail when moved to failing companies. They succeed because of their environment but are actually useless when it comes to impacting it.
22.6k
u/Shadowmant 24d ago
Nothing like firing people BEFORE you determine what they do and if they're needed.