Summary
Elon Musk’s DOGE faces mounting pressure to show achievements amid criticism. Staffers, under pressure from Trump administration officials, seek public relations wins to counter negative headlines.
Cuts to federal offices led to mass layoffs, and efforts to modernize government services have been chaotic. DOGE prioritizes speed over security and protecting sensitive information.
Trump has distanced himself, stating agency chiefs, not Musk, control department cuts, preferring a “scalpel” over a “hatchet” approach. Public opinion has turned against DOGE, with 48% disapproving versus 34% approving, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
With limited time before their tenure ends, DOGE officials are desperate to show results.
I mean, the poison is already in your pitch - “private sector gets the high end”. What happens when the government fiber turns out to be faster? What happens when the government cheese is actually better? What happens when the government clothes turn out to be higher quality than the shit we wear today?
What is Verizon going to do? Cry to Congress that they need to go out of their way and pay more to artificially slow down gov fiber. Kellogg will cry free healthy food is ruining demand for overprocessed corn syrup products. If they don’t kill it in the cradle they’re all going to chip away at it, one bit at a time
How about the government produces the basics and the infrastructure, and corporations get fucked? Let small local business take over, and use the infrastructure at cost. Let competition thrive, and we use antitrust like the pro-active protection against oligarchy it was meant to be
I get what you’re saying, but government fiber speeds could be capped, products wouldn’t be high end, ect.
I am by no means an economist, or an expert in these matters, and I apologize if I was presenting as those I was. I just feel like you should put those kind of ideas out there for others to iterate on.
But there’s the root problem - why are you capping the speed at all? Why are you making inferior products?
To leave room for others to make money. That is the taint in the idea… Why do they need to make money if they can’t provide a better service than what the government can do at cost? Or lower even, for the essentials
It’s looking at it backwards. People don’t need to make money - money is the sign that you’re providing value to society. If you can’t beat out the government, which is presumably focused on the things everyone needs, why does someone deserve money for it?
It’s ok if the government becomes the largest food distributor, hopefully that means everyone eats. It’s ok if telcos go out of business, so long as people pay less to get online
Companies should be able to challenge the government, but that doesn’t mean they should be given special privilege - making money is a sign you’re doing something valuable. If you’re carving out room for people to make money you’re doing it wrong
I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.
Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.
That’s the kind of middle ground with fascism the Democratic party is engaging in…
You can make compromises, you can find a middle ground. But that ground has to be stable, it can’t be compromised from the get go - that’s how you get Obamacare, a payout to insurance companies that has a few positives baked in
If it’s compromised from the start, you haven’t done anything positive - you’ve just opened the floor to bastardize it further
I guess I’m just stuck in the 90’s mindset of trying to find compromise. I know that idea was on the decline then, but I still, maybe foolishly, hold on to it.
There is no point in capping fiber speeds. Either that capacity is in use or it isn’t. It isn’t like water, where a resource is depleted from usage.
Aside from that, I agree with your concept of the government providing all the essentials. Capitalism is great for providing products that suit a person’s individuality, but it sucks at ensuring the survival and wellbeing of people.
Ok, now that I’ve had a bit of sleep (,3rd shifter here) how about the government owns the fiber a sells access to the for profit companies. But there is no monopolies so there is competition and every company is required to offer a basic package that is low cost and has enough bandwidth for the average work from home video meeting. Oh yeah, and no data caps.
After that they can increase prices and offer more services. And if somewhere like farm country isn’t being served by any of the for profit companies, then the government corporation could set up an ISP and serve those citizens.
That is local loop unbundling. Anyhow, as I said, no point in capping data speed. Society benefits from faster internet - less congestion, transactions like stocks, purchasing goods, and Zoom meetings are all faster or more reliable. It is a type of infrastructure that benefits civilization, in ways far more beneficial than raw money itself. Time is the most valuable thing for every human, since you can’t buy more and it is always depleting. The less time people spend on slow internet, the more they can use it for other things.
Money should not, must not, be the purpose of civilization. That is just enslaving humans to it. We invented it to save time, and shouldn’t lose sight of that.
I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.
Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.
Honestly, I don’t think the middle path works. At least, not when it comes to major turning points in society. Elon is chainsawing our social security, just to run up his high score. I think people will be ready for a different way, now that the billionaires have been mask off. In my opinion, people prefer clear leadership over something ambiguous. They want to feel confident in their leaders, which is why Trump, despite being evil, took the lead against a deteriorating Biden and a weathervane Harris. Pit him against someone of greater conviction like Bernie or AOC, and I expect they would take the lead of any conversation.
In any case, we will see within 5 years what way the wind blows. Hopefully towards a better place than where we are headed right now.
I honestly don’t think even bold leadership would work at this point. Washington has spent so much time brainwashing the public to fear socialism that any bold leader on the left who suggests a plan like that without first kneecapping it would be killed in the polls because someone on the right would scream socialist and enough of the population would turn on them. And no amount of reminding the public about public roads, police, firefighters, libraries, ect. would change their minds. In my option it will take generational change to get past that mindset.