Yep. Destruction of systems (orgs, ...) that take care of us.
Meanwhile, TikTok (et al) tells us to talk about ourselves ... the current focus of attention of the Fifth most popular social network of the citizens of the United States. [1][2]
Q: how could we have avoided this pathetic crawl into encouraging stupidity?
(Feeling sad, thinking, 'Look at our Works, and cry.')
The cynic in me thinks that the US is going to roll over and take this fascist shake down. The optimist in me thinks that the people will rise up with a resounding NO and do something about it. Right now I'm not sure which I believe.
The cynic in me thinks that the US is going to roll over and take this fascist shake down. The optimist in me thinks that the people will rise up with a resounding NO and do something about it. Right now I'm not sure which I believe.
At this point, almost certainly the former.
1. Most Trump supporters do not think that there is a problem.
2. “Regular people” — that is, the folks who don’t track news — won’t notice any problems in their day-to-day lives until after said shakedown has been completed.
The only way large swathes of people will demand action is if they are hit hard in the wallets in an immediate and clear way (e.g., rapid price increases to one or more critical goods or services) or if a critical process (e.g., social security checks) gets disrupted. I’m not sure the current types of changes will reach that level.
1. Most Trump supporters do not think that there is a problem.
Talk to any conservative -- even people who are/were skeptical of Trump -- or browse any conservative-leaning social media. It's clear that the people who voted for Trump fully understood what they voted for: they wanted what's happening. Project 2025 is a good thing in the eyes of many. Maybe they think politicizing the whole executive branch is a little distasteful, but in the eyes of literally millions of Americans, it's a means to a well-justified and long-awaited end.
Maybe they think politicizing the whole executive branch is a little distasteful, but in the eyes of literally millions of Americans, it's a means to a well-justified and long-awaited end.
This is a very tight and succinct summary of many conversations I’ve had with conservative family and acquaintances.
I don't know why you're being downvoted.
The votes on my comment are going up and down like a yo-yo.
I’m pretty sure it’s because I used the term “regular people”, and I used it in quotes. I get the sense that some people are reading more into that phrase than I intended.
That's a great point as well. "They've been doing it to us for decades, what's happening now isn't any worse".
The Project 2025 document is really interesting along those lines as well. It's close to 1000 pages, but you can skim pretty much any section that isn't about the military and get the idea. Politicizing the executive branch is an explicitly stated goal, over and over. And furthermore, the push to disband the department of education is specifically an overly political, not because it's ineffective in its mission, but because it's "a one-stop shop for the woke education cartel" -- and yes that is a direct quote.
One thing conservatives are famously not good at is anticipating the consequences of their actions. What could possibly go wrong with immediately deporting all the people who harvest our crops?
I'm not sure how a person working a desk job for the government suddenly being told to work long hours in hot fields picking crops is going to work out. And if you hadn't noticed, most people working for the government don't live in the middle of farmlands or anywhere near them. I'm not sure how you can think this could work out at all.
Your comment also tells me that this was never about immigrants taking our jobs.
You seem to be living in a right-wing fantasy world that really doesn't exist. Things are going to get really bad in the country with this administration, the first two weeks have been extremely messy. No, these policies are definitely not going to lower the price of anything - we're on track for wild inflation with these plans. The leopards are going to be well fed though!
These "regular people" that you seem to condescendingly speak about absolutely notice it at the pump and at the grocery store. They aren't mindless robots.
I just had a follow up conversation with a lady at work who had said she was voting for Trump because things like eggs were too expensive. Her comment about egg prices now was that she didn't understand why liberals were saddling Trump with egg prices, because the president can't control things like that. She literally did a complete 180 on the topic seemingly without any self awareness. I don't know how to reach people like that. I honestly don't.
Orwell wrote about this in 1984 (and also, incidentally, fought fascists on the ground during the Spanish Civil War):
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
These "regular people" that you seem to condescendingly speak about
There was zero condescension in my tone or intent.
I put “regular people” in quotes simply because I think most people who do follow the news absolutely don’t realize that the vast majority of people don’t.
A simple litmus test for this is to ask random people you meet outside of your personal social and professional circles (e.g., the front desk person at the gym, a cashier at a grocery store, a rideshare driver… whatever) a simple question like “Who are our US senators?” or “What is the NIH?” I’ve done this, and the sentiment was largely “don’t know, don’t care”.
This isn’t a criticism. It’s just an observation that some issues that some folks on HN care about (e.g., details about how lesser known parts of the government function — for example, what’s happening at the NIH and NSF) just aren’t on the radar for large swathes of the population.
absolutely notice it at the pump and at the grocery store. They aren't mindless robots.
I think we agree on this, right?
And my point is that price changes for most things won’t hit immediately.
1. There have been delays in most of the tariffs.
2. The impact of some tariffs will take longer to hit than others. Fresh food will be fast. Goods with longer shelf lives canned goods, alcohol, and prepared foods might take a while.
If your engagement with politics, civics and public policy begins and ends with how much groceries and gas cost, then you are the perfect consumer, and something less than a thinking, rational human with agency and awareness. What is a human without curiosity or critical thinking, but a biological consuming robot? Which incidentally is what the new department of education will try to create a population of, by destroying public education.
Edit: Scratch that, they plan to abolish the department of education
Does this mean there is no value in maintaining federal education standards, or do we want to let states decide if they want to abolish theirs as well?
Yes - and states actually control much of the curriculum.
However, the DOE does things like make sure there is funding for children with additional needs, which lets be honest, are not going to be replicated in certain states if the DOE is indeed disbanded.
Probably not news, but here are a few big ones that I remember from our conversations:
1. Family member lived in a rural area. They could see the train line that ran between two major cities. I can’t remember the exact order of events (e.g., construction), but at some point they noticed packed trains turning off the main tracks to go to a facility. Packed trains went in, and empty trains came out. At first they didn’t think anything of it… just resettlement stuff or war stuff or whatever. But then it continued. And continued. The rumors started. Everything was hush hush. Nobody dared to ask the authorities. Only later did they learn that it was a concentration camp and what actually happened there. That one kind of blew my mind… they had no idea about what was going on except vague rumors, most of which were wrong.
2. One family member had access to privileged information about the war (in the later stages of the war). One bit of info they knew was about causalities, and how certain assignments were less survivable than others. The propaganda machine made it seem like it was noble to go fight the war that would inevitably be won, but this person knew with a reasonable degree of mathematical estimation that some of the kids being sent off weren’t likely to come back. They said it was tough to look those parents, especially mothers, in the eyes when they made some comment about hoping their kid came home safely. My family member knew that these parents would likely never see their son again, and all for what was looking like a lost and/or questionable war effort that was still playing on nationalist sentiments.
3. This really isn’t that interesting, but… The propaganda late in the war made it seem like Germans in general and the troops specifically were eating well with an abundance of good food, while people who actually grew the food had to do things like use sawdust and straw as filler in their bread. They had a long list of accommodations that they told me that they made so that they didn’t feel hungry, and I don’t remember them all. The cool thing is that there were ways for the rural folks to get access to food beyond the rations. Sometimes they could sneak some extra food to the city-dwelling family members, but the folks in the cities seemed to have it tougher. They were sort of bitter about how the food situation got progressively worse as the war progressed as well as the total disconnect from reality that the propaganda was presenting.
Note that these were stories that were told to me decades ago about stuff that had happened many decades before then. I’m sure that some stories were embellished while others were muted. I’m also sure that some of the details were “lost in translation” — either via my mediocre German, their mediocre English, or the limits of language assistance that some of the bilingual folks provided.
I don’t really feel like I did these stories justice.
Almost 80 years has passed, some details get lost, but it is important to keep things like that alive in our consciousnesses. Even if you didn't to justice to those stories, I still read them with attention. Thanks for them!
I just remember feeling like I had been punched in the gut after some of these conversations. It was like history had come alive right before my eyes.
I remember having a few sleepless nights just processing the things I had been told.
I remember almost throwing up once (the night after the story about the trains). I just couldn’t believe the level of depravity was so easily able to exist with basically no questions asked.
I remember my naive younger self thinking about what I would have done had I been in their shoes. It didn’t take me long to realize that I probably wouldn’t have done much differently, mainly because their range of options were so limited (or at least perceived to be so, with detention, death, or “disappearing”being the consequence if you were wrong).
I also remember them talking about neighbors snitching on each other (probably to the gestapo, but it could have been another entity). Some neighbors with petty intentions would make up false claims about neighbors they didn’t like. This forced everyone to be on “perfect behavior”, and it sowed a lot of distrust in normally tight-knit communities. There was one story about a tattle-tale who had a come-uppance, but I can’t remember any of the details. I think that was the first time the word Schadenfreude came alive to me… it existed in that story on multiple levels.
The old quote, "first they came for ..." was written by a Nazi sympathizer -- until he was in jail by them. It's rooted in truth how it played out to him.
"First they came for DEI and I didn't speak out, because I was not Black..."
And what of those who speak out against it because they find it belittling personally? What of those who do not want to be included as a token or talisman, but would rather participate based upon their qualifications and merits? Are we allowed to speak out and have differing opinions on DEI or will you compare us to National Socialism collaborators?
What of those who do not want to be included as a token or talisman, but would rather participate based upon their qualifications and merits?
There were plenty of companies like Coinbase that ignored DEI initiatives and requested that employees leave "politics at the door" - and we all knew what kind of politics they meant. You could have voted with your feet.
I'm fully onboard with employees asking employees to be respectful to their colleagues regardless of gender, race, creed or color, that's just good for business.
Do white people feel like tokens because the merit of other people isn’t considered?
DEI makes sure that everyone is part of the merit process.
It’s like how white people feel like Babe Ruth is an all time great, but say Josh Gibson isn’t because he played in the all black league. But playing in the all white league doesn’t count against you at all. No one considers them any less.
I think the former is most likely. The people are largely unhappy with how things have been and it's unlikely to get materially worse for the majority of people in the near term, so I don't think there will be a fire lit under enough of the population to rise up.
If it gets bad enough that most people are starving, rather then just struggling, we'll see action, but I doubt it'll get there anytime soon.
The people are largely unhappy with how things have been
This is an understatement to say the least, and the fact it's been denied and even refused by the powers that be until today is why the pendulum has swung as hard as it has.
Americans wanted change, and they finally got it with ferocious retribution because it's been held back for so long.
The sentiment I get in this regards is that people are angry and want to "burn it to the ground", without any thought of what might possibly take its place.
The real U.S. In these people's minds, the federal government and its millions of employees are a parasite sucking the blood of the real U.S., not a part of it. I will leave analogies as an exercise to the reader.
Exactly. Freeways and airports and fallow fields fully paid for. Cheap imports and complete and utter physical security. BLM land to hunt and graze and drill and fell. Rivers that don't catch on fire, not even a little bit. And it would be so much better without the got-damn'd feds.
More like Americans repeatedly vote for change, because the change they got four years earlier was too bad. It reminds me of Chile, which keeps oscillating between socialist and conservative presidents every four years.
I'm confused. Are you saying specifically that you think the experiences described in this article are for the good of the country? Or do you think they're an exaggeration/lie.
I don’t think that’s what the comment said at all. You’re extrapolating too much.
Explaining the pendulum swinging violently because folks didn’t feel heard is not the same thing as saying that it’s a good thing that the pendulum has swung so violently.
I'm a Trump voter (2016, 2020, and 2024) so I obviously find all this a good thing, just for transparency.
That said, that is tangential and irrelevant to explaining how and why the pendulum swung back as hard as it did.
Trump won his first term in 2016 because Americans were fed up with the Bush+Obama status quo of endless wars and waste. Drain the swamp, fuck the establishment! As the sentiment of the day went; remember Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party? Biden winning 2020 was a sharp rebuke by the powers that be; how dare the people demand change and elect an outsider, how dare the people demand peace and effective government. Biden and Harris's 2024 campaigns likewise were based strictly and ultimately on continuing the status quo; Harris "had no policy" in large part because the "policy" was the status quo.
Trump winning again in 2024 with a historic campaign is a sharp rebuke to that, he is the people's retribution for being denied and refused for so long time and time again. For voters like me and us, NASA and the like having their funding slashed and denied is merely collateral damage for a greater and long-awaited cause.
Or now Gaza. I guess they don’t count trade wars. Dalewyn could have his family deported and still think Trump is doing the right thing. I gave up responding.
And no Trump supporter can actually spell out clearly what that cause is besides "own the outgroup" and a religious faith in everything getting better for the cult member despite every single piece of evidence pointing to the contrary (unless you already happen to be a billionaire, of course). And I mean religious in the literal sense: a belief that some ill-defined paradise awaits the true believers and it will be worth it in the end even though it kind of hurts that their faces are being gnawed by the leopards (but at least the outgroup’s faces are being eaten too so it’s all right).
NASA is ripe for some cuts. The Senate Launch System is a waste; both Space-X and Blue Origin have cheaper big boosters. There are too many NASA centers. The Space Force can take over Canaveral. The moon base should be all robots.
It sucks that the guy currently in charge of cost cutting has a blatant conflict of interest in getting rid of the SLS. It really does need to go, but he's not the one to do it.
Something small like in-person gatherings for several years in response to a pandemic? Like someone else in the thread claimed was a made-up problem that's only in peoples' heads?
It's really interesting seeing how widely varied peoples' definitions of these things are.
The pandemic was a national emergency. Covid was an extremely contagious disease without a lot of existing immunity. The right call was made for the safety of several hundred million Americans. Most other countries made the exact same one.
I wouldn't say most other countries made the exact same call, only because there are plenty of people who think we didn't go far enough. When the comment I was referring to said "Covid response in the US wasn't that bad," I actually wasn't sure whether they were saying the lockdowns weren't that bad or their effectiveness wasn't that bad. (I can kind of assume the former based on the rest of their messaging, but still, there's a range of opinions people had/have about it.)
I'm glad to have lived in a country where they had strict lock downs pre-vaccine. I imagine there are funerals I didn't have to go to as a result. But flip side people could claim I was under martial law etc. stripped of my freedoms.
I'd love the fact that NZ went ahead and banned tobacco cigarettes if I lived there (sad they wimped out on it before it went into effect), but there are plenty of people who'd be very upset about that here in the US. And I'd love it if we banned cannabis again here, but again, there are a lot of people who that'd piss off. I can understand where they're coming from even if I think they're idiots for using recreational (sometimes toxic) drugs.
People only care about the freedoms to do things they themselves enjoy. Nothing new about that. Much like people only care about authoritarian overreach when the opposition is in power. We should always care, because the power taken by one will remain for the next. Eventually if too much power accrues to any branch it will end the separation of powers. It may have already happened, and once it does, there are no parties, only that boot. Authoritarians are all the same party, they exist at the integer wrap of left vs right. It is why you see extremists from both ends swapping parties far more often than those towards the middle.
The majority of americans aren't paying much attention and aren't going to notice things are off until things have really gone off the rails, but by then it'll be too late. There's also a lot of "It can't happen here" attitude (apparently because we're special or something) which is exactly the kind of conditions that make it more likely to happen.
Living in Germany quickly made me understand that Germans were not special - as in, did not have some unique weakness that made them particularly susceptible to fascism. The corollary, that Americans did not have some innate virtue that prevented it, took longer to really get through my thick head.
The weird spanner in the works is that while people may be unhappy, they are unhappy because of things they believe that aren't true. Covid response in the US wasn't that bad; global warming really is causing the floods and fires and hurricanes and the EVs really are helping, as would methane emissions rules and so on; if people think the bi-coastal elites are looking down on them (and they are), like so what; that's not a serious problem. If the wealthy don't pay enough taxes, the middle class will be harmed. Making sure black folks and other historically disadvantaged groups do better will raise the quality of life for all of us; if we don't encourage the successful migration and acculturation of people from around the world, our population will decline and our economy will decline. If we don't invest in science, we will loose power and knowledge to those that do. The entitled white folks that teased all the kids that were good at math and science in the 1970s etc. might wish it weren't so, but it is so.
But they now believe that movie actors are drinking the blood of babies and that China somehow rigged up the increase in CO2 as a way to confound us. They think scientists are mostly lying.
It's not clear from an information theoretic perspective how to restore stability to the US system.
Maybe once they've killed a million immigrants, I'm sorry had excess mortality in the camps in the hot SW and in Cuba, and things all around them are worse for their own children and families, they will repent and embrace truth, justice and the American way. One can hope.
It's a third rail to touch but important: "wokism" has been weaponized by the right, and for low information voters (i.e., a majority of the population), voting is an emotional act. Hate and anger are powerful emotions.
Trump's son-in-law was put in charge of supply distribution, refused to invoke the defense production act, and when they finally did, Trump took ages to actually "order" ventilators. They refused to implement testing because they knew that tests would show how bad things were and justify measures that would hurt the stock market.
Trump largely didn't do anything at first because COVID-19 was most severely impacting the coastal blue states because of higher population densities.
Trump told states to get their own PPE (because blue states needed them more badly than red states, and he didn't want red states to have to pay for it), then the feds outbid state agencies for PPE. And when that didn't work, just outright had customs steal them:
Our state's orders for PPE was impounded at the port by the feds, who them claimed they had no idea what anyone was talking about. Our state got a bunch of PPE because the NFL football team owner sent his team's 737 to China to pick up masks and gowns (which turned out to have all sorts of problems, like being sized for children.)
Our governor stopped just shy of saying "yes" when asked if he'd sent state troopers into NYC to meet the plane and escort the truck.
Ugh it sucks to be reminded of all that bullshit. Though it's good not to forget.
But I think the earlier comment may have been referring to the restrictions in the US relative to other countries. Most other countries were much more severe for their lockdowns
I think what the commenter meant to address was the right-wing perception that mask mandates and shutdowns were the first step that ends with the government taking away your guns.
My (perhaps naive) take is that we all got “Trump immunity” from the first time around the rollercoaster and understand that a lot of it is ineffective bluster that never goes anywhere. Look at the tariffs that’s already been “delayed”.
In a normal administration, gutting the NSF would be the main story. If his statements on Gaza are indeed just bluster, they still succeed in focusing attention away from his current actual actions.
I'm not American, but my read of this announcement looks something like:
* The Trump Administration doesn't believe in the two state solution stalemate.
* They have leverage over The Netanyahu Administration in Israel due to the ongoing military support needed.
* The Netanyahu Administration wants to incorporate Gaza into Israel as also doesn't believe in two state solution but cannot do so without repercussions.
* US could take over Gaza as the West won't sanction it, China needs to sell to it, RoW not an issue.
* Trump wants US to take over Gaza, use US corps and workers to rebuild paid for by Israel, and then sell back to Israel at a later time.
I don't agree with that position but I think that's what the deal looks like overall.
They are the US's proxy against Iran in the Middle East, primarily, which makes it a strategic relationship. Addition, based on the 2022 data, the US imported $21BB from Israel and had a trade deficit of ~$7BB.
If I have to hire a hitman to take out my mistress I'm going to just opt to not have a mistress. I guess we will have never ending reasons for needing a proxy against Iran?
When their children are being drafted to go die in some war things will change rapidly. I'd give it a coin flip that's where we're headed right now.
EDIT: To be clear, that's predicated on assumption things are fundamentally different here and now from Germany in the 1930s. If not, we're already cooked.
To be clear, that's predicated on assumption things are fundamentally different here and now from Germany in the 1930s.
It's hard to take stuff like this seriously. Even if you're worried about fascism specifically, why Germany in the 1930s and not Italy in the 1920s? The latter seems more relevant to the present moment. I think the reason is that the German Nazis are the bad guys of history and these kinds of comparisons have less to do with historical parallels but more with Godwin's Law.
The economic conditions that were present in both Italy and Germany in the inter war years just aren't present here and now. That's why I think there's a chance we can avoid fascism. Or maybe I'm wrong. We'll find out!
With all these things, part of why it's so exhausting is having to deal with most of the statements being totally bullshit. They chuck around threats without restraint, but they only carry out some of them. So far.
Protesting for Gaza was squashed last time by basically everyone, and will be again.
Deport all the people who harvest crops, and people in the US will be starving pretty quickly. It could happen within 1 year. And this is exactly the track we are on right now.
I don't really get this argument or why it's adopted by left-wing commentators. It assumes that supply and demand don't exist and the agricultural industry couldn't get workers if they paid market rates for such labor. It's basically advocating for immigration as a way to subsidize the agricultural industry by giving them a desperate workforce they can exploit.
You can't make a change like this, this quickly, and expect people not to starve. Crops will be literally rotting on the vine while farmers desperately plead for people to work long hours in hot fields for low wages. Do you know anyone who would do that? No? I don't either. I'm not sure how you expect farmers that work on thin margins to suddenly be able to offer a higher wage that Americans would do this work for. It's honestly insanity to expect this to work out in the short term.
I'm not sure why conservative commentators can't see the result of this knee-jerk policy of deporting every illegal immigrant, and even those with birthright citizenship. It's a scorched earth policy, and you are only going to reap ashes from it.
Reposting because my previous comment was unjustly flagged: The US just facilitated a genocide in the previous administration. This is not just me saying this - this is the consensus ruling of the International Court of Justice at the UN.
Trump said Palestinians have “no alternative” but to “permanently” leave Gaza due to the devastation left by Israel’s war on Hamas. He described Gaza as a “pure demolition site” and claimed Palestinians would “love to leave Gaza”. “I don’t know how they could want to stay,” he said.
Trump’s comments marked the first time he has publicly floated the permanent relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. The US president’s remarks in effect endorsed ethnic cleansing of the territory over the opposition of Palestinians and the neighbouring countries.
Trump is literally for completely ridding Gaza of the Palestinians so Israel can colonize it. An ACTUAL genocide.
Trump is literally for completely ridding Gaza of the Palestinians so Israel can colonize it. An ACTUAL genocide.
This was the goal of the Biden administration. The difference now is that without Israel demolishing Gaza every day, the resistance has demonstrated they cannot be dislodged. Trump has no credibility. They simply cannot do it and both the U.S. and Israeli officials that enabled this are war criminals that should be prosecuted immediately.
The consensus ruling of the International Court of Justice is not hyperbole, it's a fact. Are you going to call the UN antisemitic like Benjamin Netanyahu did?
And actually, you in fact can argue that Trump has been better on the issue than Biden. Multiple news outlets have reported that it was Trump that forced the ceasefire:
Everything you find with regarding Trump is rhetoric while his actions have been much more peaceful than Biden's.
Which brings me back to my main point: it's absurd and hysterical to be claiming that Trump is uniquely fascist here. Whoever is freaking out now about him, and was not freaking out about Biden, is a fraud and should be called out as a fraud.
The US was in favor of a two state solution. The US is now saying that half of one state, by population, is no longer available. It's clear to anyone with two neurons to rub together that the other half is gone within the next four years.
Kinda amazing that Trump had been acting as de facto president all year even before the election - telling Congress what to do, meeting with Netanyahu, Putin, tons of other heads of state, and he now suggests that Israel just get handed Gaza. Just like Bibby wanted.
If I were to be fair to cft the comment does really seem much different than ones which said they can't wait for people to rise up against Biden because he's a communist. I.e. just a short comment throwing charged political labels rather than discussion the actual meat under consideration.
I'm not all that big a fan of that style comment rising to the top threads like this myself, even though I likely lean very opposite of cft on political matters and what I think the impact of this will be like.
BTW, I have a written many (widely cited) papers supported by NSF grants during my PhD and postdoc. So it's not a political view, my practical opinion is that NSF needs to be cleaned up. A lot of big grant money goes to outright hopelessly useless stuff.
There are extremely well cited papers for and against various COVID-19 topics but you could sooner convince me the Earth is cube shaped than research publishings in academia are free from being politically charged.
The thing I find strange is that the other wealthy and powerful stand for the destruction of things that gave the US a huge competitive advantage. The average person isn't hit immediately by the destruction of science. But a far-sighted person with some power should by self-interest not want this.
And this, I think, points to the corruption of the entire political class in America with just being upshot.
I believe that what we're not accounting for is the belief among many wealthy people that scientific research and all other intellectual labor will soon be automated by AI.
I believe that what those wealthy people aren't accounting for is the need for some class of humans to act as a translation layer between the expert AI systems and the rest of us in order to allow the discoveries and results to percolate through human institutions.
Or, rather, they may be underestimating the bottleneck that will be introduced by trying to hoard all of those results within their own circles of trust and influence.
More fucking morons. The gap with biomedical research isn't in the realm of language models, but in the amount of information that exists in biology that we don't know. I'm not sure what percentage of all the genetic data on Earth we've sequenced, but it's not much, and we still don't quite have a mechanical understand of a single cell, much less some complex multicellular organisms with proteins affecting gene expression, cell membrane receptors being reused in 50 different tissue types, molecular secretion and diffusion altering our minds functioning, and electrical currents synchronizing brain firing at a distance.
No LLM trained on PubMed will be able to suss this all out - more data is needed.
Even in pure mathematics, where I am currently a grad student and as needed a big fan of trying to get LLMs to explain stuff to me at 1 am, they just aren't that good. If it's a popular question where I could have tried math overflow, sure, it's probably just going to get some details weirdly wrong, but for subtle complex concepts, it's not making some golden age of truth and understanding.
And God help the LLMs trying to understand physics that are trained on all the BS on Youtube and the blogs.
But are they wrong? I'm pretty sure that I can ask any LLM to produce a followup for "Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" and get one as good, or even better than the original. Lack of percolation would actually be an improvement.
Sure, LLMs may indeed produce plausible bs akin to the classic bs paper you mention. But it should be considered that all science is being gutted, including unambiguously substantial fields (biology, physics, chemistry).
The wealthy will just take their money and leave the country.
And for all you HN readers supporting these massive changes: you'd test changes beforehand and plan their deployment carefully if this were software. So why why do you support explicitly not doing those things when the livelihood of 300 million people depend on the economy being stable?!?
And before the inevitable derail or whatabout attempt: Don't play political games with people's lives.
And, again, everything is political, including every aspect of discussions on HN.
So why why do you support explicitly not doing those things when the livelihood of 300 million people depend on the economy being stable?!?
Culture warriors only care about about their "side" winning. It's not an intellectual battle, but an emotional one. Rules be damned, their side is winning and dishing out retribution for, and rolling back decades of defeat on the battle for social values - civil rights, race mixing, gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, and the gall to elect a black president, BLM, #metoo, etc.
Precisely. This is probably not a long-term constructive plan, but rather "they punched me, I'm gonna punch them back 10x harder." (didn't Trump even say something like that before?)
Vengeance can make people do crazy things and the craziest thing is how people don't realize vengeance can destroy them just as much, if not more than their intended target. Not so much shooting ourselves in the foot, more like stabbing ourselves in the heart.
My life and work is to help people to realize how responding with hate or indifference will destroy us, and that responding with love is the only way through.
They don’t need anything else though. Technological advancements helps society as a whole but if you have more money that you could ever spend who cares?
You can buy another countries tech if it benefits you or just move.
You can see it just here - Paul Graham made money making a web store in the 1990s (which I can tell you wasn't that hard), then investing his money in a bunch of internet startup (a bit rarer, but I feel like a large percentage of the people that wanted to be rich and had 1 start-up success in the 1990s succeeded); he regards this as equivalent to inventing the standard model of particle physics or inventing the mRNA vaccines, rather than a reasonable capable person at a very lucky time to be good at programming.
Andreesson has the same blindness - he wrote the first web browsers (having not invented HTTP or the web or browsers) and parleyed that into a fortune by investing. I guess he's a skilled investor, a smart financial person, but there is no evidence that he has some special science expertise or extraordinary intelligence. From my observations, one can understand nothing about science or the physical world and do well with software and investing.
As far as "far-sighted," the history from 1980 onwards is the destruction of many things in society devoted to the long view in favor of short-term financialization.
Yeah this thread is like being on Reddit. "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" The hyperbole was thick and fast last time he was elected, with accusations of fascism and certain doom. It turns out, he didn't in fact blow up the world. Quite the opposite. He was the first president in decades not to start a new war. People were inoculated during that first term against hyperbole. Even if "fascism" were to appear now (and I firmly believe it has not), people would no longer care. Well done those of you who cried wolf so vociferously. Trump is president because of you.
I think it’s distinctly not funny people who voted for a rapist think they’re good people.
Trump as POTUS ordered the VPOTUS to overturn an election, and when Mike Pence refused the order, Trump sent a mob to have the VPOTUS assassinated. It’s distinctly not funny, though very memorable, that people who voted for Trump again think of themselves as American patriots.
I remember the racist lie of birtherism.
You can grab them by the pussy, they let you do it. I remember it.
I think some are addicts to the anger, drama, and depravity of Trump TV. Perhaps they can be treated like drug, sex, and shopping addicts.
The stupid and malicious are probably lost for our lifetime. The best thing to do is cut them off. They’re not good people. They voted for a rapist, that’s how desperate and low they’ve become.
I remember Mike Pence boilerplate Republicanism wasn’t good enough. Trumpers want and need an abuser. They voted for that, not despite it.
A good deal why we’re here is liberals coddled Trumpers, forgave them in advance, helped to normalize the depravity by inviting Trumper friends and family to all the usual social functions, despite the insanity. We were too nice. And this is permission. We gave them permission all along.
Kick abusers to the curb. All of them. They’re not good people. Stop trying to make them better by lying about who and what they are. Stop normalizing the depravity. That’s the beginning.
It’s absolutely fascinating how divorced from reality people’s worldview can get to the point that the level of arrogance gets so high that people proudly declare their responsibility to be judge, jury and executioner of vast swaths of the permanently unredeemable population.
Ironically I assume this is how people like Hitler took power.
“Kick Jews to the curb. All of them. They’re not good people. Stop trying make them better by lying about who they are. Stop normalizing the depravity. That’s the beginning.”
It’s almost like I’m reading the moustache man’s words himself.
You replaced my word "abusers" with "Jew". Abusers should be kicked to the curb. Jews were not ever merely kicked to the curb during WW2, they were mass murdered.
Your attempt to be treated as some sort of victim is denied.
Roughly half the voting population wants a king. It's not just rolling over, this is welcomed with open arms.
I try to understand how the "other side" is thinking about this. Disagreements on policy aside, why would "freedom loving Americans" want a king that can rule unilaterally?
Not trying to start a flame war or pose a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
I think you're misrepresenting. His side won, and now they get to do what they want. It's always that way, no? Like, isn't that the point of an election?
And this time, people don't seem to care about that anymore. Despite the right supposedly being the group that's all about the constitution and rule of law.
That's true in theory, but it's not what's happened in the recent past. A lot of the problems Trump faces are due to "rules" established by the civil service itself - often directly and unashamedly just to spite him, and stop him implementing the policies he campaigned and won on. There's no theory of government in which this is supposed to play a part.
For example, the civil service passed new rules in the dying days of the Biden administration intended to stop Trump implementing Schedule F. This didn't come from Congress or the courts. They just passed it themselves. Trump is the boss so can undo that rule with a new rule, but they passed it within a framework of yet more rules they made themselves to slow that down so - if followed - it will take months. This is purely self serving protectionism and has nothing to do with democracy or the Constitution.
There's an interesting document here [1] that goes into all the ways the civil service betrayed Trump in the first term. Betrayal is a correct and moderate term to use. They were doing things like forging documents, lying to appointees about non-existent laws, refusing to prosecute legally clear cut cases in order to propagate woke ideology (e.g. discrimination against Asian Americans), deliberately keeping their bosses in the dark, refusing direct orders to do work if it would run contra to woke ideology and many more things.
From the Trump team's perspective the rules are largely fake: when they align with what the left want they're followed to the letter, when they don't they're ignored or subverted without consequence. He played that game in his first term, and is apparently no longer willing to do so. It's hard to know what Congress will do but presumably they're aware of the fact that their own laws have created this situation to some extent (even if not the full extent). It wouldn't be surprising to see civil service reform bills appear soon.
OK, well, but that sword cuts in both directions. There has been eight years of subversive #resistance to Trump and now he holds the whip hand, with allies who are highly effective. What's happening now is their own #resistance.
There is such a thing as true and false, and there is such a thing as right and wrong.
I know which side's views and plans are almost always on the side of the false and the wrong.
One side wants to divide, one tries to unite, one seeks the truth, the other side does more than lie, it attempts to erase the very notion of truth. One side denigrates, insults and immiserates the weak and the poor. The other attempts to lift them up.
Often in a moral quandary ask yourself 'Which position would be more difficult for me to take?' that's a strong indicator of what is right.
It's easy to divide, denigrate, spread rumours, and to make statements without regards to truth or falsehood. It's easy to hate, to dehumanise and to cause pain.
I've said it in another post. Why are there so many people ready to line up to defend the powerful against the weak, the rich against the poor?
What a brave and noble purpose! I'd love to see you defend that.
You’re describing an autocracy, a dictatorship. Of course they aren’t allowed to do what they want, there’s supposed to be this thing called the rule of law, "checks and balances", separation of powers, any of that ring a bell? Plus a two-party system is a fundamentally malignant example of democracy, not to even mention the crazy amount of power the POTUS has compared to well-functioning democracies.
Not an American, but my 2c - a good chunk of people are actively trying to find a reason why their lives are worse than others, haven't gotten better in decades, and are seeing how life is fine across the pond despite not being the richest country in the world. They'll keep blaming everyone, and everything, and whatever comes into their sights. At the same time group of people will exploit it for their gains, as "fighting for a cause" is historically the best way to somewhat control people's emotions.
Every week a new target will be set, and no matter what will be done, people won't realize that the cause of their own problems are internal. Canada, Denmark, Mexico, Panama, you name it. At the same time there's a superpower (China) that is actively trying to unseat the leader. Superpower with more people, better manufacturing, more potential for the future income, more manpower, not cool with getting bullied and etc. That will also make the citizens unhappy, because "how dare China be better than us?!".
It also doesn't help that Americans aren't having children, which is objectively bad for the future of the leadership. The push for natalism, banning contraceptives, choice and etc. is points towards "you will have children no matter what and you will love it" scenario.
It's like a culmination of multiple problems that have been left rampant for the past couple of decades. Now they're trying to frantically swing the pendulum, but there's a chance that they'll end up pulling it a bit too hard so it will break.
I don't disagree with any of this and I can definitely see this in the election results. But this has been the case for a while now. The US has lagged other developed nations on many indicators for a long time. Income inequality, life expectancy, education, you name it. There was a lot of heated debates and intense feelings during the Obama era too.
But this time around something seems to have changed, where his supporters are ok with trump and team doing whatever. Be a forever president, rip up the constitution, rule by decree.
But ...
I'm not American, I'm just looking in from the outside, but to me it seems that all these things (income inequality, life expectancy, education, ...) are things that the Democrats try to improve while the Republicans want to limit social security, decent health care, and try to tear down decent education. Yet people vote Republican? To try to improve the things that Republicans will not improve?
It's a sentiment I often see, not just here, and I just don't understand it.
An alternative perspective from someone say in the de-industrialized US Midwest four years after Obama was elected would be something like the following. They voted in Obama. Instead of improving income inequality, life expectancy, education, etc., the Democrats brought in a bunch of social changes. Life expectancy lowered in the US and I think lowered even more in the Midwest (mostly because of drug use, but economic factors must have contributed to drug use). In the end the Democrats didn't improve anything and they voted in Trump.
Biden comes in, it was similar, maybe worse because of inflation and increased income inequality. Imposed a bunch of social changed as well. Democrats say a bunch of things and all that ends up happening is a bunch of social changes that most of the country find strange. Now we have Trump again.
Democrats say they want to improve these things, then get in office and worry more about trivialities then doing the work of governing.
A green new deal that set out to get electricity to people's houses at $0.08/kwh and stood a reasonable chance of doing so would have been a great start. That's not what it was, alas.
You can't just look at what the parties say they want to do when they're in power. You have to look at what they actually spend their time and energy on while in power.
Both parties are pretty hypocritical when it comes to stated goals vs revealed goals.
My sister is naturalized American, and the way she describes it — even if dems were well-intentioned, they had no guts to pull the trigger to make things better. Because pulling that trigger will, for sure, hurt a lot of people and they care about their image.
I can see some truth to it while living across the border. The things move extremely slow due to enormous amount of legislative barriers and opposition. When you make any big disruptive change, obviously families will suffer, incomes will be lost and etc. So, if you want gigantic changes (good or bad) for a huge country, you need either backing of super majority of people or ability to be above the law because everyone would be afraid to go after you. From my point of view, that’s why China can do drastic changes to their established sectors (tech, private education, construction and etc.) and keep pivoting as necessary. Sure, I don’t agree with their political ideology. However they have an enormous bureaucracy that will sit down and rewrite laws when the goals change.
I’ve met some Republicans throughout my travels, and after some drinks have heard how they want to feel proud of their country. How they used to be proud of their land, origins and etc. Nowadays, they just don’t feel it.
It would be very dumb of me to generalize, but when a good chunk of people don’t feel proud of anything in their lives, it shows signs of cultural weakness. A weakness that’s incredibly easy to exploit as the feeling of pride actually feels good. Current admins are giving a sense of hope that they’ll restructure entire government to some point where citizens will be proud of their progress.
Because, for many, Christianity|Whiteness|Capitalism|Patriarchy|* is a more sacred and immediate value than Democracy. (You are beginning to see this on the left, albeit with different values, with the inteolerant woke, and those who demand you vote "blue no matter who".)
Ah, yes. Billionaires who funded the campaign with hundreds of millions, being delegated powers that the president does not have the authority to delegate, getting free access to classified information without any clearance, demanding things they have no authority to demand, promising buy-outs they have no authority or intention to ever honor (if you believe otherwise, I have a hell of a lot of bridges to sell you), crippling programs and agencies meant to keep normal hard-working citizens safe and healthy, everything in order to steal as much taxpayer money as possible? That corruption?
The only government efficiency they’re concerned with is the efficiency of funneling other people’s money into their own pockets. Even Putin’s oligarch buddies are nowhere that bold nor think they’re that much above the law.
Some people think politicians make money in corrupt ways but the richest people in the world do it through very clean ways. Almost as if very very rich people are super genius, but the semi-rich people are just corrupt.
Ironically, the essence of a confidence trick, or con artistry, is to convince people that you're superhuman, much much much smarter than everyone else.
Sure. I can’t tell you how much I love my tax dollars fluffing the pockets of god knows what while also having to deal with insane inflation due to no accountability in government. More than have the country welcomes the purge
Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists.
I think its underappreciated how much of America's modern success comes down to attracting scientists and intellectuals from war torn europe in the 30s-50s.
I hold the idea that brain drain, i.e. emigration of skilled people, is one of only a small handful of real methods to hold fascism to account.
With that, as things start to get real bad it seems leaving is something of a moral duty for anyone who cares, has skills that hold real weight, and can still afford to do so.
Obviously where this "real bad" point is is hard to say, and there's important tradeoffs to consider. I also could be talked out of this position but from what I see it seems about accurate.
And really who would choose to stay in 1938 Germany if you could leave. Even if you are some rich upper class Herr Doktor Professor, life for the next 20 years in Germany wasn't that great compared to England or the US. Why risk having your children killed paratrooping into Greenland. The world is still quite beautiful and quite full of kind people.
Interestingly, Werner Heisenberg was decidedly non-Nazi (and was regularly attacked as a “white jew”), and even though he had ample opportunity to leave, he chose to stay to work on the German nuclear fission program.
I don’t think it tarnished his scientific legacy, but it definitely created some friction in the post-war years.
It's funny how the politicization of science in Nazi Germany led to things like "Aryan physics" to counter the "Jewish physics" of Einstein's relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
Along with the flight/expulsion/imprisonment/murder of top scientists who weren't ideologically or racially "pure", it's no wonder their nuclear program was such a failure.
It works better when there is some viable alternative. Research job market is terrible in Europe right now because our governments are trying to make a US like system (project driven and without stability) but without putting the money. There isn't a lot of space in the world to accomodate US brain drain. A bit in Japan, a bit in Europe, most of it in China maybe.
This is the obvious conclusion. As the US trashes its own research ability other countries can offer good conditions to the scientists. I've never seen an own-goal so great.
I want to believe some will move for lifestyle reasons, but the problem is the post war IPO landscape (post 1980s really) across biotech and ICT has made one stark barrier: USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m vesting if you are lucky. That very few do achieve this isn't the point: you cannot do it, in almost any other economy.
You have to be socially smart enough to see that a $100k salary and lifestyle outcome for your remaining working career is enough, if not better than the prospect of uplift into mega-wealth, if your IPR pans out the right way.
For career scientists who were on the NSF grant train, they'd cracked a magic egg open. Beneficial to both them and us, society at large. Well, the other economies do fund research. They fund it badly compared to the NSF, the paperwork burden is less I am sure, but so is the size of the pot and the duration. You may well spend more time hassling next grant, than doing the grant funded work.
I've known US scientists who moved to my economy (OZ) and they say its a great place to live, but they keep ties to US funded research because its what made them attractive to the non-US university or corporate research environment. If that tie is going to be cut, they're competing against one quality only: skill. Sure, a more level playing field. But that, and english language competency aside, it will be a competition against scientists from the rest of the world, who also used to go to the USA and now are seeking jobs in other economies.
I totally agree with you. Scientist originally from the UK who moved to the Bay Area. Salaries are much much better here
I will say that for myself, money is a means to an end for living a “good” life. I am starting to wonder personally where the line is for the trade off between salary and its ability to translate into a good life here in the US
I should say $100k was a terribly bad choice of salary, for either $USD or "$plausible other economy" -the key point came across I think. Your decision to move on would be made even harder by the IRS: you have a very long tail of consequence for your 401k/roth, property, and even just income: they want to know worldwide income for a long, long time. I almost took a gig in the US from Australia and realized I'd drop out of lifetime rating in the Australian private health insurance model, I'd lose payment to australian superannuation and the US versions I made would not be considered tax friendly income, unless I spent a lot of time and money with an accountant. I decided against the move for other reasons but financial complexity paid it's part.
Having said that, I got stung by 49c in the doller on my British USS Pension transfer in (I'm 63) for the lump sum. Sometimes, you just can't win.
USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m vesting if you are lucky. That very few do achieve this isn't the point: you cannot do it, in almost any other economy.
That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.
That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.
the problem with the European thinking you describe is not lottery vs sure-thing, it's the idea that everybody within a geography should should think the same way and not all mentalities "belong".
Not at all. It’s that we experienced several times, first-hand, that some mentalities and mindsets systematically drive our societies to discord, war and death.
And to those mentalities… yes we ought to remind they’re not welcome.
And to those mentalities… yes we ought to remind they’re not welcome.
gee, no matter how many times Europe has told the Jews that they are not welcome, they've kept coming back, bringing ses penchants for assessing capital risk in middleman trade, and hedging financial risks!
I tend to agree, but having met some of the people who pursued this dream, they are very very inventive. They're smart. If that energy chasing a dream could be redirected, they'd be doing amazing things. Mostly, they wind up realizing that the goal is illusive, and re-pivot to a saner outcome but by that time they are fully vested in "america" as a plan.
The bounty here, is the people on the cusp of realizing its not going to pan out but who are both very smart, and smart enough to realize they need to pivot. It would be almost a given they are consciously walking away from IPO manna. I guess if you include it in the pre-sort on applicants, you get to winnow out the people still glued to money-is-the-prize.
BTW the EU would welcome more IPR inside the EU. Some amount of bonus may have to lie in the packaging, to get to where the EU wants to be on IPR. Novo Nordisk style.
That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.
Except that it’s the opposite of a lottery.
It’s almost entirely based on your skills and the decisions you make.
There are right-place right-time effects, but it’s still your decision to be in the right place for the current time.
Europe’s economy is badly lagging the US economy, and it’s because culturally they hold these types of incorrect, fatalistic, zero-sum views towards success and innovation.
The US is full of billionaires who came from underprivileged positions.
Infact, your advice is worse than wrong, it is actively harmful, because you're discouraging people from trying by (falsely) telling them that their efforts don't matter and they were destined to fail from birth.
You don't even need to look for the count of billionaires. My grandparents were poor-as-dirt farmers. My dad's education stopped at high school. He even went to a one-room schoolhouse until he was 14.
My brother and I are both college educated and, while not "rich", have a lifestyle and income my grandparents could have only dreamed about.
It is truly painful to watch people preach learned helplessness through failure and destitution as the only possible outcome.
The relevant metric is not “did your grandparents farm” but “where in the socioeconomic continuum were your parents, and where are you”. In the US, these two answers are more likely to match than in other rich Western countries.
Who are these billionaires from underprivileged backgrounds ?
Larry Ellison, Oprah, François Pinault, Howard Schultz, Jan Koum, Kenneth Langone, Ralph Lauren, Sheldon Adelson, JK Rowling, George Soros, John Paul DeJoria… to name just a few.
No, this is apparently information that clashes strongly with your prior beliefs. The US is packed solid with underprivileged adults who came from underprivileged positions, and highly privileged adults who came from highly privileged positions - regardless of whether it has a dozen counterexamples.
There are ~250 $1 million+ lottery winners in the US every year.
There are ~750 billionaires in total.
The average American has a better chance of becoming a billionaire through hard work and prudent investments if, at age 18, they decide to live in a cardboard box underneath a bridge and steal metals from construction sites to sell for cash to be used to purchase lottery tickets.
They can then win the multi-million-dollar prize and invest that wisely to reach billionaire status.
Four Pillars of Social Mobility: To rank each state, we measured a series of indicators related to social mobility across four pillars: Entrepreneurship and Growth, Institutions and the Rule of Law, Education and Skills Development, and Social Capital. Scores for each pillar were combined and weighted equally to create a state’s overall social mobility score.
I would think a measure of social mobility would include income percentile vs parents' income percentile.
Wouldn't this be a much worse metric? It would have to net out to zero change on average by the definition of percentiles. If we take abs change to look at both downward and upward mobility, the measure wouldn't tell us where most downward mobility happened, up and down could all happen within the bottom 25% and none in the top 75% and this metric would say we are highly social mobile if there was a lot of movement there.
Here, this one uses the simplest metric possible; a poor child is much more likely to remain poor in the US than in the other rich western countries looked at.
The US has very low average/median social mobility (and it'll only get worse due to insane education policies and less standardized testing), but it has very high variance.
Going from $15k a year to $150k is a lot more common in Europe,, but doing from $150k to $150m is a lot more common in the US, and it's the latter that creates most of the value.
That’s not lottery mentality and thinking that it’s equivalent is why Europe isn’t innovating.
If someone wins the lottery and gets rich, society isn’t better off. If someone starts a new company that made a cure for some disease and gets rich, society is much better off.
You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success.
You get both, Facebook’s job is to be known about, so you know about it. There’s a ton of companies doing drug research basically silently… in the US. Most fail, it doesn’t matter as long as a few succeed.
It's worth pointing out that the biggest innovations (both scientifically, but likely also monetary) in the biomedical field in the last years happened in Europe not the US. So that seems to disprove the point that innovation happens in the US because of the chance of going from 100k to 100M.
You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success.
It's fine to want that and to attract those kind of people. What you don't want is to attract people who want to do that in order to make a lot of money.
I used to think that too, but realized it’s very naive later in life. At some point people are good at what they do, but get tired, start a family, want to settle down. Money helps quite a bit to have those folks motivated.
If you want innovators, motivate them with rewards. Money is a great reward since you can turn it into mostly anything you’d like. Want to buy a mansion? Fine. Want to travel around the world? Feel free. Want to give it away to charity? Great!
Maybe I should have been more explicit. There's a difference between "money" and "a lot of money". People are in this thread talking about the likelihood of getting $100 million. If someone does a thing because they want to start a family and settle down, great. You don't need $100 million to do that. You don't even need $10 million. What I'm saying is you don't want to attract people who are aiming at making vastly more than what is needed to handle the "settle down and live a comfortable life" situation that you described. But right now our society does incentivize and glamorize that, and I think we're worse off for it.
If the goal is financial security to the extent that you could not work (if you still need to work you're not really secure since you could lose that job) then I think you actually would need about $10M. By the time you buy a house, pay for your kids school (elementary through college) and medical insurance for the rest of your life theres not a lot of change left. That to me has always been the goal, I've never truly felt financially secure my entire life and even on a good tech salary I still dont cause I'm one layoff in a bad market away from being in a pretty dire situation, with a family to support too.
Once you get past a few million, you quickly get into "can't possibly spend this money in several lifetimes" territory. And wealth divides like that come at the cost of massive societal wealth divides.
The US sustains that high number of people who strike $100 million+ through having a social safety net that barely exists, which results in far more people being seen as completely disposable. It also comes at the cost of worsening public education, worsening public health, crime rates beyond most first world countries, companies that constantly invent new evils like making all formerly paid-and-done services into monthly subscriptions. Few if any that hit 100 million are doing it ethically. They're doing it by milking the residents dry.
Some countries have national pride and resent the idea of stepping on their fellow countrymen. Some would kill half of them if they were promised a few % off their yearly taxes.
Once you get past a few million, you quickly get into "can't possibly spend this money in several lifetimes" territory.
This is incorrect and you’re really out of touch for suggesting it.
Let’s say you have a 5 million dollar exit in the Bay Area. After tax you get roughly 2.5. That’s enough to buy a nice but modest house and now you have no money left. You now have to work a full time job to pay the property taxes, the rest of your living expenses, and try to save for retirement. Same thing applies in LA, NYC, SEA, etc.
The US sustains that high number of people who strike $100 million+ through having a social safety net that barely exists
This is false. The US spends more on healthcare than any other nation, it just goes to a bloated system. More tax money from the 0.1% won’t change that.
crime rates beyond most first world countries
Gonna need a citation there. This is likely a result of guns being legal if you’re talking about gun deaths or a result of the war on drugs if you’re talking about incarceration. Neither of those have anything to do with taxes.
companies that constantly invent new evils like making all formerly paid-and-done services into monthly subscriptions
We’re talking about biotech exits. Drop your “muh capitalism bad” gish gallop.
Few if any that hit 100 million are doing it ethically. They're doing it by milking the residents dry.
Pure cope. A broad unsubstantiated statement about ethics followed by talk of milking residents dry when those residents have more disposable income per capita than nearly anywhere else in the world.
Some countries have national pride and resent the idea of stepping on their fellow countrymen.
If they do this by treating huge breakthroughs like you are doing, they are stepping on all of their fellow countrymen through oppressive tall poppy syndrome. Knocking anyone doing well down is not how you lift everyone up.
Let’s say you have a 5 million dollar exit in the Bay Area. After tax you get roughly 2.5. That’s enough to buy a nice but modest house and now you have no money left. You now have to work a full time job to pay the property taxes, the rest of your living expenses, and try to save for retirement. Same thing applies in LA, NYC, SEA, etc.
So what you are saying is that ONLY if you work your brains out AND win the "lottery", then you can have a decent retirement in the US?
Maybe Europeans are just too smart to accept that kind of proposition.
The "American dream" is a lottery system used to lure people into doing hard work and consequently rewarding only a few.
> Once you get past a few million, you quickly get into "can't possibly spend this money in several lifetimes" territory. And wealth divides like that come at the cost of massive societal wealth divides.
It takes many billions to buy a Twitter, even when Saudi Arabia is footing most of the bill.
There's some nice article out there that clearly explains how money "changes" at different income levels. First it's security, then it's comfort, then it's power.
No I’m not. But it is what motivates people at a large scale.
There are very few open source contributors that are actually really good. The nature of software means that their labor of love can scale very well.
Additionally, there is nearly zero barrier to being an open source developer. Buy a laptop and start writing code.
So open source only works well because when you get lucky and get a combination of a motivated contributor and essentially zero distribution cost, a single group can ship to billions of people.
If we want someone making an artificial heart, it’s a completely different story. The research and development is very capital intensive so you need a war chest to even start tinkering. Then once you have something you want to try to get approved, you need either to be a medical doctor or employ one, which is a huge opportunity cost for a medical school debt ridden doctor.
All of the capital needed to fund this is high risk so it needs a high upside return if private investors are involved.
Now a founder could eschew all of their equity, but after going through all of the work to do this capital raising it would be quite unusual.
We can't ignore the influence of money even on open source, though. How many people are contributing in an anonymous manner, so they can't claim financial benefits from publicity and networking? How many open source projects are rejecting VC funding?
$1bn / 200k people is $5k each. For a drug that probably costs $4. When you mark up the cost of saving a life by 1,200% I don't think you get to call that "wealth creation" or "saving lives" or even "preventing death". That's called "extortion."
Why wouldn't you rather want to attract people with much higher odds of a reasonable quality of life regardless of whether they personally hit the jackpot?
In terms of expected value (which you'd hope that scientists and entrepreneurs understand at least at a surface level), that seems like the rational move.
You're the one incorrectly using the concept of gambling replying talking to someone taking about risk versus reward (investing).
It is hard for somebody who believes in gambling to win at investing.
The US has both monetary and social incentives to create new businesses. I live in NZ where founders are discouraged by financial incentives and by social incentives.
That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.
It’s not lottery mentality, it’s risk taking. And it’s something that the EU should be fostering. The US encourages risk taking where failing isn’t even seen as a bad thing.
That is the thing though: with the increased safety nets of the richer European countries, you would think that taking risks would both be more encouraged and naturally less dangerous than the US. And I am a big proponent of said safety nets. But we don't see this "moderate-risk-taking" mentality in the EU...
...or don't we? I am not sure. We are definitely not seeing the runaway successes of US big tech, but is it because people are not taking measured risks, or do operations fumble at a later point in their development? I don't know. What I do know is that revenue sources in the EU come with extremely onerous strings attached, are orders of magnitude below US levels, or are only available to big corporations of the old guard.
I'm not so sure there even is so much less risk-taking in Europe than in US.
There are many structural reasons why Europe doesn't produce gigagrowth oligopolies like the US. EU has a highly fractured internal market that is more difficult to dominate, EU is not bathing in reserve currency windfalls to be thrown all around and EU doesn't have as ruthless foreign/trading policies.
Also there's a difference how "risk taking" is portrayed in the public discourse. In US success of companies are seen more as result of risk-taking of individuals, whereas in Europe success its seen more as resulting from collective effort, and founders/CEOs of successful companies are not lauded as heros, or are even usually especially famous.
Risk-rewards calculus is simply worlds' apart for exploratory/long term R&D versus tech deployment, which is sadly what elon/faang/openAI/nVIDIA are only about.
(I imagine Musk
thinks he's bringing back a closed, for profit Bell System, though!)
I dunno, maybe Arc Institute/research hospitals poised to collect all the bionerds falling out of universities, these are the oligopolies that have any chance of morphing into semi-open Bell Labs-like setups.
Are there nothing of comparable scale in Europe?!? (Not many, I imagine, due to mostly what you already pointed out)
There's a lot of other benefits to the USA attracting high skill talent than just salary:
* English language school system so your kids (if you have them) will speak a world language.
* Racially and culturally diverse cultures, cuisines, and communities.
* Exposure to goods from most of the world, even if marked up.
* Availability of international franchises headquartered in other countries in major metros.
* A strong passport that offers visa-free travel to many locations and very favorable visa terms in many others.
and more.
My partner and I are (different) Asians and the higher-skilled members of our family who wanted to emigrate mostly rejected Europe because of non-English language instruction and honestly just feeling racially uncomfortable in most of Europe. I have some family in Germany (who like it there) so it's obviously not impossible, but European ethnostate thinking is just unattractive to a lot of non-Caucasian talent. Canada, UK, and Australia are not like this and have potentially a lot to gain if the US kneecaps its research bureaucracy.
Eh, that's not a unique set of strengths. In any European country I know about (at least a dozen) you can get all-English education from kindergarten to PhD. In some for free, in some that's paid, but probably not as expensive as in the US. Everything is really rather a matter of tradeoffs and bang-for-the buck rather than categorical differences. Some European passports offer more access, but without the downsides of the US one. The only matter in which I don't know how to compare is the racial issues, but I hear the US is not exactly free of those either.
I dunno - I'm in Berlin and my kids go to a private school for English education. I don't think somebody who couldn't afford it and wasn't a native English speaker would be getting English without parental effort before 4th grade.
Also in the area I'm in plenty of people don't speak English - I just went to an eye doctor and they didn't speak English although to be fair that's the first time it's happened to me in 2 years.
Most common first name in France is Mohammed. I really don’t understand what he means with immigration, unless he means he wants mostly-Asian immigration because others are a problem.
That factoid is because Muslims are obsessed with the name, and you will find someone named Mohammed in the majority of Muslim families, not immigration. It doesn't take much for the name to enter the top 10 boy names when they become 0.1% of the population.
But it has in recent decades accepted quite a large number of immigrants, and is at this point at a higher foreign-born % than the US, if still lower then Canada or Australia.
That's not quite the same as having a culture rooted in the immigration narrative, but it has changed significantly.
And I'll also mention that while integration of significant immigration into an existing society is clearly a challenging prospect everywhere, the UK is overall, doing noticeably better with it than most of it's European peers. Both from my subjective perspective as a somewhat regular visitor, and from a lot of the metrics I see.
Most of these perceived advantages are not unique to the US. I think there are only two things that still make the US more attractive nowadays: higher salaries and more jobs available to immigrants than in other places. If these two things disappear, the whole proposition starts to fall apart.
USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" - John Steinbeck
But how do you expect officials that are so bad at transitioning professionally enough, to be good at maintaining and fostering an economy that will support this financial attractiveness?
Most scientists that I know aren't motivated by the prospect of going from $100k-$100m. As long as they have a good wage, they are far more motivated by having decent funding and facilities for their work so they don't have to spend half their time applying for grants.
I’m a scientist currently on an NSF grant. I am certainly poking around other countries to see what’s out there, and I’m not the only one.
A lot of scientists (at least in my field, computational chemistry) have decent skills that are transferrable to other areas. So I expect quite a few to move on.
I think a lot of these guys and gals are fooling themselves with the whole, "find another country" thing. There is no other country that is A) doing research at these levels, B) Flush with cash, and C) needs you because they don't have a population that produces the necessary thinkers. That's basically only the US.
I think GDP/economic output/labor productivity continues to rise briskly. The government accounts are in debt because people in the US refuse to consistently vote for [people advocating] high enough taxes. But we could tax more (still less than Europe) and get balanced budget.
Higher taxes do genuinely restrict economic growth, so it's not like raising taxes is a magic bullet.
Personally, I think there is plenty of grift and wasteful expenditure we could look at addressing first, especially within the healthcare and defense portfolios.
Not as much as having insufficient resources dedicated to the education of the young hurts economic growth (long term).
I agree not using the world proven efficient healthcare strategy of universal coverage is pretty stupid economically, as is spending a trillion USD per annum on the military. But we are so rich these mistakes can be absorbed for surprisingly long.
And importantly enjoys a privleged position in the world economy that enables them to run these types of long term deficits with minimal negative consequences.
Something which might shift over the coming decades.
Yes, but when you borrow, you have money in your hands.
US firms are also very highly priced relative to their profits when compared to firms elsewhere. So while things are probably not quite sensible in the US there's still money.
The European research budget is not insignificant. Horizon Europe 2021-2027 is the current vehicle that much of the funding is going through (European Research Council [ERC] being one of the most well known parts). It has a budget for the time-frame (all years) of EUR 96,899,000,000. [1] Of that, the ERC has EUR 16B [2], Digital, Industry and Space has ~EUR 15B, Climate, Energy and Mobility has ~EUR 15B, and several other sub-groups have smaller amounts.
Those then work with the country level organizations of Science Europe, and those together each spend about EUR 25B each year. [3] It's not insignificant. I tend to pay attention to space, and lately almost all there's been is European achievements in telescopes and astronomy.
This, the US is the country most willing to make daring bets on innovation.
Europe will not spend even 0.1% of its pension/welfare fund on big research bets. The private investors their will only want real estate investments, not fancy wancy "VC".
Young talent will flow one way from other countries to the US, because they've already seen what the grass is like on their side.
If the sentiment upthread holds, and large numbers of US academics move overseas, then relatively shortly, Europe may shift towards being more willing to make big research bets.
The population shift introduces new ideas, new perspectives, new ways of operating research, new connections towards funding and money, new views on what big bets even means.
The influx of foreign scientists and academics into America over the last century caused significant shifts in how America operated and viewed the idea of research and academia. Post-war Europeans (Von Braun's crowd being an obvious example) caused a large shift in the way America funded "big bet" projects. Saturn V perhaps. Same may happen in Europe.
Those academics can use HN from the opposite side of the Atlantic. VC money especially has the possibility of being territorially bound, yet its often far less constrained by the those types of lines in the dirt than many funding opportunities.
This theory presumes there is shortage of talented researchers in other countries, which is not the case.
There aren't countries with unfilled academic positions awaiting people from the US. If anything, the landscape is even more competitive outside the US.
The sentiments that you see online are meaningless. Ignore what people say and look at what they actually do. I guarantee you that very few US academics will move to Europe. The US has long had positive net migration from Europe, and some temporary changes to federal government funding policies won't significantly change that trend.
Depends on the kinds of positions. There's more to academia than tenure-track faculty (which isn't in my future at all anyway).
People around me tend to be in the RSE (Research Software Engineer) scene, which is growing in Europe. I, and many of my cohort, could fit in as research staff or faculty in many different disciplines.
Wouldn't get rich or famous, but certainly have a comfortable living working on interesting problems.
It sounds as if the universe revolves around the US. Did you know that one of the biggest HPC cluster in the world is in Saudi Arabia? I know grad students who went there got duplex villas for free lodging.
Before you start criticizing Saudi government, the reason we are discussing this right now is because a fascist government is forcing scientists out of the US.
There’s not that many jobs going in academia in other countries, and you’ll be looking at a significant pay cut due to the strong US dollar.
Most likely, people who leave academia will be leaving for industry instead.
I do feel for those in the hard sciences, they have become collateral damage in what is mostly a battle between politicians and humanities departments.
I've been suspicious that the quality of life cut is distinct from the pay cut.
Living in a dense European city, you do not need a car, healthcare is free, and you are generally afforded more time off and a stricter wlb compromise compared to the US. One doesn't need to eat takeout as often if there is time to cook. Depending on the country, rent/housing costs are more or less under control.
On the other hand swiss/Netherlands food is expensive even by bay area standards.
the other important thing to keep in mind is that in the EU in general, there's no added taxes on the bill, and tips are less of a thing here, so there's not a magical 20%+ hidden charge to factor in on everything you order.
We get signal wherever we can :) Boston Logan has about a 20-30% premium on normal groceries. SFO is probably closer to 5-10%. I assumed the premium could not be greater than 50% for Amsterdam airport.
To be competitive in academia in Europe, you’re not going to have as much free time as you expect.
You’re unlikely to be able to afford to live in the center of a dense Western European city on researcher wages, and most of the jobs aren’t in the city center either, so you’ll probably still need a car.
I think in the US people romanticise living and working in Europe to an unrealistic degree. There are good reasons why the net migration of skilled workers is towards the US rather than away from it.
I lived in both the US for a while (Bay Area), but I am now back in Europa. Quality of life in Europa is really high and you can certainly live quite well in most Western European cities from a typical wage for a researcher. Although many people would indeed not need to own a car (public transport is often very good, in many places you can also get around via bike or even by walking), most do and this easily possible with common salaries. There are places which are expensive, but many cities are quite reasonable. Universal healthcare, a stable society, low crime are among the many advantages.
Having lived in both, how would you equate your personal “purchasing power parity” between Europe and the US? At my firm, I could generally move to Berlin whenever I desired - however this comes with a 50% pay cut. I'm honestly unclear if I'd be ahead or behind where I am in the states if I took that deal.
Not OP and I haven't been in US but I've pondered on this since I've worked in Europe where taxes are among the top3 highest, and also Japan. (And ALSO had the opportunity to work remote, hired in one living in the other)
Basically the take is first what anyone that have lived abroad (or economist should) know, that you can't flat compare salary or PPP since the expenditure and quality of goods/service per expenditures are drastically different.
So one have to also consider what your expenditure, and quality requirements are. In the most extreme case, if your goal is "early retirement" then probably work in US retire abroad is optimal. But if your goal is "working in something I like while not having to be stressed about it" then it falls to the latter. What about your requirement for socialization and size of housing, dating/children, etc. How many products do you buy and how important is that? 50% paycut but no need to upkeep a car, no need to worry for healhcare, no need to save for kids college, can all add up.
The only thing that I think you can say with absolute certainty from the personal PPP in EU vs US comparison is that if traveling abroad (and buying products from abroad) is absolutely crucial to your happiness, nowhere beat the dollar & high salary.
Since you have your high US salary why not visit the Berlin office, or travel there. Try to find someone in a similar position in life as you are, and extrapolate from that
You’re unlikely to be able to afford to live in the center of a dense Western European city on researcher wages, and most of the jobs aren’t in the city center either, so you’ll probably still need a car.
Universities in Europe tend to have quite central locations in the cities. Also universities are practically guaranteed to have good public transport connectivity, as students have to be able to get there.
And even though researcher wages can be low relative to US, within the respective countries they are solidly (upper) middle class, and housing isn't a major problem.
I live a 5-minute bike ride away from the Delft Technopolis, and 20 minutes by train to Leiden's Bio Science Park. If I want to, there's 24h train services to the dense city centers of Rotterdam (15 minutes), Den Haag (15 minutes) and Amsterdam (45 minutes).
I do own a car, but I actually have to set a recurring reminder on my phone to take my car out for a ride every so often to avoid the battery draining empty. I think US people romanticise car ownership because they can't imagine how good the alternative can be.
That said, I don't work in academia and don't know what the median wage for that would be. But I don't see why a researcher wouldn't able to afford to live where I do currently, it's not wildly expensive here.
Quality of life is highly subjective. Different people prefer different things. Many of us who value open space and privacy would see moving to a dense city as a step down.
It's the hard sciences I feel for because they typically deliver good returns on taxpayer funded research expenditure, and are generally disciplined enough to keep their head down and focus on their work, rather than engage in culture wars.
In contrast, the humanities made their own bed. They became politically partisan, engaged in systematically discriminatory hiring practices, and routinely conduct research that the public perceive to hold little utility.
Ultimately academics need to keep in mind that they rely on the generosity of taxpayers to fund their research. If the public aren't happy that they are getting value for money they will defund these programs.
I hope that the blowback is contained to the humanities departments, but guilt by association is unfortunately a thing in politics.
I think very few people proactively decide to become partisan. Most liberal arts academics just want to work in their special field. Sometimes the things they study get politicized, but that’s mostly the doing of talking heads.
If somebody wanted to become a partisan hack, there are easier ways than getting tenure, right?
It's not so much that people want to become partisan, but rather the culture of the discipline.
The culture within the hard sciences is to challenge existing theories and narratives.
The culture within the social sciences is almost the polar opposite. It still superficially presents as a science, but in practice is a purity spiral with an orthodoxy of established conclusions which cannot be challenged without severe career consequences.
The hard sciences had their Galileo affair 400 years ago, the soft sciences are in the midst of theirs right now.
I dunno man my salary is six figures and I’m an academic scientist living in the Netherlands. My life is much higher quality than the equivalent could buy me in anywhere worth living in the USA. Like I agree the salaries can be low but you simply don’t need to make 300k usd to have a nice life here. I have a flat in the middle of the city of Utrecht where I cycle to work and pop off to the pub after and the gym is two minutes walk and I have a 400m ice skating track twenty minutes bike away. And on the work side I have free compute on an 3000 cpu cluster with also an gpu cluster of h100s and lots of resources for travelling for conferences and other stuff like that. And a lot of my startup friends here are here specifically because they went to San Francisco and got investment offers around 1 millionish and then tried to hire around and all the engineers were expecting 250k+ and then came to Europe and found people just as good who work for 80-100k. That’s a completely different runway for them and they actually have time to develop a product because they don’t have to pay so much and their people are still happy with their lives. Like I do agree there aren’t that many jobs like mine and Europe needs to get their heads out of their asses and poach as many America based scientists and engineers right now as they can. But I think American based people have this idea of Europe that prevents them from seeing their options here. I do think Europe needs more resources and less bureaucracy surrounding big science projects but I’ll make that point when I have my own big science project haha.
Hear hear - Utrecht might be the finest city in the world, too.
And Europe is missing a gigantic opportunity right now. The fact that talent is cheap, there's a strong social safety net, and we don't have enormous amounts of entrepreneurship is really strange.
Yeah I don't get it. I know that Cherry Ventures just raised another 500 million euros but that is really nothing compared to what is in America. I think there is really a missed opportunity both from the government side of things and VC side of things. The government could relax restrictions on small businesses, hand out more tax credits, make it more beneficial to move here (e.g., my understanding is netherlands has a small business visa but it only lasts a year and you have to prove you are making money which is hard for a startup to do after a single year), more government money for research and more money to bring research results to market. Like the european research council (ERC) has a program called something like proof of concept where you get add on funds to an existing ERC grant to produce a proof of concept that could be taken to market but you are required to be the PI on the original grant to apply for the proof of concept. If instead you let anyone apply like the way NSF grants for startup work that would be better. for example postdocs that worked on the original ERC cannot apply for the follow on proof of concept money to try and make a startup that commercializes the research. only the PI of the original ERC grant can apply. That seems silly to me since probably the postdocs are better positioned to be startup leaders than the PI since the PI is more likely to have a permanent academic job and be uninterested in leaving that job to start a company out of one of the research agendas they are pursuing. you probably would get way more results out of the program than it generates now. I think from the VC side of things they could simply try and recruit more of these people who are working on such grants to become founders. In america there is a more clear MIT/Stanford/Caltech pipeline into silly valley and VC offices than there is in europe. VCs are responsible, imo, to create such a pipeline not academics. Anyways, if you are VC reading this feel free to reach out if you think that I am making sense. If I am not making sense feel free to tell me why. I am, of course, just some guy on the internet.
I have a proptech webapp that I built for myself but now gets several signups per week and has active users, yet nobody wants to invest. My last job was for an idiotic startup that had literally three dozen users at its peak yet was able to get over $2 million in VC, perhaps because it was in the US.
I really don't see why Europe can't figure this out.
safety and trust are hard to sell. it is widely known. What you say shows that "immediate gains always win" with no context.. It is literally unwise over time.
It is better that we not fight wars and that we endeavour to increase the quality of life for all then we win some made up game of geopolitical competition.
It's easier to run a startup in the US, so why do it anywhere else? The financing is easier, the labor laws more business-friendly, and the native market bigger. And that's how it's going to stay for the foreseeable future. EU internal market integration has been paused for decades, weakening labor laws is a non-starter in any European country, and European pension funds are generally not allowed to invest in index funds, let alone something as risky as VC. If you think the EU will ever catch up, think again. The political will to do so is just not there.
From my PoV, the EU doesn't need to catch up. The US will be the one crashing down. There is an ocean in the middle but I can still see Americans digging their hole deeper and deeper.
China, for example, could set up a very European-style English-speaking institute in Hong Kong or Macau with high salaries to attract scientists. Singapore and South Korea too. One day Americans might well follow the money and the research freedom?
China's drowning in their own PhD's. The competition is fierce, and the pressure is enormous. The best and brightest over there are insanely capable men and women.
In all honesty, it's hard to see China wanting many of the PhD's that would be available from the US in a worst case scenario NSF/NIH funding collapse. There may be a place for the top 0.1%? But for 99.9% of PhD's, there are Chinese replacements that are, frankly, better and cheaper.
Hate to bring it back to money like that, but there it is.
I see Chinese nationals in US labs thinking a return to China is a more attractive now than it was a few weeks ago. Chinese institutions should absolutely capitalize on this.
It's been happening already for a few years. Many prominent award-winning faculty are leaving US institutions and setting up brand new labs in top Chinese universities.
France is extremely unattractive for research. Lecturers positions suck (high teaching load and you need to speak French). Full-time researcher positions are extremely hard to get, and they pay very little, especially junior position. 2500 euros per month, which isn't enough in Paris and just ok in a smaller city.
Is he really? Where? I'm no Eric Bina but I ate from the same table and would be happy to remind him of the petulant brat reputation he left behind in the halls of NCSA.
I've heard several interviews about the decisions he made at that time and came from a neutral opinion to hating his guts.
It's like he was surrounded by knowledgeable people and decided to make wrong decision upon wrong decision just to spite them because he resented them being better than him.
I got to sign an MOU from NCSA about wage ranges about a year after he left because Marc was trying to extort more money out of them to stay there working on Mosaic. He left in a huff is the story, after they paid him a bunch including his tuition.
The plus side was I was already making 10% more than any of my other friends and got another 7% for signing it.
I don’t think that is a fair characterisation of Andreessen.
He’s always been a Democrat, including supporting Obama and Clinton.
His recent support of Trump appears to be a tactical reaction to some of the misbehaviour during the Biden administration such as debanking political rivals and encouraging race-based hiring.
He's pretty explicitly said it's because the Biden administration tried to do the smallest amount of regulation in the tech industry. When Obama and Clinton let the tech barons run wild, he was happy to be a Democrat.
He wanted Romney to win the Republican primary, believing him to be more pro-tech than the other candidates, but he ultimately he supported and voted for Obama in that election.
Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is what you're looking for here. The FDIC is accused of violating the APA and some constitutional amendments during the Biden presidency for it.
as an American I'd be sad to see science move out of my country at the same time I'd be happy and relieved that science continues to flourish and treated with the respect it deserves in other countries (hoping these would be democratic countries with a high regard for human rights such as those of Europe or elsewhere), decentralizing itself away from the US's chronic political issues that show no sign of abating likely for the next few decades at least.
As a seventh generation American and 17 year Air Force veteran (long separated), I’m suggesting everybody the US who has any skills, talent, sociability or empathy to leave the United States as quickly as possible.
I think that that’s probably the best route for anybody who is currently in America and doesn’t want to deal with the next 20 to 50 years of total deprivation.
Unfortunately some of us can’t leave so the best most people can do is find some place safe to land.
I would think if you are a European national this situation would have a silver lining in perhaps incentivizing European scientific investment to remain at home and strengthen those nations' scientific research institutions and grant programs. If the U.S. sees fit to rework its institutions, that's its own business. If funding in the U.S. dries up, then doesn't it make sense to go your own way and seek funding in your home country?
So I think you're right. This could be a big opportunity for countries to poach some of these scientists or to repatriate those scientists who have left their home countries.
Not happening. Getting significantly more than $100k is close to impossible in most careers in any other country and the dollar is the safest currency to get paid in. Not convinced the desperate folks who want to move despite these are good hires. Anecdotally the only people working any job at all outside of USA that I’ve met were doing that because of their non-US wives not liking it stateside. This isn’t a large group as you can imagine.
Not happening. Getting significantly more than $100k is close to impossible in most careers in any other country
There are literally millions of people around the world who earn significantly more than US$100K and don’t work in the US.
e.g. in Australia, many medical specialists earn more than US$200k - it is common for experienced oncologists, cardiologists, paediatricians, gastroenterologists, etc, to earn more than US$200k.
'most careers' and Australia is a special snowflake, too, though yes, a valid example. on the other hand you have Eastern Europe, 6h drive to the 'West' from approximately anywhere and salaries in the shitter except for some professions in capitals (cardiologists would probably also qualify).
the only people working any job at all outside of USA that I’ve met were doing that because of their non-US wives not liking it stateside.
Did you accidentally a word? Because if you cross any border literally the first people you meet are border control officers, who work a job outside the USA, most of whom with no interest in living or working in the US.
Incidentally if you travel abroad you will also meet heterosexual women and homosexual men, who don't generally have a wife at all.
i think its underappreciated how much of America's modern success comes down to attracting scientists and intellectuals from war torn europe in the 30s-50s.
if you're going to boil down our "success", if you must call it that, to a root cause, it has a lot more to do with our insatiable greed and lack of respect for, well, anything. The talent is just a small detail in the narrative of America and that narrative is driven far more by capital than it is by interesting people.
The talent narrative makes for excellent propaganda, though, neatly whitewashing a violent and hateful culture.
First off, there is no evidence the US will never fund science again.
Second, top scientific positions in the US are at academic labs, not at NIH (bare a few top people spending some time there). The top academic labs in the US get some funding from NIH, but the top ones get it from a ton of sources with NIH not being the bulk of it.
But does anyone take any science seriously anymore, if the conditions of the US funding would be that don't even mention the topics related to women or climate change?
Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists.
Also, some top scientists who previously would have come to the US, will decide not to.
That's not going to be negative feedback that registers for the decision-makers in the US. But it's good news for competing countries and their institutions. And it's possibly better quality of life, overall, for the scientists who decide to go work somewhere currently more sensible.
I might move somewhere that gave me a person grant. The U.S. works primarily on project grants, where you are funded to do a thing, but that thing doesn't always work, and most of the time it's a bit contrived in order to appeal to the funding agency. (This is probably so the bureaucrats can exert power over what is studied.) The system would work much better if individual scientists got guaranteed salaries to study whatever seemed appropriate, and if you needed money for equipment you can request it. This would lead to more crazy ideas being explored and less derivative, p-hacked slop carried out by graduate student slave labor.
I think that might be an implicit goal here. With antics around H1B, birthright citizenship, general worsening sentiment against "people who dont look white" and "experts bad, podcasters good" its probably worth while for researchers, scientists and professors to start looking elsewhere outside of the US.
Not just that but capital is attracted there as well to the point there is a glut of it which is probably where at least some of the political problems arise. They literally have more money than sense while innovators elsewhere can't get funding.
Please, do take the US "talent" away. Most of real world progress and wealth creation comes from engineering style tinkering and copycatting, and not from pure academic style science research. But the latter gets all the hype, media coverage and the Noble prizes. This system of glorified scientific research is a vestige of anti-communist, anti-Soviet era, which is no longer useful, if it ever were.
The smart thing is to outsource pure science research where it's the cheapest, but commercialize it where it's most profitable - that's what China is doing and doing it very well too.
The idea is to destroy every part of the American federal government so that techno fiefdoms can be ruled by oligarchs. It's pretty obvious. Not sure if we can stop it!
In this particular case, the goal is to privatize science entirely.
So many brilliant researchers in the US are funded by NSF grants. Even beyond public research, just the private sector benefits just from the training (and associated freedom from not having to chase money and TA) that NSF fellows get is immense.
Injecting dumb politics and refusing grants just because people put the words "biases" in their application is a great way to appeal to Republicans's undereducated voters (see https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/4BD2D522-2092... for an example of their idiotic rhetoric) but also a crazy gamble on the US's ability to be a superpower in two decades.
Just look at what happened in France when right-wing governments started defunding research: a slow but massive brain drain of the best minds. What does the current administration think will happen to our economy when they start burning future brains when they're at the seed stage?
It's very clear once you realize the people perpetrating this don't care one whit for the "economy" writ large, only their personal wealth and that of their cronies. The dumber, meaner and more desperate the population is, the easier the time they think they'll have ruling over them, as unto kings in this new gilded age.
Of course, they forget what came after the gilded age. It's raining stockbrokers - err, oligarchs!
No matter what happens in the next few years, the damage is done. It is now known that the next administration could kill your apolitical career with the stroke of the pen if your ideas vaguely support the wrong team.
If you have talent, why deal with the (frequently) middling pay and the existential risk that could follow every election?
So you don't think being forced to include a statement on diversity in every single grant request reviewed by the NIH was "injecting dumb politics" but you do think that being forced to NOT include a statement on diversity in every single grant request is?
This is false. The grants were not approved based on race. The grants were approved based on merit toward the goals of the field of science to which they were submitted. Showing how your work had broader impacts toward a more diverse, equitable and inclusive society was one part of a list of many criteria, recently updated here:
You call it "injecting dumb politics," but I call it "explaining why I shouldn't believe you'll just hire your buddies." It's an attempt to prevent the grift everyone claims is in research, but it's been politicized by bad-faith non-participants.
There’s a very big difference there between “including a statement in diversity” and “your funding gets pulled because you previously included a statement about diversity”. The new administration is essentially pulling funding from everyone who got grants previously based on those criteria.
Who do you think benefits medium term from our best researchers getting less funding? The toll on our economy will only be visible in 15-20 years, and it will be massive.
These money shark guys that have got a hold of our government and economy since 2007 seem to have a long term plan that is specifically designed to destroy the US economy. Its counter intuitive, since their wealth is directly linked, but they have some kind of plan.
Including statements on diversity, and defunding projects because they have diversity are two very different things.
And yeah, as a white male who sees few women, and even fewer people from minorities other than Chinese and Indian, in the hard sciences (especially computer related), I definitely support efforts to try to include them more. It results in more diverse views of a problem, which often leads to better science.
Watching the tech community waltz into DC and pretend that they know how all the levers of government work is pathetic. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. Are there places to improve? Of course. But pretending that they can understand the intricacies of literally decades of institutional knowledge and deep connections across the globe in the course of a single weekend is asinine.
We need to do better. The US government isn't Twitter. Breaking things simply because you have the power is the opposite of leadership, it's nihilism.
Stop playing along with this farce. Their goal is not to improve anything or reduce waste, it's to destroy the apparatus of governance entirely, privatize everything, and rule over a destitute, terrified populace as unto gilded age kings lording over fiefdoms.
Small nit, but these folks 100% can not be described as the "tech community". They're owners of big tech monopolies, their VC backers, and our new oligarchs. Tech community, however, they are not.
That feels like a No True Scotsman argument after decades of chasing VC approval, prestigious jobs at those huge companies, and adopting their practices and software. I don’t like the oligarchy either but it’s a huge part of the tech world under any definition I can come up with. We’re having this conversation on a board run by one of the VC firms with partners who are openly supportive of what’s going on, after all - is this not part of the tech community?
Sure, but there’s a lot of shared culture even though they have distinct subgroups. I don’t think the guys in the news wouldn’t be welcomed at most startups.
Honestly fair enough. Pay package over principles does pretty well describe the policy of far too many of the colleagues I've worked with over the years.
In March 2014, Tunney petitioned the US government on We the People to hold a referendum asking for support to retire all government employees with full pensions, transfer administrative authority to the technology industry, and appoint the executive chairman of Google Eric Schmidt as CEO of America.
DOGE is staffed precisely by the tech elite. Like 20 year old grads who are elite programmers winning competitions, that type.
Are they not part of the tech community now? You highly overestimate the political homogeneity of the tech community, because opposing voices were previously so shut down. You would be surprised by what your co-workers are thinking deep down.
In that respect it is astonishingly successful by every measure. Musk got his global political shift and becoming co-president of the US for a causal $40 billion.
But was the complete annihilation of all safety measures on twitter and chasing away most advertisers necessary to accomplish that? Couldn’t he have bought twitter, truly kept it an open place to discuss topics with less misinformation, kept his advertisers, and still shit post and donate his way into the White House?
He undoubtedly slashed spending, but didn’t he also tank revenue? The question I have is was any of that really necessary for him to get to where he is right now?
Note this isn't representative of the tech industry in general.
When I worked for Google I visited NIH, sat on study groups, and helped advise program managers how to move more compute to the cloud. Like many other techies in SV I have a PhD in a quantitative science and understand how NIH works. My efforts were entirely designed to help update the establishment, not tear it down, and that's true for the wide swath of my coworkers I encountered.
The folks who are doing this are a subset of the tech community, who do not represent the larger community.
Note this isn't representative of the tech industry in general.
I'm not convinced. In the past half decade or so this industry has veered hard toward outright fraud and grift. I see this trend all over--adtech, cryptocoins, "AI", security... These days I assume technologists are frauds until they prove otherwise. It's a blunt instrument, but it often works well.
I'm sorry, but your defense for the "not all techies" argument is that you flew to NIH and told them how to stop investing in their own infrastructure and funnel tax dollars to private hosting rentals instead? I cannot wrap my head around this as a defense of anything. Seems like the current crew is just cutting out the middleman.
Yeah it's a more involved discussion than we could really have in a form like this but I truly believe that the cloud is a better solution than self-investment and infrastructure when it comes to universities. I spent plenty of time working with closet clusters and grad students is admins when I was at the University and I just don't think it's a good investment of time or money.
When I advise the NIH to do was to do a large bulk group buy on behalf of many thousands of scientists that use the scale of the NIH to negotiate in extremely large concession. My experience with Amazon is that you can basically get them down about 50% just by asking.
I work for a well-funded company now and we use the cloud and we have on-prem infrastructure. The on-prem infrastructure is extremely hard to change sometimes just asking for a GPU will take 6 months or more. Storage is always highly limited and slow. Let the cloud hyperscalers do what they're good at and focus on doing the science
There is a real schism in the SV elite community between the "tech right" and Google. You could argue that OpenAI was founded by Sam Altman and Elon Musk to deny Google exclusive access to the GenAI.
"Been thinking a lot about whether it's possible to stop humanity from developing AI. I think the answer is almost definitely not. If it's going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first."
"OpenAI is on a path of certain failure relative to Google. There obviously needs to be immediate and dramatic action or everyone except for Google will be consigned to irrelevance."
Google has always been the company that looms over whatever next-gen hyped things the VC crowd can invest in (or whatever field Elon can pretend to be far ahead in). I even think it being perceived as so liberal has moved these people to the right instead of "libertarian" as they used to claim so they can hit it politically
What's the name for that principle/rule where someone blithely removes rules or regulations without any context for them being there in the first place? It's on the tip of my tounge. I feel like we're seeing that a lot in the US Federal govt at the moment.
Honestly, this is exactly how Silicon Valley operates. Uber broke the laws until they could fix the laws (in their favor). AirBnB did the exact same thing. Meta knew their platform was causing damage to children and teenagers, and they gave zero fucks.
Turncoat Zuck's Meta had posters on the wall in every building: a picture of a rocking horse with the caption: "Not all motion is progress."
The fourth estates' and the masses' blind faith in and compliance to self-righteous, egotistical billionaires, one of whom may be a Nazi, is what is both disappointing and frightening.
Technologists and engineers can be so damn arrogant. Learn some humility. You probably aren't that smart or valuable and people like you aren't the only people adding value to society.
It may be a bad assumption to think HN comments reflect the broader tech community's opinion on what is happening in the US government right now. That being said, there are far too many commenters that seem to be okay with what's happening, especially when it comes to DoE and Musk taking over the treasury.
There just seems to be an overall lack of respect for how government works, the broader machine and bureaucracy that is supposed to protect from unilateral decisions made by a single entity. Government is not, and should not, be run like a tech startup. Going fast and breaking things isn't a recipe for stability or reliability in both government and software. History has tried kings and dictators and, well, they never turn out great for the general population. Democracy is slow and sucks sometimes, but it also has a ton of perks that we seem all too quick to dismiss and throw away.
Do you hear that sucking sound? It's biggest brain drain you've ever seen. It already been happening, I know several great scientists who've already left, this BS just kicked it into high gear.
Some ham-fisted troglodytes didn't know what they're doing or the side-effects of their actions (like people dying or intellectual property leaving), but they want credit and approval for "owning the libs" and "efficiency" by smashing things they don't understand and calling it "progress".
This sounds like Hollywood celebs leaving to Canada - no one did. So where will so called top scientists go? Real scientists will continue their work after weeding out. But the DEI, climate, gender studies and other bottom feeders will need to pack for Europe. Or learn a trade.
Back to their home countries. I can think of about a half dozen world leading scientists I work with every day who would pack up their labs if funding dried up. They already did it once to move to the US because that is where the most funding was for these diseases. If you make the US inhospitable to these talented people, they will not think twice about finding a country that doesn't consider them "bottom feeders".
Also. Believe it or not, there are other fields than DEI/Climate/Gender studies, and when you remove the incentive to work in the US, the leaders in these other fields will leave.
There seems to be a lot of negativity from the HN crowd about this. But, the reality is that your fellow Americans voted for this. If you don'y like it, you're going to have to convince people that it's a bad idea. Getting worked up about Trump or Musk or SV bros isn't getting us anywhere.
First, Trump voters didn't exactly vote for this, at least not many. Identify politics and owning the libs, sure, but I'd say that a minority of his voters wanted to totally dismantle the administrative state - or if they thought that sounded good, they may not have been aware the repercussions of that on their lives.
Second, we all have a right to bitch about what seems like a new America being formed. If things go as badly as many of us seem to think, well it doesn't really matter if we convince trump voters they were wrong, because democracy will be have evaporated anyway. Our society has been almost molded for this moment: Americans are more isolated and alienated from each other than ever. The internet today is a fundamentally difficult place to organize any sort of coherent protest when the places people post are algorithmically controlled, manipulated by bots, and moderated.
We are broken as a society. What a waste was all that 20th century plundering and bloodshed and brilliance and effort. I would imagine that even for someone looking at the teetering American Empire with satisfaction, there is a bit of emptiness in just how stupid and pathetic this all is.
Well voters have two-four years to vote this out of office if they don't like the results. History says the Republicans will likely fail to keep power, and it will be the Democrats turn again to set the ship right, or whatever.
If you don'y like it, you're going to have to convince people that it's a bad idea.
You can't convince people whose attention bandwidth is entirely consumed by the social media engagement algorithms controlled by the very people doing this.
I'm afraid this might be a fait accompli for democratic institutions. The chance to stop this was 10 years ago, by breaking up concentrated media ownership and regulating social media. We didn't, and it's too late.
Hard to say what people voted for. Any winning candidate's coalition is going to be not unified on lots of issues, but Trump's especially. Project 2025 and many of its specific policies pulled out separately all polled like total garbage, so Trump simply lied and said he'd never heard of it and wasn't doing it, and the media dutifully reported the denial. So what did the people who voted for him vote for?
His dizzying array of contradictory statements, lies, and flip-flops have always made him someone where people, his supporters in particular, see the Trump they want to see. Isolationist or imperialist, the man who would ban TikTok or its savior, pro/anti vaccine, really pick just about anything.
There was a popular sentiment in his first term that Trump seemed to believe whoever had talked to him last on any issue, but he manages to have that same effect on other people, too.
Going back to the concept of the will of the voters, Trump won Muslim-heavy Dearborn, MI on the back of people voting to protest Biden/Harris's approach to Gaza. He just announced side-by-side with Netanyahu that he wants to totally depopulate Gaza and have the US take it over and rebuild it as a resort, and throw in the West Bank too while you're at it. Is that what those people voted for?
the problems that led to these frauds are structural--no amount of patching the system will fix this.
maybe we should consider the possibility that we are due for a refactor, which is often painful, but especially painful for people (or code) with an entrenched incentive to continue existing.
i dont mean to defend what the administration is doing but I'm warning that everyone crying doom and gloom and threatening to move abroad, etc. might be eating crow. ironically, the very people most likely to move abroad (in it for the career, not for the principle) are biased to be the types bringing down our system of science. bad science is the science equivalent of a zirp.
maybe we should consider the possibility that we are due for a refactor
People in tech need to stop with those analogies. A government is not a codebase. You can not apply the principles of "refactoring" and "patching" in the same way. It just doesn't work like that. But the problem is we have a bunch of people (some malicious, some clueless) trying to do exactly that.
Government is exactly a codebase. Government bureaucracies is essentially constricting human judgement to more robotic code-like behavior, that's the only way to build large systems.
You say government is not like code, then what exactly is it? Can you describe it in an effective way? Or are you just going to raise your hand up and say there's nothing we can do about it, nothing we can do about the $2 trillion/year titanic deficit?
Historical governments often needed little beyond an army and a tax collection system. And tax collection system was primarily data gathering and analysis, since if you knew how much property someone owned, you can easily tax them for an appropiate amount.
The tech way of thinking has proven extremely successful in many industries already. That's why tech companies (and tech adjacent ones, like say quant trading, or even index fund trading) have been so economically dominant, and utterly kicked out the traditional MBAs from their pedestals.
Stop being a self hating programmer who despises the mentality of tech.
You say government is not like code, then what exactly is it?
Government is mostly individuals deciding goals and attempting to convince others. Then rules are added to prevent harm to others or using corrupt methods of convincing. That "code" part is more like a moderated forum: necessary for the huge task, but it's just the framework for the actual content.
Historical governments often needed little beyond an army and a tax collection system.
And historical computers used vacuum tubes. What's your point?
The tech way of thinking has proven extremely successful in many industries already.
Even in tech companies, the richest people are almost always the smooth talkers. Because the best, and really only, way to get money is convincing somebody else to give it to you. You can do it by offering a better product or charming them.
Most government goals aren't technically difficult and certainly don't require advanced algorithms or fast computers. The real work is aligning people.
I hate to break it to you, but 2 million people engaged in an endless list of activities that encompasses repairing tanks, making grants, building bridges, supporting citizens abroad, distributing pension checks, performing surgery, making sure airplanes don’t crash and conserving forests is not the same kind of thing as a codebase and requires a different skill set to effect change in.
and yet the structure of the federal code is generally designed to be read as a recipe. judges are instructed to be as objective as possible. disbursers of funds are expected to justify decisions in as mechanical a fashion possible (this maximizes accountability) perfection is impossible, but the idea of running government like code is a quasi-ideal, or else you cant go back to the taxpayer and say "hey we did good by you".
Your discourse screams delusion or next-to-none experience in any mid-sized life and collective/team work.
Maybe try first to spend some time and speak with the actual people (judges, administrators, clerks, etc.) that do this daily, to understand how it works in reality.
- Part of government is the legal system which a Judge's whole thing is being endless nuanced in understanding and applying what the law means; I would not considered this constricted robot like behavior even though the law is literally a bunch of written down rules.
- Part of government is funding research that involves people doing real experiments collecting real data? Are novel experiments those of constricted robots or LLMs?
- Part of government are the dedicated every day folks who are doing the best they can despite being overworked and under resourced who have to make life and death decisions in the moment every day (air traffic controllers), who monitor and coordinate relief and management of disasters big and small in a very interconnected world (we just had a global pandemic, are culling record numbers of chickens, had a bad hurricane season, and large wildfires) these are not people behaving like robots they are just people following laws and regulations primarily passed via efforts of lobbyists, or else are those that are written in blood.
Don't like the way a part of government works? Reform it. Don't try to burn the whole thing to the ground by doing shit like emailing the people responsible for keeping planes from crashing into each other that if they want to they can fuck off for the next 8 months on the tax-payers dime and then find a new low-stress job. Don't like certain regulations or the ways laws are weaponized against everyone but corporations and the wealthy? I get it, me neither I'd like to see affordable housing too. Unfortunately, congress has the responsibility to fix that, not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, nor any of his former SpaceX interns. If they want to make those changes they should get elected to congress or hell maybe for shits and giggles use some of that lobbying money for the common good they claim to care so much about.
Don't like the way a part of government works? Reform it.
at what point does that become disingenuous? how many years have people bern trying to do it incrementally? just tell the reformer: oh try harder, knowing every feature of the bureaucracy is stacked against them and they wont succeed. in the meantime people are hurt, dollars are wasted.
Unfortunately, congress has the responsibility to fix that,
that's not correct. congress has ceded execution of these things to the executive in many cases with broad leeway to do or not do (thats why it's called discretionary spending, any spending that is by law congress' responsibility is statutory spending)
You are mistaken. Discretionary spending is spending that Congress allocates during the annual appropriation process, while mandatory spending is spending that is required by prior law. See https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
Government has a massive policymaking function, which is not "robotic code-like behavior". It's about solving nuanced, challenging problems. Government has a huge research function.
And tech has created some great things, but it's also created some really terrible things, mostly because of this "move fast and break things" mentality that doesn't consider the consequences of its actions.
Precisely. There’s no wisdom in the approach. “I’ll try refactoring - that’s a good trick!” is a poor approach.
You can try it, but the consequences of a poor refactoring? Look to the planned economies and five year plans.
The government is not a codebase; that mistakes its artifacts for its process. And the importance of process - in politics, in government - cannot be overstated.
I'm very pro some systematic auditing/cleaning of out sclerotic waste, but I don't see how anyone can look at the way this is being handled and not be incredibly worried
I think it's the second-order stuff here. Even assuming Musk were to do a fantastic job at just clearing out inefficiency in a smart way (which seems unlikely given the actions he's taken/leaks around cutting funding based on key-word matching etc.), the higher-order point that someone can just buy their way into the President's inner-circle and have complete free-reign to seize government operations and make changes with 0 transparency/accountability seems like it does just stupid amounts of harm to the integrity of the system
make changes with 0 transparency/accountability seems like it does just stupid amounts of harm to the integrity of the system
pray tell who was accountable for the grant issuance in the first place? was congress approving every disbursal? could the citizenry vote up/down on every RO1 or SBIR that went past the NIH desk?
Hey man, if you wanna make a point just make a point - no need to try the whole snarky rhetorical thing
Ofc not every decision is fully democratic, but the people making them are beholden to rules and systems which are - or at the least, have a clear chain of command back to individuals who Congress has direct authority over. No one ever said you needed 100% democratic oversight on every action, as long as those actions are obeying the system that was democratically established
The problem is doing it in an extra-legal way, where the Executive Office is giving a crony power his branch doesn't/shouldn't be able to bestow, where people telling this crony no when he tries things he shouldn't be able to do all seem to get put on leave etc
the executive has broad leeway to spend as it sees fit. i 100% guarantee you that disbursal of funds to grant recipients involves calling on extralegal outside-the-government "experts" making advisory recommendations without direct consultation of congress or the voter.
point is, live by the sword, die by the sword. it's hypocritical to whine about cutting funding by the exact same mechanism that is used to give it out because you dont like the political party of the cutter.
and you can't say "keep politics out of science". because when you're pulling from the public purse, it is inherently political.
there are ways to fund science that are apolitical. HHMI, ACS, ADA, AHA, etc.
Executive branch has leeway to decide on what to fund within the parameters set for the program by Congress. It can evaluate grants and set processes but not completely change the acceptance criteria or scope, which is under the jurisdiction of Congress - USAID is jointly under the purview of the executive and legislative branches. This isn't a "team" thing - Congress sets the scope of what USAID should be doing, and anyone changing that - or dismantling the program altogether - without their authority is overreaching
And again, my main issue here is that under any reasonably interpretation, Musk would qualify as a Principal officer, which as the Appointments clause of the Constitution clearly lays out requires Senate approval. It is beyond ridiculous that the head of a new "Department" who seems to have unilateral power over other departments now, is not subject to any kind of oversight or accountability to other branches of government - this is exactly the kind of shit the checks and balances were designed for
Refactor. Ha. This is just randomly and mindlessly deleting large chunks of code because you think it's woke.
Not a single personal alive thinks these institutions are perfect. But only morons think haphazardly defunding shit without understanding what you're breaking or what the real-world ramifications might be is a way to fix problems.
The past couple of weeks have historically stupid.
no not because it's woke. because it's broken. this is literally the system that let a person become the President of Stanford a federally granted research professor with years of fabricated data that absolutely fucked some people that i personally know. lets say, negative man-decades of research just among people in my limited circle. i guarantee you this was not an isolated incident
the sooner we cut this shit out, realize consequences, and start over, the better.
ironically, the very people most likely to move abroad (in it for the career, not for the principle) are biased to be the types bringing down our system of science.
What the hell are you talking about? I chose to get into science for the benefit of the masses, rather than, for instance, helping some corporation abuse human psychology to sell more ads. If there is no money to do the science, I have no choice but to emigrate.
edit: And to give you an example of the science being targeted by these early moves: pulse oximeters have a racial bias leading them to overestimate the oxygen saturation of minorities, which led to deaths during the pandemic. All the work toward addressing that issue at the FDA has now been terminated, because it's related to DEI.
I chose to get into science for the benefit of the masses
why do you suppose most science benefits the masses?
a stunning amount of science is negative. homme hellinga cheating and claiming a triosephosphate isomerase, for example. stripey nanoparticles, as another. Thousands of western blots that were cleverly edited by unscrupulous postdocs. everything by diderik stapel. anil potti.
those are the ones that got caught. so many more got away with it.
and yes, if you can't tell, i know what the fuck I'm talking about.
And to give you an example
why dont i give you an example. NIH is responsible for 80% of the budget of an NGO that collaborated with WIV and advocated for GOF research. on the grounds of likely being responsible in part for the deaths of millions worldwide maybe we should suspend funding to the NIH until all of its policies can be reviewed
I'd like to make the point that private and public are coupled, in a way that if you dismantle everything public/tax funded, there is effectively nothing left except private by definition (with all it's upsides and downsides where the latter will be amplified in the absence of public oversight bodies funded by public money based on public law).
Now I (as a non US citizen, but one of a country that has it's fair share of needless bureaucracy) wholeheartedly agree that there is waste, a lack of oversight/transparency and probably a need for more say of the common taxpayer on how their money is spent.
But as someone who learnt the meaning of the Terms "Gleichschaltung" and "Ermächtigungsgesetz" in school, I wholeheartedly disagree with the current measures and how they unfold right in front of our eyes.
The small fraction of people perpetrating fraud does not warrant leaving science for private corps to pursue. The end result from that is companies sitting on their IP and suing anyone who comes up with something similar--with the cost passed on to consumers, and the pace of technology development slowing.
You still haven't explained how this is biased toward people "in it for the career, not for the principle."
But the scientific community identified this failure. They published the evidence against it. And shed light here.
And heck, they did a lot of unrelated great science at the same time.
Science is a process that will have failures, mistakes, errors, and these are subject to natural selection. We can work to make that process sharper, more rigorous, but that's obviously not what the administration is doing. They're attacking science with the full intent of replacing it with a system where lies and fraud reign supreme. In the world of RFK and Donald Trump, lies are just what people do every day for breakfast.
RFK Jr. gets a dozen things wrong on science and tells a dozen lies and funds and pals around with major fraudsters and charlatans every week.
they did not. in the case of tessier-levigne, who was responsible for getting him out of there? not the NIH. it was a fucking Stanford undergrad journalism student.
let that sink in. a heroically persistent undergrad had to do the job that the NIH was morally and legally obligated to do.
this "science is self correcting" trope needs to stop being propagated right now. and you can claim eventual self consistency if it resolves a hundred years from now, which would obviously be too little too late. how many people were hurt, how much research dollars were wasted in the meantime. "well, Eventually" is not good enough, and the self correcting slogan is just running cover for entreched interests in the face of their misdeeds.
I'll add that all systems are self-correcting given sufficiently long timescale. (Or they die out and we're none the wiser due to survival bias)
Science isn't any special in this regard. Even the Catholic Church was self correcting (it doesn't do Inquisitions or sell indulgences any more, does it?). As was Nazi Germany (WWII fixed that, hurray for... whatever that was).
To be honest the real "self-correcting" mechanism is some kind of Darwinian survival system where you have to ensure the wrong things don't perpetuate. Government funding really doesn't help with that unless the mechanism deciding which projects/people to fund have a really good model of the real world (i.e. "truth").
Yeah, but that's actually not really true, the undergrad just reported in the campus newspaper what other scientists had found and reported in pubpeer:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Tessier-Lavigne
Kudos to the kid for breaking the story before other media sources, but the actual scientific investigative work here was done by people with scientific training
When researchers see that appealing to DEI and inclusion make is easy to gain finding for, allegedly, research that is wasteful and not meritorious, everyone will attempt to do it.
Conversely, when appealing to "equality of white people" becomes more likely to get you funded, everyone will also attempt that. Which is going to be the case going forward. If you do not believe me, DJT has appointed someone at the helm of EEO commission who explicitly does this in their LinkedIn bio.
So the issue is structural, it is not dei or white power.
scientific fraud is absolutely a problem -- a universal problem, because it's inherently a human problem (it's inextricably tied to academic careers, so it's not really a money problem, it's a career problem--in other words, people aren't doing it to get rich, they're doing it to further their career or prestige; that doesn't make it any better, it just makes the context more complicated)
but what the admin is trying to do has nothing to do with "making science right". it has a very clearly stated goal of 1) rooting out anything remotely related to DEI; 2) rooting out anything related to previous investigations into Trump and the Jan6 attempted coup (see purges at FBI, DOJ); 3) cutting government spending (so there's money to pass a promised tax cut); 4) whatever Elon decides he wants to gut
None of these have anything to do with making science more honest and accurate. If that were the goal, you'd probably need to _increase_ funding because you'd need more reproducibility studies.
Part of me thinks this is just incompetence. People put in charge to "change" things without knowing what the thing is or does and just randomly mashing buttons.
I contend that there existed too much incompetence across what the government has been funding. I’m looking forward to a ‘change’ for more competence, efficiency, innovation, accountability, etc
The process is the problem. There is no oversight and accountability for Musk and his "DOGE". That's pure poison to Democracy and to a functioning society.
Musk is neither competent nor efficient. He looks at line items and makes stuff up. He destroys a hundred useful things to destroy a bad one. Details don't matter to him. Its the same con man mentality that feeds off the works of his workforce. People who think he is a genius are gullible.
- He claimed the US funded bio-weapons when they found payments for gain of function research.
- Calling payments to non-profit organizations fraudulent on a whim.
- The sweeping condemnation of what USAID was doing.
- His call for a blanket drop of regulations.
Either he knows better or he is totally lost in his sauce. Hard to say what's worse for where he is right now.
I believe, he does not care. He only cares about his conception of the world and how AI and Mars are more important than those tiny tiny human problems. Society has to serve him and his god complex. He was told to find his subsidies and tax cuts by himself. That's what he is doing.
Evidence is being presented in real-time on X for each of the things you mentioned. Suggest you do some homework instead of gleaning headlines from old media, who btw, was getting money from USAID - the latest series of evidence coming out on X today.
You really need to take a hard look at who is gullible here.
Can you point me to some of the evidence being presented? I know elon's been posting claims of fraud and abuse, but I'm only seen his claims, without any evidence.
- He claimed the US funded bio-weapons when they found payments for gain of function research.
This is factual though.
The previous NIH director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss and current deputy director Dr. Lawrence Tabak agree that the definition of "gain of function" as was listed on the NIH website applies to engineering a biological agent to infect something it normally wouldnt be able to.
That coupled with the fact that Dr.Daszak submitted the Year 5 Annual Progress Report Nearly Two Years Late. Said report had the experiment with infected transgenic mice with four different coronaviruses, three of which were chimera or recombinant viruses with different spike proteins.
When confronted in the deposition Daszak said that the reporting system was inaccessible. So they deposed the IT stack of the reporting system, and they showed logs that it was accessible and actually logged into several times during the 2 year period that the report was late.
This is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that they were attempting to hide or delay the experiments from being discovered by the grant review process at the end of the year. The report is pretty damning.
His manage-by-trolling technique is demonstrably effective in industry.
Or are his companies successful despite that? The impression I get is that his direct reports are exceptionally good managers and shield the companies from his dumbest moves. Except at Twitter--that's lost, what, 75% of its value? (still works as a political platform for him though)
So he fosters competence with his incompetence? Seems like it would work just as well without him except for marketing. I'm impressed with Tesla and SpaceX as a whole, but from what I've heard, he hasn't been heavily involved with day to day decisions for more than a decade. From my perspective, his role is to be a hype man that consistently over promises and under delivers.
Musk specializes at succeeding in fields where nobody else is seriously trying. He's never actually faced good old-fashioned market competition.
He's good at identifying ideas whose time has come, I'll give him that much credit. Ransacking the US Treasury wasn't on the radar, though, as far as I could see.
It's easy to dismiss eccentric people as conmen. But you have to consider, he has been at least partially instrumental in at least 2 impossible companies: electric cars and rockets.
Regardless of what you think of his intellectual capacity, he has a proven track record of organizing people to produce exceptional outcomes !
An inevitable characteristic of his algorithm is chaos: delete as many constraints and parts as possible. When things break, re-add those necessary parts.
An inevitable characteristic of his algorithm is chaos: delete as many constraints and parts as possible. When things break, re-add those necessary parts.
This might work sometimes for companies (surprisingly, often it doesn't) - it has far more significant and wide-reaching consequences when you're doing it to an entire country and its institutions, particularly one as influential as America.
Regardless of what you think of his intellectual capacity, he has a proven track record of organizing people to produce exceptional outcomes !
And? Getting people whipped up into a frenzy through fear, us vs them mentality, narcissism, to do good work is toxic. Musk is toxic.
We should stop elevating leaders as extra-ordinarily capable. Especially leaders who employ a negative leadership style instead of one founded on empathy, trust, respect, and importance of the group over leader.
Maybe if DEI is in your job title its not a real job.
I would think both sides of the political spectrum agree that the government spends money frivolously; so I am confused on why people are so upset. Maybe they aren't actually upset and all we are hearing in any form of media are government leeches crying about the end to their gravy train.
Electric cars have nothing to do with the conservation of the environment, but are are a way for rich people virtue signal in an effort to offload the guilt of their "carbon footprint" to another country that mines the Cobalt and Lithium. Pollution for thee not for me.
I feel more and more like a large portion of the American public exists at the weaponized intersection of the subbing Kruger effect and Chesterton fence. They hear so many vague platitudes about waste that it’s just taken as dicta without evidence. That somehow provides a global mandate to break anything.
If we survive this I hope that the government workforce starts to get more respect of the hard work they do on complicated problems to make fair processes and that they stop getting just blanket accused of incompetence for ideological gain.
I've worked for the government before and have personally witnessed a very large amount of waste. It's absolutely there, and it's disgusting.
Waste needs to be cut back - that is morally required to happen, because it's not waste of some private company's money, it's the waste of other peoples' money - the only problem is that you can't take the Office Space "What would you say you do here?" approach of randomly cutting people, but have to address the systemic issues that result in tens of billions of dollars lost yearly.
Some of these include:
- literal incentives to waste money in the form of "if you don't use your whole budget every year, we'll cut it next year" (which applies to large parts of the military and defense, which happen to be some of the biggest spenders)
- massive bureaucracy that takes processes that should take a day and turns them into multi-week-long nightmares
- terrible office cultures that encourage single-points-of-failure...and then gives those people lots of vacation time
- large policy sub-orgs that focus on evaluating requests against hundreds of thousands of pages of policy instead of trying to help the workers actually get things done
- terrible contracting processes that result in the government paying 2-10x more than private industry does for goods and services (which only a small increase in quality or reliability)
...and many, many more problems.
I hope that the government workforce starts to get more respect of the hard work they do on complicated problems
You can simultaneously believe that the average government worker is competent and hard-working, and that the bureaucracy as a whole is extremely inefficient due to systemic issues.
Blanket defense of government (in)efficiency actively makes the problems worse. Focus your energy instead on adding nuance when discussing the problems and solutions.
I think this is part of the problem. There is merit in the stated goal. Most people think there is waste in government, so cleaning things up resonates.
The issue though is with the way it’s being done. Giving it the most charitable take, it’s at best reckless. No oversight, no transparency. We can only take him at his word that things are being improved. But given the various false and misleading statements that’s already come out, of the limited info being released, how can we trust him?
The issue though is with the way it’s being done. Giving it the most charitable take, it’s at best reckless. No oversight, no transparency.
Yes, spot on, I think this is very accurate and truthful.
I'm just trying to differentiate between "the government is wasteful, and here's the careful and prudent way to make it better" and "the government isn't very wasteful and we should avoid even talking about the possibility".
I’m not sure there are many people arguing for the latter. The former yes, but more than that it’s the types of things that are being targeted.
Method aside, musk is trying to save a few million here and there on things that are “wasteful” but provide benefit to a lot of people, including Americans. Meanwhile, a multi trillion dollar tax cut that’s going mostly to the wealthy is fine and not wasteful for some reason. Jacked up prices from a handful of defense contractors is also fine.
Thank you for making an actually thoughtful comment with very reasonable points about the ways in which Musk et al are failing the taxpayers/citizens. I'd add on another one, from the article:
On Sunday, CNN reported that DOGE personnel attempted to improperly access classified information and security systems at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and that top USAID security officials who thwarted the attempt were subsequently put on leave.
Retaliation is very bad, especially when it comes to trying to protect national security information. As a semi-technical person running several large technical companies, even if he had zero experience with the DoD before, Musk should at the very least understand how important it is to guard your "IP".
Retaliation seems like the norm from the current administration. Calls to investigate and jail political opponents, agents that investigated the Jan 6 “protestors”, to deport the Bishop for calls for mercy.
Bullying, intimidation, arrogance. Traits that I would’ve hoped most would be against.
Incompetence. Mixed in with a fair amount of malevolence. Mixed in with that rich guy thing of really hating smart people because why do they always keep telling me I'm wrong and embarrassing me in front of people if they were really so smart why aren't they rich like me huh?
Mixed in with that rich guy thing of really hating smart people because why do they always keep telling me I'm wrong and embarrassing me in front of people if they were really so smart why aren't they rich like me huh?
I never thought about it like this and it makes so much sense. I have financial (and maybe social) power therefore I should have intellectual power and if you show to people that you have more than I do, then I feel embarrassed and will use my financial (and social) power to make you feel embarrassed.
As Sir Ian Jacob said, the Allies won World War II because "our German scientists were better than their German scientists." Brain drain is a real problem for fascist countries.
US loss, Europe's win. Same thing with the trade wars and other Trumpian policies. Short term gains to look strong but long term just degrades US soft power and decades of ally building.
US screws up and Europe gains some points is a best case scenario. I don't mean to sound like a patriot, but the US is a big deal and it's currently administered by unsound forces.
US scientific research funding is largely driven by nepotism and favoritism. Insiders know but don't talk too much about it. They have a few options: a) just quietly stay in the system trying their best to do good work b) join the gravy train through social climbing c) quietly leave and move on with their careers.
If that's true, and you've offered no evidence to support that it is, canceling funding for anything tangentially associated with "DEI" doesn't seem like it actually solves any of those problems.
This is pretty vague and gestural, I'd love specific examples to support your accusation. I work on NIH funded grants, and while I don't write the grants, I'm reasonably familiar with the process. I disagree with your assessment when it comes to any grant I've been involved with. I've never seen corruption like that. These grant proposals look a lot like private sector bids: here's what we want to do, and how it aligns with your mission, and here's how we plan to do it, and how much we're asking for. The process is competitive, and a committee decides on the outcome. Everything has oversight, and is very procedural. Before working on NIH grants, I worked in the private sector doing large contracts for 13 years, and the downside of the way the NIH does it is not corruption, if anything it's bureaucratic slowness and overcaution. The private sector was much shadier and prone to cronyism, and has nothing to teach the government on that count... believe it or not.
I used to work in academia and was involved in NSF and DOE grants. I’ve been in industry (IC then manager) since then.
My sense is that grant funding was less merit based than industry funding. I’m not saying it’s so corrupt that it should be completely torn down, but there’s just less accountability in academia - you can get a grant, fail to deliver on what you promised, and still get another grant after that and that can be your whole career if you know how to play the academic social game and are good at writing proposals.
The whole point of many of these grants is to invest in research on the leading edge where, by definition, nobody knows whether what they're trying to do is going to work, because it's actually new.
Of course that can be gamed, and of course we need good faith oversight, but if none of the research projects we're funding were to ever fail, that would be evidence that we're being massively too conservative in the avenues for new discoveries that we're investing in exploring.
Even taking this as true, and also taking it as true that we need to build a new research funding system from a clean slate to fix it - that can still be done in parallel while leaving the existing system in place! So as usual the effort of trying to discern some higher purposes is unwarranted, and the goal of these people is to just straight up destroy our country.
Please name a specific government grant that was given to a specific researcher based nepotism and favoritism.
The last time I checked when I worked at a Stanford biomedical university department that was substantially NIH-funded, there were 2 full time employee grant writers who had to supply the government grant process with a laundry list of specific data with each carefully-worded proposal because they were regularly competing with other universities to win a specific grant.
Some Stanford guy caused the NIH to deprioritize the infectious etiology theory for Alzheimer’s for decades. It’s not clear why his research was considered better than the others’, but it did receive a lot of attention and became the driving force. Millions have paid the price. His voice was not the only one, it was just the favored one.
Insiders have little say. NSF is probably the most merit based system in all the US government. Literally any other program (defense?) is less merit based.
Also, if nepotism and favoritism are the criteria for removal, let's start with the Executive branch.
It's also highly discriminatory and ideological. Decades of discrimination will lead people to want to come back and tear it down, you reap what you sow.
Could you explain more about the "highly discriminatory and ideological" behavior you've seen? Is it across the board, in the sciences? For example, is a neurosurgery lab at UC Davis working on glioma research either discriminatory and ideologically driven?
I can speak to one instance of this (which was before COVID and the events surrounding George Floyd, so apply context as needed), but I took a class on networking implementations in low-budget and rural regions.
As part of the curriculum, there were distinct lessons (in this hard-science course) on feminist design, avoiding white-savior rollouts, and cultural relativism -- with much room to expound on their importance, and little room to critique.
I happened to agree with lots of the mindsets of these lessons a priori, but I was definitely acutely aware the whole course that there was an ideological bent, even in STEM.
The networking stack obviously had no viewpoint, but the course teaching it certainly did.
I don't know if networking implementations in low-budget and rural regions is a purely STEM topic. The mere fact it talks about low-budget and rural regions suggests to me it interacts with geography and sociology and development economics, which to me makes sense that it'd incorporate ideas from those fields as well.
This is one of the core problems that many on the "left" will not understand.
The problem is that the people who have seen and who have experienced this will never tell you. I and many like me I've talked to will simply never tell their actual beliefs to a colleague who believes like this.
Cannot tell you how many countless meetings I've been in where I have a differing opinion and say nothing because of backlash and loss of softpower.
The truth is that there are huge numbers of your coworkers, bosses, and employees who have different thoughts that don't align with the current ideology. These people have learned to say nothing. I myself being one of them.
I have on multiple occasions just straight lied to a liberal coworker about my beliefs because me telling what I actually think would make it very difficult to work with them.
The fuck are you taking about? They can’t even fill the seats with the demographic bomb hitting. Dude, populations change. Therefore they have demand and supply they meet. I don’t care for the system for other reasons but discriminatory? Get fucking real.
Despite all the hyperbole in this thread I will try to speak plainly. It has become tiring to see how DEI has affected all aspects of academia. Hiring people based on race, awarding grants to work exclusively with members of a particular set of minorities, etc. I'm sure most people choose to close their eyes to such things and move on and focus on the actual important work but there must be unimaginable waste going on in addition to unethical race based preferences.
"A 2021 American Enterprise Institute survey of academic job postings found that 19% required DEI statements, and elite institutions were more likely to require them."
"Speech First, a group advocating for First Amendment rights on US campuses, released an investigation on Thursday that found 165 of 248 selected institutions — from American University to Williams College — mandate DEI-related classes to meet general education requirements."
DEI is a good idea that has led to a catastrophic backlash.
Imagine a world where us intellectual types hadn’t given the right this kind of talking point on a silver platter. Election might have gone differently.
I like to imagine a world where the institutions that were supposed to protect us had done their jobs, and enforced the gentleman’s agreement we had, that worked so well these past 50 years.
I largely agree but I doubt other issues would be such massive free wins for Republicans. The Republican base has become rabid over DEI and trans issues and it has been really obvious for a while now that it was going to be a massive problem for Democrats. Sadly these issues have become more divisive than even gun control.
You point to the issue Republicans have with trans people existing, isn't that a counterpoint to your point?
They were able to make a massive issue out of the existence of less than a percent of the population, if the can do that how can you say they wouldn't have made issues of literally anything?
They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads trying to convince people these things were a problem. That is, by definition, not a free win.
You have to realize some of these issues didn't used to be as divisive. They made them divisive. Abortion being the most obvious. If you need an issue to rally around, you create one.
"trans issues" are literally an issue they invented. They've been workshopping attack vectors for years. Bathrooms didn't really work, so they switched to athletes, which did.
They will continue inventing issues until they find one that sticks.
Should one be required to submit a statement proving their past support of DEI as part of the hiring process in academia? What should people who disagree with such efforts put in this statement?
But it is. DEI indicates ideological capture. Whether it's good or bad doesn't matter, it's not germane to the purported goals of "advancing science/health/military readiness/etc". At best it's tangential.
If we were a robust and wealthy country, then perhaps we could engage in these sorts of boutique social experiments. But we are not. We've got serious problems on multiple fronts. Fixing it before it all goes blooey means serious disruption, and we're now well into 30 years of positive reinforcement on the ideological capture. You're not going to get the results you need from the people who benefitted from the previous mismanagement. Trump learned that lesson quite directly the last time he was in office.
If you could please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42951612 and stop breaking HN's rules, regardless of how wrong anyone else is or you feel they are, we'd appreciate it.
I know it's not easy when times are urgent and feelings understandably run high, but those are the times when the rules need to count the most (as the site guidelines say: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.")
Do you think that DEI is just some line item in a budget that can easily be produced? Without which we'll just have to shrug our shoulders and endlessly equivocate about how their might be some waste?
...Faculty Diversity Action Plan, a special funding program for diversity-focused faculty hiring, which ran until 2023, when it was restructured and renamed. Created in 2020, the program played a significant role in dictating whom the university hired. In a 2022 faculty meeting, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was asked how many professors were hired through the program since it began. He estimated that around 90% were either hired through the program or were spousal hires.
Academics should keep in mind that they rely on the generosity of taxpayers to fund their research.
They don’t have an entitlement to other people’s money, and if they are perceived as wasting it or spending in discriminatorily then you should expect the public to become less willing to give it to you.
That's only true in a very myopic sense. You don't get the US economy (and all of the benefits that come from that) without science and technology and basic research funding.
You are speaking on an intellectual level. The comment you replied to is speaking on a practical, political level. If voters do not like what is going on in universities, they will defund them. This is a political reality.
~82% of all R&D funding in the US is non-Federal, and 75+% is industry. The total investment by companies on R&D is about the same as the US defense budget. Many people still think it is like the 1960s and 1970s, when US government funding of R&D was a large percentage of the total. Federal investment in R&D hasn't declined so much as industry massively increased their investment.
The Federal government found a niche in basic research for a few decades and funded the vast majority of that. Per NSF, today even basic research is <40% funded by the Federal government, again not due to a decline in Federal funding but due to vast increases in industry investment. This shift toward industry investment in basic research was not overnight, it has been a monotonic trend for decades. Over the last century, the areas where Federal research funding is critical have dwindled greatly in scope because industry spends more money and is willing to take more risks.
One of the more interesting stories here is why and how this change happened in the US, to the point where the vast majority of R&D is funded by industry even in areas historically dominated by Federal government funding.
It's worth distinguishing between R&D and science. In my experience in industry, R&D is very focused on product development. Sometimes on a little longer time horizon than engineering, but it's research to solve some problem that the company has. Sometimes that problem is also more broadly useful towards advancing human knowledge and understanding, but often it's not. At my last company, the R&D department focused entirely on 1) building algorithms for a specific product (nothing that advanced the state of the art, just applying well-established techniques to the company's particular hardware); and 2) helping market the company's products by letting them claim that they were clinically-proven. Would they ever publish anything that showed a result that wouldn't serve the company's interests? Of course not. Yes, I know there are some industrial labs that do more basic research, but I've never worked at one.
Also, industry isn't really doing that much to train the next generation of scientists.
We are at the tail end of a 50 year bull run powered by declining interest rates. Maybe ZIRP is the new normal and private industry R&D investment stays high, but I don't think we should gamble our status as an economic, scientific, and technological powerhouse on that and gut our government financed R&D programs.
Further more, my wife works in biotech so I have seen first hand the compromises one has to make to secure private funding. They care about things like market size and revenue potential when making these investments, which means you end up with most of the money flowing towards diseases that largely affect rich people and solutions that are either expensive or recurring. And lets also not forget that almost all of these companies are working off of or spinning out from research programs that were funded by the government. I have yet to meet a single company where that wasn't the case.
I need to read more details on this because everything I’ve seen in the past 30 years has involved industry shutting down basic research.
Maybe it’s more true in some fields (biotech?)
How is this counted? If it’s based on tax figures, there’s a lot of corporate “R&D” that gets written off that wouldn’t be considered research in an academic setting.
Those numbers come from NSF, so I assume the definition of "basic research" would align with NSF.
The rise in basic research in industry coincides with the rise of technology as a major component of the US economy decades ago. I suspect these are not unrelated. The growth of deep tech investment by the private sector probably has a lot to do with it.
Voters are overwhelmingly in favor of funding US science. They are overwhelmingly in favor funding US international aid. The public thinks we spend way more on these than we do.
The idea that the blatantly illegal actions by the current administration reflect public will simply isn't based in any kind of reality- just calling it out as a lie.
Ah, your post helped me realize that a lot of people probably have an anger or resentment towards academics. So maybe part of it is DEI, part of it is the resentment towards the kids in school who always knew the answers.
I'm not saying this is what's coming from you, just reminded me of how many people have had so much animosity towards me over the years because of my intelligence, or maybe more so, my confidence in my intelligence. A jealousy/envy/admiration all mixed together.
Yes, it's a two-sided problem, with the "more intelligent" sometimes looking down on those who seem "less intelligent" and the "less intelligent" sometimes thinking the "more intelligent" are looking down on them.
You say this like we didn't just have massive outrage at hard medical science because the reality was that, yes, you should be made to get the damn vaccine.
The american public, beyond all else, hates being told they are wrong.
They are rarely right. So how do you square that circle?
This... explains a lot. Taxes probably need a new phrasing, framing, and mind set. If the military can get $820b (13% of the pie) and be celebrated, then we need to get there with education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. as well.
Defence is a homogenous concept, or close to it, so people can confidently state they support it.
Research is a messy mix of things people like and things they don’t.
It is it significantly easier to obtain public support for, say, cancer research, than say, fat phobia, but both are lumped together from the public’s perspective as NIH funding.
This makes it harder for people to support, because they cannot easily support what they care about without supporting what they perceive as wasteful spending.
Smugness usually turns people off. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. No one likes people who act superior to them. Hilary lost over her “deplorables” comment. It makes me sad that the left is not taking the right lesson from this election.
I hear you, I think it's a balance of people trying to not be so smug (aka not attacking other people's intelligence) and people trying to not see other people as smug (aka not thinking the other person is attacking their intelligence).
I've struggled with the former a lot in my life. I was really good at school and feel very confident in my intelligence. So when I feel attacked, I often punch back at someone's intelligence without even realizing it.
Sometimes me feeling attacked is just confusion or sadness or disappointment that someone doesn't know something and I feel lonely that I'm the only one who does, and often angry when their decisions impact my life. Takes a lot to remind myself they know other things a lot better than me.
I'm not happy with what is going on, to be clear. But I am also not surprised that it is happening, and furthermore I don't believe there was any other alternative to this scorched earth war against DEI. If one had any reservations against DEI before, one would speak only in whispers. Now the backlash is here.
Of course there is an alternative. Through actual leadership.
It's not hard to effect change over time with a few memos (e.g. no more "pregnant people") and reviews. It may not be quick enough for certain items already in motion, but that really doesn't matter if the pipeline quickly empties out as the memos take effect.
The scorched earth policy is intended to sow fear.
Unfortunately I think the problem is much deeper than something that can be fixed with a few memos. I was just Googling for examples and found this "inclusive language guide" from University of Washington [1]:
sanity check (why it is problematic): The phrase sanity check is ableist, and unnecessarily references mental health in code bases. It denotes that people with mental illnesses are inferior, wrong, or incorrect. Using an appropriate replacement will also clarify what is intended.
There are of course endless examples. Such sentiments are so absurd on their face, and yet they abound. The first thing "actual leadership" must do is speak the truth and acknowledge that there is a problem.
Yes. But what is happening now isn't speaking the truth, it's just causing chaos for chaos sake. Forget the DEI topic itself. From a managerial point of view, does this look like good management to you? Is this leadership you would want to work for with all the abrupt decisions that keep flip flopping? Does it instill confidence in you that they actually know how to manage anything?
This does look like good management to me, but that greatly depends on one's values and objectives. If your objective is to maintain peace and order, these actions must seem quite harmful. If your objective is to root out the racism, these actions seem wholly justified. Which one of these you care about most surely determines your perception of current events.
I don't like DEI either but you're drinking the Koolaid, there is nothing "good management" about sending out a vague memo with enormous consequences on Monday and rescinding it on Wednesday.
Trump's undersecretary of state for diplomacy tweeted last fall that "competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work".
These people in power are using any good faith doubt about dei that an everyday citizen may have, and are using it to revert to White-by-default government, and tearing up the entire civil service.
If you don't know if and despise Russell Vought and Stephen Miller and their philosophy of the Constitution, you need to.
But what’s missing is just a fundamental sense of scale. One can rightly think this is a bit ridiculous, while also understanding it’s not that big of a deal. Honestly, there are so many economic and social issues that have real importance on people’s lives, and half the country is wound up in a culture war over which words are considered polite or not.
White men feel abandoned and life expectancy for white men in the US is going down, often due to deaths of despair (suicide, overdose, etc).
Some just shrink away, others lash out with vengeance, but I do think it is a huge societal problem, especially as the demographics of the country shift and white men may no longer have the majority in a democratic society.
Many democratic societies that are ruled by a minority demographic do not tend to survive, and so I think the transition from white majority to non-white majority is actually a fundamental issue for our democracy.
I think there's a number of issues with this diagnosis, but chiefly: Trump won a second term on the back of a massive surge in non-white support. He's basically where he was in 2016 with white voters.
University of Michigan DEI is 1100+ employees strong (!!) at a cost of over $30M/year (the equivalent of 1,800 students’ worth of tuition), and they are launching an even bigger DEI 2.0.
I am not a DJT fan at all, but stories like these are exactly what has people stark raving mad. I can’t really blame them.
While the stated goals are noble, the truth in many cases is that it is an excuse to exclude white males. And I expect downvotes, but you don’t have to look too far to see the truth.
I studied electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois before switching to intercultural communication, because partially, I found it a helluva lot more difficult to solve.
I think the challenge with DEI is the framing of it. If we called it intercultural competence, or intercultural teambuilding, or whatever, then it focuses on how we are a highly multicultural society in the US and that there are huge benefits to being able to connect and collaborate with people across a wide variety of cultures.
Have customers who are in a rural area? Well, sometimes it's really hard for people in the city to comprehend what rural life is like, sometimes much easier to have someone on your team from the rural area to provide that tacit knowledge. Sell beauty supplies and looking to get into the African-American market? Can be really hard for white men to know the tacit knowledge involved in managing 4c level curly hair (most white men probably have never knew there was a classification system on the level of curliness of hair).
I worked in innovation consulting for a few years. The ability to empathize and connect with people across cultures may be one of the most important skills in innovation and problem solving. So maybe it's just a framing issue.
If we called [DEI] intercultural competence, or intercultural teambuilding, or whatever, then it focuses on how we are a highly multicultural society in the US and that there are huge benefits to being able to connect and collaborate with people across a wide variety of cultures.
And it would be a lie because DEI is not solely about race.
It's interesting that you're willing to accept the anti-DEI crowd's motives on good faith, but not the DEI initiatives'
the truth in many cases is that it is an excuse to exclude white males.
One might think that the current pushes are an excuse to exclude various minorities. Considering what DEI initiatives were born of just a few decades ago, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion either.
I do think there's some truth to listen to from those so opposed to the initiatives - there's some that go too far and should be reigned in - but, as others have pointed out in this thread, drinking the Kool Aid with this push isn't really going to fix anything. It's just swinging back and forth on the political pendulum. Is that really what people want?
Not just fear. Chaos, uncertainty, and cover for what I expect will be the biggest looting in history.
Even if someone thinks DEI had to go, they ought to be aware that their beliefs are being used as nothing but a smokescreen for unparalleled destruction and plunder.
Because the plundering is to pull the power to the white men, so that even if white men lose the democratic majority, they (we? as i'm a white american man) can still have power.
White men feel abandoned, powerless, ignored, blamed, and all sorts of attacks, and if we don't talk about this, then this country may continue a sort of death spiral, borderline suicidal people taking us all down with them.
You want all scientific research in the US halted, just because the term "pregnant people" bothers you? Look, I think the term is a bit cringeworthy, but ripping up the entire US scientific system over that is psychotic.
The issue is cultural and they think the cultural issue will change by slashing the government, not realizing the cultural issue doesn't come from government.
I think it was someone on the right, Steve Bannon or even Andrew Breitbarting, that said politics follows culture. So to focus on culture first.
They're trying to change culture at the political level, and I'm not sure that's how it works.
I don't think that's what the OP or many people likely want at all. I think what the OP was saying is this is what Trump rode to power on. The left is great at eating its own. Reasonable people who were traditionally allies of the left, felt attacked and alienated because of using a wrong word. Add in the economic issues and it was a perfect storm for Trump to rise to power.
The OP said there was no other alternative to what Trump is doing.
What is happening now is not at all a rational response to DEI. It's not even motivated by DEI. Trump and his gang simply want to gut the federal government, because they don't want to pay taxes. DEI is just an excuse.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You're welcome, of course, to make your substantive points thoughtfully.
Unethical race-based preferences is what those policies have been trying to fix. Not sure you’re aware of this, but academia used to be basically off-limits to anyone not white and male.
My guy you aren't getting it. You were lied to. You bought it. You are just plain wrong and openly propagating a lie as fact and you seem to be doubling down.
From psychology department at University of Washington [1]:
I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [redacted] noted)
At a faculty meeting, someone whose name is redacted “informed faculty that the Hiring Committee had three outstanding candidates and so they used DEI to distinguish and select a first offer"
Nobody is saying it's not happening but the notion that it's systemic -- as the opposite is -- is categorically a lie and, again, as you've been told a few times in this thread, DEI's goal is to prevent even this scenario from happening as its intended goal is to foster merit-only hiring.
My most charitable reading of your comment is that the DEI policies were simply grossly misunderstood by the department in this case. Therefore, it would seem that an unintended consequence of DEI policies has been to foster the scenarios it was designed to prevent.
DEI's goal is to prevent even this scenario from happening as its intended goal is to foster merit-only hiring.
That was 20 years ago, today merit only hiring is called evil by the same people, there is a reason people started to get really against what they do lately.
(Psst: There's no such thing as purely merit-based hiring. And DEI's mostly just about just making sure perfectly capable individuals aren't passed over or alienated because they're not white men. Because that's what's been going on for most of the past -- checks notes -- 500 years of American history. Pass it on.)
Not the OP, but I believe any distribution of limited resources could be seen as inherently discriminatory or racist or classist or whatever ist one wants.
If there is only 1 job but 10 candidates, the job has to go to someone. If everyone has the same scores on an exam, what's the fair way? Flip a coin? Perhaps. What if there are intangible skills/knowledge that are important for the job? One person has a better score on the exam, another person speaks a language (or dialect) that is important for the job. Maybe 9 of 10 come from one academic background, the 10th comes from a different one...which may actually provide a different perspective and provide new insights and break group think. Maybe one comes from a culture that is more confrontational, which means they may speak out more than others.
So many factors are intangible or at least not explicit and I think that's where "merit" can become so dimensionally reduced, not realizing how multidimensional each individual is.
I think this is well articulated. My response would be: what is the north star? What is the aspirational state? It is perhaps inherently unachievable, but what should we be aiming towards? I suggest that that be the thing which guides all other policies. If we intend to admit students on the basis of ability, an SAT score is just about the fairest way to do that. The waters became very muddy over the last few decades because universities decided that having people of many different skin colours was the goal. They dressed that goal up by pretending it had something to do with diversity, but that fails the sniff test. A poor black and white man have much more in common with each other than they do a rich man. If diversity were the goal, students would have been selected on the basis of place of residence, wealth, religion, voting affiliation, values, and interests. Quite the opposite occurred. In many universities more than 90% of faculty identify as left wing. So the goal had nothing to do with diversity.
I suggest we instead return to the idea that aptitude be our north star. IQ tests were originally created to provide opportunity to underrepresented children who might otherwise have been looked over due to their socioeconomic conditions or race. Let us return to a colour-blind north star.
If we intend to admit students on the basis of ability, an SAT score is just about the fairest way to do that.
(Bashes head on table.) Intelligence, aptitude, and potential are incredibly hard to measure and judge in a purely objective way. The SAT is just a thin slice of that picture.
In many universities more than 90% of faculty identify as left wing.
And less than 10% of university astrophysicists think the world is flat. Where's the diversity?!
(Bashes head on table.) Intelligence, aptitude, and potential are incredibly hard to measure and judge in a purely objective way. The SAT is just a thin slice of that picture.
What is a better test?
And less than 10% of university astrophysicists think the world is flat. Where's the diversity?!
I suspect you wouldn't be making this naturalistic fallacy if the ratio were flipped. Either way, you appear to confirm that the purpose was not diversity.
As far as the SAT: You can take prep classes, hire a tutor, and do all sorts of resource-intensive things that will boost your SAT without really contributing to your overall intelligence. You can study for the test. And guess who is more likely to have resources available to access these things? Is a rich kid who spends a year in prep inherently smarter than a poor kid who can't afford a tutor and has to work an evening job to help her family make ends meet?
And why, more broadly, are we completely fine tilting the tables in favor of the wealthy and entrenched but the second something seems like it might give an ounce of advantage to a disadvantaged class people lose their minds?
We get rid of DEI, but I haven't heard a word about getting rid of legacy admissions and rooting out nepotism.
In academia, there are more qualified people than positions, on an extreme level in fact. I agree, we have to distinguish people. We must distinguish on intangible characteristics sometimes. Suppose I am hiring for a position in an department and there are three finalists. They are all extremely qualified. What is an acceptable way to distinguish people? "Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie, I believe she will make a better colleague and mentor to our undergraduates. I suggest we accept her." Compare with the following. "Alice is a black, homosexual, woman unlike Bob and Charlie, who are white, presumably homosexual men. Our university has a stated DEI policy promoting the acceptance of more women and BIPOC faculty. Therefore we should admit Alice." Do you see the difference?
We do not need to enter a deep philosophical debate about what is "merit" and its many dimensions. I agree with you, it's complicated. But the issue is universities are explicitly discriminating and ranking candidates and students on the basis of DEI factors. We know this because, as in the CU case I have linked to already in other comments, their very own notes say so! This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie
Is a relative statement. Someone who expresses anger in one culture can be considered thoughtful and in another culture can be considered disrespectful.
I agree it's super complex and even believe that it may have been too formulated and structured. I personally want humans of different cultures to befriend each other. But intercultural connection can be uncomfortable and hard and have lots of conflict, and some people don't do that well without some nudging.
Again, I think the nudging has gone too far, yet I don't think the solution is to pendulum swing all the way back.
Um. Racism and sexism have not been eliminated in our country. I mean, just look at who's running the executive branch of the government at the moment. We need initiatives to lift up traditionally underrepresented groups now more than ever.
It did, but how long ago was that the case? I'm not aware that academia was off-limits to anyone non-white and male right before DEI training became the norm.
academia used to be basically off-limits to anyone not white and male.
How long ago was that? In Canada 60% of college grads are women[1]. In the US the story is similar and the gap is widening[2]. Part of the reason that some left wing ideas seem so out of touch is because they are. People are still parroting social problems from the 1960s as justification for policy in 2024.
How many of these women are graduating from programs that people wanting to eliminate DEI see as "unimportant"?
It's also interesting to see statistics brought up about women and not races, since the percentage that identifies as "Black or African American" is still underrepresented: https://pnpi.org/factsheets/black-students/
I have written a version of this twice and deleted but just can't let this statement stand unopposed. This is, almost inherently at this point, a rant and my last contribution to this thread.
This simply is not the case, I know it is something that you and many others believe is that case but you are being lied to by actual racists. I say that as a white man working in STEM academia. Academia had a long history and tradition of NOT doing meritocracy, but of claiming meritocracy and using bad markers of meritocracy to prove it. The 'DEI work' that people are so concerned about is about trying to make merit based decision making actually merit based. You think that is based on giving some preference, but it isn't - its based on acknowledging and working to eliminate actual prejudice. Its about hiring the best people instead of the person who's advisor is friends with our search chair.
I'll give a concrete example: I ran a hiring search for three faculty members. We did a blind search. The hiring committee did not know the gender, race, ethnicity, or even institutional affiliation of any candidate. The candidates were ranked, the top invited for phone interviews, and then ranked again during the interviews with everyone blind to the first set of rankings. We repeated this for a smalled group of in person interviews The order of the rankings at all three phases matched. More relevant, we interviewed and hired the most diverse crop of faculty we have ever hired. Simply because of the appearance who we hired, two different candidates who were did not received interviews emailed me and my department chair to decry that we had used 'DEI' in our BLIND hiring process. One threatened a lawsuit. We blinded it to race, to gender, to all markers of 'diversity', but the gender and race of who we hired was all the proof that person needed they were less qualified than him.
In other cases, this 'stuff' protects against asshole colleagues and bad science. (1) Diversity statements help us avoid getting sued by students and employees. The statements that wax philosophic about inclusion, that quote MLK, the ones people use to label this as some ideological test, SUCK to read and get applications ignored because they lack serious thought about being a colleague. The good ones, which get noticed, are about how people work effectively with other people, and how they make an effort to understand people as part of working with them. The context, whether its about being Green, Left-handed, or Neurodivergent tell us whether this person has thought about being a mentor to people unlike them, has a capacity to empathize with a student, or is going to be a self-righteous asshole that is going to make us hate faculty meetings even more. They help us know if their grad students are going to be in tears in the chairs office or the parents of an undergrad are calling the dean. (2) They actually tell us a lot about doing good science and getting grants. Theres a long history in medicine of fucking up because of who is in our participant pool. NIH now makes you articulate about how you will not do bad science through lazy recruitment[2]. We've asked questions about this requirement of candidates during interviews. The answers are fun and telling - using coded language to say you won't recruit Black people because they are 'less reliable' is just evidence you don't get it, not that you are some purist doing important work.
That is the DEI you are being propagandized to be against - what it actually is not what you are told it is. It is not hyperbole and you are tired by design - because you are a victim of propaganda. The nonsense narrative that is being pushed is, without concern for the truth, entirely grounded in the assertion that certain groups are unqualified to do intellectual work (c.f.[3]). It is (by design) meant to establish that the mere appearance of a Black Women or a gay person on a faculty is only because they are unqualified. It is meant to exclude people who have always been excluded. It is not about pushing back on (nonexistant) out of control efforts to include them. What is changing is efforts to counteract the actual, long established, clearly evidenced, bias in favor of certain groups of candidates. That is not some ideological project to eliminate people like me because I'm not a minority, that is the thing you want.
You think that [it] is based on giving some preference, but it isn't - its based on acknowledging and working to eliminate actual prejudice.
I would like to understand your point here. I agree with you that the stated justification for DEI policies is based on "acknowledging and working to eliminate actual prejudice". I also believe that they explicitly give preference to certain groups of people over others. So what is the point here? Because they are based on a noble goal, we should accept them? And if, instead, they were based on another nefarious purpose, they would not be acceptable?
A policy may arise from various motivations, but eventually it must be evaluated on its own merits. Of course, the same policy may be implemented in various ways, toward a nefarious purpose or to a noble purpose. You sound like you genuinely care about this issue and I appreciate that when you hire people you consider they may contribute to the community in your department, how well they will mentor students, and so on. Those are all important things and I am happy you interpret DEI that way, but unfortunately that is not how they are often interpreted.
We have an urgent and qualified need for BIPOC femme/women of color faculty in an Africana Studies focus who will contribute to the social science division thematic cluster hire in racism and racial inequality.
I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [redacted] noted)
At a faculty meeting, someone whose name is redacted “informed faculty that the Hiring Committee had three outstanding candidates and so they used DEI to distinguish and select a first offer"
Before finalists were narrowed to three, five finalists were invited to virtual visits, with the schedules including meetings with the Women Faculty and Faculty of Color groups. But a member of the latter group expressed opposition to meeting the white candidates. “As a person who has been on both sides of the table for these meetings, I have really appreciated them,” the unnamed person wrote in an email. “Buuut, when the candidate is White, it is just awkward. The last meeting was uncomfortable, and I would go as far as burdensome for me. Can we change the policy to not do these going forward with White faculty?”
If you believe that the sentiments expressed above are acceptable in a professional, academic setting, then we have totally different ethical values.
I also believe that they explicitly give preference to certain groups of people over others. So what is the point here?
You give the example of the journalism, geography, and ethnic studies departments specifically seeking minority viewpoints.
FWiW I don't think the DEI corporate and other programs in the USofA have been particularly well executed, they appear (from afar) to be more performative than substantive, however ...
The three examples you gave should more or less answer your own question for you.
Journalism, good reporting, brings deep informed insights from the ground. That's not going to happen when reporting on foreign countries and disadvantaged communities if all the reporters are (say) from a WASP background and perspective.
Geography isn't just maps, there are strong elements of people's relations with land that are part of that domain .. again a breadth of viewpoints gives richer coverage.
Ethnic studies. .. I mean does this really need a comment as to why diverse viewpoints deliver broader outcomes?
If the sentiments expressed in those internal deliberations seem perfectly normal to you, we really do have irreconcilable moral and ethical viewpoints.
breadth of viewpoints gives richer coverage
Breadth of viewpoint has nothing intrinsically to do with the color of one's skin.
Journalism, good reporting, brings deep informed insights from the ground. That's not going to happen when reporting on foreign countries and disadvantaged communities if all the reporters are (say) from a WASP background and perspective.
Again, the quality of a reporter and their work has nothing to do intrinsically with the color of their skin.
If the sentiments expressed in those internal deliberations seem perfectly normal to you
I didn't say that. Perhaps you might like to re-read. We may have different backgrounds in parsing English.
Breadth of viewpoint has nothing intrinsically to do with the color of one's skin.
Again, I didn't say that.
The point of these fat fingered US attempts to fix a problem is to ... fix a problem.
The problem is that the starting point in reporting, ethinic studies, and geography was that the fields were dominated by an unrepresentative minority; white faces with vanilla backgrounds being the voices of authority on subjects they had no experience of.
You mixed up UC with CU. Also, the hiring practices described in these op-eds are illegal, whether DEI exists or not. If the allegations are true, the correct action would be to file a lawsuit, not to do the stupidity we're now seeing.
The nonsense narrative that is being pushed is, without concern for the truth, entirely grounded in the assertion that certain groups are unqualified to do intellectual work (c.f.[3]).
Also, I would like to say, I agree with you! Such a sentiment is deplorable and must be condemned. However, it does not follow that academic departments should use race or sexuality or gender as a factor when hiring professors.
In fact, when you are hiring professors on the tenure track, I am sure the first ten or even twenty professors (at least!) are all eminently qualified. Of course, there is a degree of randomness in any selection process. But as the sources in my sibling comment suggest, DEI factors are being used explicitly to distinguish and rank people. That I believe is unacceptable.
Thank you for writing this- it aligns perfectly with what my own experience, as a white male in academia, has been with these issues.
When I talk to people outside academia about “DEI”, it’s clear to me that whatever they think that term means, it has no relationship to anything I’ve ever seen in my career (involving faculty searches, recruitment of students and staff, education, involvement in clinical trial design and recruitment, etc.).
I have personally hired less qualified candidates based on race and gender. I have made this choice from direct superior's comments as well as political requirements to climb the ladder of the organization I was in.
The truth is that if you are on the "left" your blind to what many are thinking. In person I will never tell you the bias or problems I see. I've learned doing so would make it nearly impossible to work with you.
Not saying you are "wrong" but the problem I an many like me face is that the softpower pressure to conform to left ideals mean I never do or say anything because I assume everyone around me would push back or push me out.
It's partly paranoia but it's also part of a factual experience I've had in highly liberal environments. They don't want to hear it and if they do you are damaged. Very different from the people we all know who are expounding and preaching liberal ideals in ever conversation they have.
I certainly can't (and wouldn't want to) dispute what your lived experience has been, and I am sorry that you've found yourself in those kinds of situations and interpersonal dynamics. That sucks and is not how things should be. All I can say is that, going on my own experience, that is very much not the norm, at least not as far as I have seen and been aware.
To your point about being blind to what many around me are thinking- by definition, I wouldn't know if I was, right? So I'm not going to try and argue one way or another about that. I will say, however, that I have worked with many colleagues with whom I disagreed about many different things, some of which fall under the general umbrella of what one might call "identity politics", and as a general rule have been able to have open and civilized conversations with them. One thing I have learned is to not make any assumptions about what somebody does or doesn't think about a given topic, as basically every time I've done that I have been surprised.
I too have had these "open" identity politics discussions.
I have blatantly lied.
For someone on the liberal side, these conversations mean nothing and there's literally no risk in discussing.
If you are not on that side it's a risk of career suicide to openly discuss it.
I always just thought I was an outsider but I am starting to think there are many who are just like me. I wonder how many conversations in Sillicon valley I have had where both of us were lying about our political beliefs worried the other may be liberal.
Me, I was hiring someone to be on my engineering team. Found someone with lots of technical experience. Was not so subtly told we cannot hire them and had to hire a female for the team. I could either push back but I was lucky I was even getting a hire. So we found a female engineer to bring on with a lot less experience.
I literally skipped dozens of men in the interview application pipeline just because it had to be a female hire.
It was a very bad feeling for me but I have no doubt HR is doing this constantly, to read a name and specifically pass them over because it didn't sound like a woman's name. For every female applicant there is easily 20+ male for a technical role.
Shortly after this I was no longer allowed to search or filter for my own applicants. It was an odd time where our HR was gone and I had to do it myself. Really giant eye opener to how this bias works in a real sense.
Still remember I told my manager: "I am not used to not hiring the most qualified"
Their response: "Work is not just about work but also about life"
Not sure what that meant (I believe he was pushed from his boss, same as I) but stuff like this is an every day occurrence in SV
Diversity statements help us avoid getting sued by students and employees.
Why does anyone need to write a diversity statement ? This is bonkers. When I applied for grad school many years ago as an international student, many applications asked for a diversity statement. My stupid ass didn't even know what that meant at the time. I forced myself to write some crock about how I studied Physics and Computer Science, and how I had some ideas about interdisciplinary work. I thought they meant diversity in technical backgrounds. Not only was what I wrote a load of crap, the stuff that these people expect is an even bigger pile of crap. Can we do away with this ?
Call it an "impact statement" then, "diversity" was just the buzzword of the day. But the requirement to articulate how your research will impact the broader community is necessary.
It's not. And this is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I do research to scratch an itch. GPU goes brrr. It may or may not help the community. I'm doing it to amuse myself. I hope that it also amuses others.
Why do you think you deserve access to public research dollars to scratch you personal research itch? If you can't explain to taxpayers how your research impacts them, I think it's fair that they should deny you their money.
Because every invention has been someone's personal itch. That's how the invention business works. From academia to VC, you fund a bunch of ideas and some of them change the world. Diversity statements don't play any part in this process.
This is simply a delusion detached from reality. I am a white man in STEM academia. I've never been discriminated against once. None of my white male colleagues have either. They are all successful in academia. And my colleagues who aren't white men are in no way inferior. Just let us vote and ask if we feel discriminated against or oppressed because of DEI. We'll vote no.
It's simply a delusion that DEI is some unmeritocratic disaster. The reality is academia has its pick of top talent regardless of race or gender. I don't know any scientists who buy into this delusion irl. Diversity is a small factor in hiring because the field is already predominantly white men and it's no harder to pick top star talent when you diversify.
Simply insane that you are promoting the destruction of US science, US foreign aid, and so much of the good stuff the US government does, all in the name of a deeply delusional witch hunt.
It's an ideological disaster. Viewing this through a white v/s black lens is itself too simplistic. Look at the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit. Asians are in fact and provably being discriminated against. This is also the case in immigration policy. DEI/affirmative action policies were created by the executive and are being undone by the executive.
Just let us vote and ask if we feel discriminated against or oppressed because of DEI.
A majority of the electorate did vote for ending this.
Shocker, a majority white country voted to end programs that identified biases which benefitted them...
Asians are in fact being discriminated against
I have a feeling someone fed you some false information about this case.
The judges ruled that Harvard's admission program violated the equal protections act, but never said once that Asian Americans were ever discriminated against.
The programs that these decisions got rid of impacted minorities other than Asians a lot more, but for some reason you don't want to talk about that?
Even if it's a delusion, people believe it and I think we should take it seriously and help them see through that delusion.
I'm not advocating for shutting down these departments at all, or slashing and burning research.
I'm hoping that we can help people realize that people love them and care about them and support them more than they could ever imagine, even if they're a white man.
I say this as a white man who has dated black women and had them say some really harsh things about me as a white man, only to realize that often it was an internal conflict that they had about being black but also liking some things from white culture. Some of them had been called white by their own black communities, and so feeling stuck between those worlds.
I think the vast majority of us just need to learn how to deal with emotional attacks, to realize life is combat and everyone is trying to deal with innumerable conflicts at the same time, all the time.
This is simply a delusion detached from reality. I am a white man in STEM academia. I've never been discriminated against once.
This is demonstrably false. Harvard and many other universities recently lost a Supreme Court case due to persistent racial discrimination over decades (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/us-supreme-court...). Whites and especially Asians were methodically discriminated against on the basis of their race. Just because you don't personally see the racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why are so many people saying "Asians and whites were discriminated against" and pointing to this case?
The judges ruled that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed, not that Harvard had been illegally discriminatory in their admission practices(as was attempted years prior by the same conservative funded activism group)
Just because you personally see racism, doesn't mean it's actually happening(aka, "facts don't care about your feelings")
The judges ruled that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed, not that Harvard had been illegally discriminatory in their admission practices(as was attempted years prior by the same conservative funded activism group)
What on Earth are you talking about? Here are the 237 pages of the Supreme Justices exploring centuries of American law and hundreds of relevant cases regarding racial discrimination:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Specifically, the Justices found Harvard's race-based admissions practices violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that these practices resulted in racial discrimination against Asian American applicants.
Did you just make that up and hope no one would call you out?
Did you just make that up and hope no one would call you out?
No, but it looks like a lot of people are misunderstanding the court's ruling...
`The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment`
"This admission system is not lawful" is not the same as "your institution has been illegally discriminatory towards a certain race". One is pointing out mismatches between law and reality, the other needs to be backed up by data.
Is it quite possible that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed because they were being illegally discriminatory in their admission practices?
Yes it is, but the court case only answered the first question and previous court cases failed to get a satisfactory(for the conservative groups behind them) ruling on the "illegal discrimination" parts.
It's also possible that the "unconstitutional" program lead to satisfactory results for minority groups(both asian and non-asian), but we are just guessing either way based off of a ruling that's only tangentially related.
1. So if the supreme court ended 'racial discrimination' at universities in 2023, why is the administration destroying scientific organizations now in the name of doing so?
2. That court case is for undergraduate admissions - what does it have to do with hiring practices in the academic sciences?
That is because none of your colleagues who think so would ever tell you. The problem with this is that the ideology has led to a point where I and many like me will simply never tell someone like yourself what they think of.
Even now that it's "better" I would only write something like this anonymously in fear of a future person seeing and judging my beliefs. I have personally watched in corporate and academia the effects. I am small fish but have personally wanted to hire someone who I thought was the most qualified for the position and was rather non obviously told to not because the team already had to many white men. We instead had to go with my 3rd choice a female who while great did not have the technical skills I valued in the first.
The main problem is people who say things like you do is that you don't realize you have a very incomplete picture. Those who disagree with the ideas will literally never say them. In many career paths saying your beliefs that don't align is basically career suicide.
"It has become tiring to see how DEI has affected all aspects of academia. Hiring people based on race, awarding grants to work exclusively with members of a particular set of minorities, etc."
You mention in another comment diversity in admissions but that is not hiring or grants. Do you have any examples of hiring people based on race in academia?
I have friends in faculty positions at well-known universities who were very unhappy about these practices, but could not publicly discuss it fearing repercussion, prior to these events.
TBC, I am not supporting any of the things happening. I do think the DEI thing went too far, but what the new admin. is doing can be much worse.
There are not countless examples. Instead of "hiring of people on the basis of race" I may more accurately say "using race as a decisive factor in the consideration of an application resulting in its acceptance or rejection" which also happens to be illegal.
We have an urgent and qualified need for BIPOC femme/women of color faculty in an Africana Studies focus who will contribute to the social science division thematic cluster hire in racism and racial inequality.
I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [redacted] noted)
At a faculty meeting, someone whose name is redacted “informed faculty that the Hiring Committee had three outstanding candidates and so they used DEI to distinguish and select a first offer"
Hiring people based on race (white) and gender (male) is what happened _before_ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.
Do you know what is the original and ultimate identity politics? Enslaving people because you deem them inferior to your own race. The civil war, the civil rights movement, and modern social justice movements are a response to this, not the root of the conflict.
I'm a white guy in academia - not tenured yet - and I cannot fathom the ignorance necessary to believe that white males are at an disadvantage because of university administrators being "woke". Give me a break!
How does it require ignorance to believe something that’s spelled out in black and white policies? It’s not even belief it’s just reading comprehension at that point.
Enslaving people because you deem them inferior to your own race.
This is irrelevant to the discussion of hiring in 2025, unless you believe your fellow “white” population harbors literal beliefs of a.) racial identity and b.) racial superiority, that c.) the “white” people making hiring decisions are actively excluding candidates based on these beliefs, and that d.) application of a nonwhite bias is just and measured in the face of a-c. I think all are incredible claims, and they’ve only lasted a decade because they have become rabidly-defended shibboleths for people who want to fix racism (and sexism and…).
I cannot fathom the ignorance necessary to believe that white males are at an disadvantage because of university administrators being "woke"
If 1000 group A individuals and 10 group B individuals apply for a team, and both groups are accepted at ~50% due to a group B preference, then group B is ~100x as likely to be selected for the role due to that preference. Such observations are where my own perception of “disadvantage” comes from. Unless you’re claiming that no such preference exists, or that some prejudice you might have about group A justifies its individual members’ relatively unlikely chances of being selected, I can’t see how this preference doesn’t qualify as a disadvantage for such individuals.
Hah definitely now, tho we’ll see how things play out.
I really hate how poisoned the well has become on this topic, there’s definitely elitism and exclusion that should be systematically addressed in hiring. I’d support programs promoting cheaper and universally-accessible paths to getting skilled jobs (e.g. accepting projects/certs/etc or offering literal job training) as long as they were open to anyone regardless of protected characteristics. You shouldn’t need to mainline an ivy-league path your entire childhood to have a chance at being hired at Google. I think such programs would be far less controversial and produce real value for real people.
...unless you believe your fellow “white” population harbors literal beliefs of a.) racial identity and b.) racial superiority, that c.) the “white” people making hiring decisions are actively excluding candidates based on these beliefs, and that d.) application of a nonwhite bias is just and measured in the face of a-c.
I believe many of my fellow "whites" believe this, but more importantly it's pretty obvious that many of the most powerful "whites," including the current President and his boot-licking minion Donald Trump, absolutely believe this.
DEI is nominally good but its just racism. Not like reverse racism or indirect racism - just racism. There’s really no other way to slice intentionally discriminating based on race.
Whats probably most egregious is the idea that its good because its racist against the right people.
I support scientific research of course but to play devils advocate, how can the USA afford this? They run a deficit and have an enormous debt. I dont understand how this can continously be ignored. Of course nobody wants cuts but how can it go on? Same with the foreign aid, isnt that something a country running a surplus should be worried about?
?? healthy people stay alive, sick people will die. Of course this is terrible but "we will all die without publically funded research" doesnt hold water. Again Im not in favour of the cuts I just cant understand how the USA continues to borrow/print money and it doesnt all come crashing down. I dont think even Trump is anti-medicine, just pro fiscal responsibility.
I can't tell if you're intentionally misunderstanding, or not. So I'll spell it out: public non-biased research is a public good.
Oil companies weren't going to publish research saying leaded gas was bad. Tobacco companies weren't going to publish research saying cigarettes were bad. Have fun being healthy when you inhale leaded gasoline every day.
Forget about things like, you know, the internet. Or any medicine.
BTW, private companies are not paying for basic biological research. Good luck making a drug when no one knows what target to drug. VC firms will park their money in the bank instead. The value from biotechs is already marginal - investment basically vanished when interest rates went above 4.
I feel the same way back haha, are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Nobody is claiming research is bad! I dont want to see it cut either. I want the government to be running a surplus though. You can argue we should cut other places like military or whatever, I agree thats probably wiser, but what Im asking is, surely we can only prioritise what to spend once we are back to surplus
Ive also been told in the past that its somehow ok that the government never breaks even, I can handle that maybe Im too stupid/uneducated to get it... but nobody ever even tries. Use little words, Im sure we will make progress. How can the government continue to exist and not go broke if it continually spends more than it brings in?
I'm trying to say that having a society of people breathing in leaded gas would be insanely expensive. Both in terms of lost productivity from stunted brain development, and actual acute symptoms. Public money was crucial to unbiased understanding of that, and lead to prevention. How much money do you think that saved/grew the economy? For like 0.5% of the Federal budget.
That's just one (big and easy to recall) example. There are countless.
Spending public money on public research grows the economy. Cutting it is penny wise and pound foolish.
I work at a biotech. We have $150 million in private funding. My biotech wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for decades of public research doing the foundational work that allows us to target a protein to make a drug to help people. None of that would exist if not for NIH, NSF etc
This was a good reply, thanks for taking the time. I could be convinced that this is a money making investment and therefore foolish to cut. If you have no money though, you cant afford to make any kind of investment, and from the outside looking in (to govt I mean, I live in the USA) it seems the US is going broke. Like I said though, I hve come around and maybe it really is super dumb to cut this - if you want to see it continue for the next 50 years, I would urge you consider how thats possible if the USA continues to lose money though.
While the Unabomber, Luigi Mangione, and Communism may have correctly diagnosed socioeconomic pathologies their prescriptions were largely counterproductive. It is magical or superficial thinking to believe that aggressive chaos is somehow curative or better than following a more consultative and cooperative process like first assessing and auditing an organization thoroughly by eliciting input from all parties at all levels and gathering data before proposing recommendations, implementing those recommendations, and following up to adjust them.
Sorry do you really think Musk and Trump are eliciting input from all parties and carefully gathering data before giving recommendations? Because given how frequently they talk about the “radical left” and “marxists” I really don’t think they are considering dissenting opinions in good faith. They invariably insult people who have the slightest disagreements with them, even when those people have facts and data on their side.
And Musk has stumbled into several known right-wing conspiracy theories based on knee-jerk reactions, so I find it far more likely that he’s just fishing to validate his pre-held knee-jerk opinions rather than doing a careful investigation.
"healthy people stay alive, sick people will die" that's a tautology. I do not know you, but I am willing to bet that there are some people who you know who'd have a far worse life if it was not for modern publicly funded research
I dont dispute this at all - I want the research, I would pay higher taxes to support it, but it baffles me how the government can continually lose money and people handwave away the entire issue
Approximately what proportion of the US federal budget is spent on scientific research? What proportion is spent on foreign aid? Looking up these values is a useful exercise.
A billion here, a billion there, before you know it you're talking about some real money.
If I were president I would probably cut from military spending - but at some point that becomes painful to cut aswell.
A lot of people have misunderstood me in this thread, at no point do I want to see public research cut. Its just that the same people who are worried about what climate change will bring over next 50 years (and I am too!) dont seen to feel any sense of alarm at the federal government living outside its means for the next 50 years, and I can not understand why
Because the federal government is not in any sense living outside its means.
I’m not sure how to explain this to you, really - you’re fundamentally stuck, I think, on the idea that the gov is like a business or a household, and needs to budget the same way. It really doesn’t.
Maybe think of it this way, to start to get your head around it: current debt is just over 100% of GDP - so in some sense the US has borrowed about a years worth of production. 100% sounds scary, but does 12 months sound so scary? Would you consider yourself in catastrophic debt if you owed a year of your salary?
Personally I wish my mortgage was only a year of my salary!
You can call it stuck if you want, I guess I am - how can this not be a bad thing? It feels like its not a bad thing until suddenly it is. Countries can & do go broke. You can sell your house and break even, thr govt cant sell the NIH
Consider the idea that without decades of money printing, your house might only cost 1 year of salary in the first place
Or maybe let me ask it a other way - if the govt really doesnt need to balance the budget, why dont we have 50 aircraft carriers and free healthcare for all? Such huge sums of money go beyond merely number balancing, at some piint theyre forcefully managing the real resources of the nation
Debt can’t increase to infinity, true - but that does not mean it can’t be a finite number indefinitely.
And the current finite number is nowhere close to causing a crisis for the US (Japan had two and a half times GDP in debt and did not collapse into hyperinflation or some other catastrophic fate, for example).
Go read the article. All of this is a few drops in the bucket. There are some absolutely enormous line items that, by themselves, put us well into deficit territory.
On top of that, these things make the US money. We have, by far, the strongest pharmaceutical and medical technology industry anywhere. Those companies pay taxes.
(Those companies also screw us and the government over in myriad ways, and that should be addressed, but cutting off the research system that supports the entire industry in like throwing out the baby without even draining the bathwater.)
the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends and we've not had any serious politicians to address the issue. the interest on our debt is going to bankrupt us and there will be nothing left afterwards if these things aren't reeled in and examined.
political opponents of the newly elected administration are obviously going to go fully hysterical over any change, they already did last time. the science industries in the US aren't going anywhere, neither is research at the universities.
the ideological discrimination and money laundering coming out of these departments are going to end. and did we all forget about COVID? The fact that the NIH funded the research that happened in china ILLEGALLY, because this was a really stupid idea and we found that out the hard way, and it was covered up, and we were lied to, it killed millions, destroyed economies on a global scale.... do we really not want to see this agency dissected under a microscope? They need to be investigated.
I feel like were on the same side but youre gonna need a (credible!) source that US govt money was funding virus research in China, that doesnt seem to pass the sniff test
No its not sarcasm, thanks for the reference. However since you were rude Im gonna ignore this evidence (this attitude can work for or against Republicans I guess)
I'll be less rude: the US funded virus research in China. Some people argue this was wise because it gave us insight into China's bioweapons plans, or be prepared for world disasters, or whatever. It's still not entirely clear why NIH leadership thought this was a good idea, given our understanding of China's relative immaturity in working with dangerous viruses, as well as preventing that funding from going to US researchers.
I had sorta thought this was a right wing conspiracy, as it seemed so unlikely to be true. I can very clearly understand why the new administration is being ruthless with them now, especially given Trumps experience with Covid (a more enlightened leader might say the buck stopped with him instead of blaming underlings, but I digress). Thanks for replying.
the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends
The federal government almost certainly does absurdly overspend, but you’re missing the point: all of these drops in the bucket add up to far less than the deficit.
Also, for better or for worse, operating departments efficiently may well be the executive branch’s job, but setting all these budgets is Congress’s job, not the executive branch’s. In fact, Congress tried, not all that long ago, to allow the President to veto specific line items, and the Supreme Court struck it down:
The US could pay its debt tomorrow, in full. We'd like to avoid that shock, if possible, but there's nothing uncreditworthy about running a fiscal deficit.
USG revenue/spending should be reasoned about in terms of the resources it directs, and the resulting effects on US and world GDP. Everything else is just accounting.
How can we afford it? because scientific discovery turbocharges our economy. Why do we have such a huge biotech industry? Why was the internet mostly built in the US? Why are we the only country that has placed somebody on the moon, and have huge launch capacities?
Because we invested in those technologies and they paid off handsomely. What you are seeing is the result of "profit externalization"- laws like Bayh Dole allow universities to profit from the research they carry out under contract with the government.
Everything we did, we did because the alternatives were worse.
Remember that that is the goal. Acknowledge the data and deal with it as another obstacle.
Also, I'm wondering if multiple universities could band together to file a TRO and/or a class-action lawsuit against the government for something like estoppel.
The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings. What we get out of these budgets is a bargain:
The biggest single share of the NIH budget goes to the NCI ($7.8 billion in 2024), and the second-most to the NIAID ($6.5 billion) with the National Institute of Aging coming in third at $4.4 billion. (See the tables on numbered pages 11 and 46 of that link at the beginning of the paragraph for the details).
And to put those into perspective, the largest single oulay for the Federal government is Social Security benefits ($1.4 trillion by themselves), with interest on the national debt coming in second at $949 billion, Medicare comes in third at $870 billion, and the Department of Defense fourth at $826 billion and Medicaid next at $618 billion.
Social security yes, but it seems to me that reducing the cost of Medicare and Medicaid should be very much possible. We need to provide healthcare but it should be possible to make that less expensive
What leverage does the US government actually have?
Is "we just won't fund your drug, even though people will die and you're the only option on the market" actually something that could happen? Would that be politically palatable to anybody?
I guess there's patent invalidation and forced genericization, but that would kill innovation real quick.
I think a far better idea would be to impose very strict caps on admin / non-medical costs, potentially at the expense of paying a bit more to fraudsters, changing FDA regulations to minimize (death from side effects + death from no available drugs) instead of just the former, as well as becoming a lot more aggressive about expensive and unnecessary procedures that doctors perform to get rich quick.
The US pays much more for drugs than any other country. I guess one possibility is that no one has any leverage and big pharma is able to charge Americans more because they're richer. But the more popular theory is that countries can negotiate better prices than individuals can (yes, technically insurance companies can negotiate prices, but they seem unmotivated to drive any costs down). It seems the previous administration thought the government can negotiate lower prices: https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/med....
Trump MO would be implement a 100% tax on pharma profits and unrealized capital gains next Monday, then reverse it once they agree. But only if Trump cares to die on that hill.
As WW2 was ramping up there was only 1 aluminum manufacturer - Alcoa (Aluminum Co of America). When they hemmed and hawed that they could not increase production to meet the US war demands, the FDR administration made an investment to start Reynolds, who would go on to supply all of the aluminum needed to create thousands of ships and airplanes. Today they make foil and plastic bags. Alcoa still exists too as a much smaller fish in a much larger pond.
The government has all the cards, negotiation is really just a matter of will.
I don't think it's the case that there are many conditions with only single treatment option. "Lower the price or we let our people die" probably isn't right, but "Our cost benefit analysis shows, at this price point, therapy X is preferable. If you want us to use your drug your prices need to be lower."
Presumably the government also has the option to permit purchase of pharmaceuticals from other countries. "Oh, you've raised the cost of X? That's okay, we'll buy it from licensed suppliers in the EU for a tenth of the price."
we'll buy it from licensed suppliers in the EU for a tenth of the price
Actually is that possible? Are the EU suppliers allowed to resell at the gov negotiated price? Or are the gov negotiated price only for internal market?
(I've been wondering since I don't understand why swiss drug price are so much higher given that EU suppliers are next door)
Yup. Was working for a major European blood product distributor as my first real job and the prices US customers would pay were just obscene.
Most EU countrys payed $40-$60 (per unit, shipped by 3rd party courier, who do their own billing), SE Asia and Australia $60-$80 and the US $1500-$2000. Before I left we started also shipping to Canada, dunno about the prices anymore, but substantially less.
The head of our institute was apparently involved in the negotiations and although I didn't get a chance to talk to him directly, the popular story was that our guys showed up, were presented with a pretty much done deal and told that the price and payment terms were nonnegotiable. Also, during meetings, he would refer to the Amis often as "Die, die nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank haben", which roughly translates to "The crazy ones."
Also, the product they wanted specified a significantly less complex and cheaper pooling procedure than we were able to offer...
Im gonna start a downvote party on myself haha but here we go - if you want cheaper healthcare, get rid of the medical licence!! Let the free market work. Of course it wont be better but rich people will pay theough the nose for the top level of care, middle class will get the best care the market can provide for what they can afford and lower class will get someone regurgitating chatGPT - but it _will_ be cheaper.
I continue to post this, not even fully convinced - Im scared I wouldnt be able to afford good care without govt subsidies, but I am open to the idea at least. I dont think care in the USA would be worse overall
I wanna say yes but to be fair, I cant prove it. I think without licencing we would get reduced length degrees & more people like nurses transitioning into primary care physicians - and I think that would be fine for a lot of conditions
I don't think licensure is really that much of a barrier, though. One of the huge trends going on is that nurses are increasingly replacing doctors in primary care. In my market it's unusual to have an actual doctor as a primary care provider. These nurses just go through some additional training for a PA or NP license and it's still a great deal cheaper than medical school.
This happens to me (my PCM is a nurse) but funnily enough my costs haven't gone down. Those nurses still work under a qualified doc, who will never look at your file until youre nearly dead, but theyre still getting a cut believe you me.
The financial incentives a specialist headache doc has whos spent the time and money to get to where they are would never tell a patient to eat less and radically adjust your diet for your ailment to go away, they wouldn't have patients coming back to them and they would go broke (that education was super long and expensive). I like the uncanny idea of getting rid of training requirements and let the free market handle it.
That kind of change though would leave someone with the bag and tends to never get voted or happen so we stay stuck in the over priced pharma, insurance, beating around the bush health game were in. Everyone is incentivezed to keep the bandaids rolling. Don't tell people their drug habits (I mean eating habits) are killing them.
Letting the free market handle it equals letting quacks handle it. I really doubt quacks will be any more incentivized (or qualified) to do right by their patients.
Also doctors can be compelled to sign enforceable, legally binding noncompetes. Unlike most of us, they have to move far away to change employers, thereby making competition in the health care space very difficult.
No it's largely just the magical "a market will fix this" thinking that's been ruining policy for decades. It's silly and doesn't work because the assumptions that go into the underpinnings of the economics theory about the functioning of free markets don't exist in many potential markets they want to apply the logic to. Health care isn't the same as shopping for a pair of shoes and it's mind numbingly stupid to me to try to treat them the same.
Look, the plausible version of this is spelled: "force the AMA to allow and the USG to fund more residency slots, so the supply of MDs can meaningfully grow, and the premium they demand be reduced. Also maybe let NPs and CRNAs and the like practice more independent".
But throwing medicine to the whims of the market is absurd. We're going to pick surgeons by reading reviews on Google?
This is an uninformed take. A relatively small fraction of our healthcare dollars (~7%) are going to ‘providers’ i.e. doctors and nurse practitioners. I don’t have a source handy but this is easily searchable.
Most of the spiraling healthcare costs are attributable to administrative bloat, hospital profits, insurance companies and pharmaceutical profits. What you’re suggesting would just result in lower quality care in general and has effectively already been implemented with the rise of ‘supervised’ and unsupervised mid-level providers. I.e. NPs, PAs, CRNAs etc. It hasn’t resulted in any decrease in healthcare costs for the patient.
Let me give you some context for insight. If I see a patient in clinic for an intravitreal injection my fee will be $150-250 before overhead, the pharmaceutical company will be paid by medicare or private insurance around ~ $2000 for the drug that I inject. Double that for a bilateral injection.
If I operate at a hospital, my fee is $5-600. The hospital bills medicare a $4000 facilities fee plus additional fees for anesthesia, consumables etc. to the tune of over $10000 per eye.
If you want to lower healthcare costs a good start would be negotiating drug prices, repealing the clause in the ACA that bans physicians from owning hospitals, banning non-competes for healthcare professionals and getting rid of certificates of need that make it unnecessarily difficult to build outpatient surgery centers. In short, ideas that require a more nuanced understanding of our healthcare system.
Thank you for the reply. As in all things, I'm prepared to be wrong, if that 7% is indeed even ballpark accurate.
btw I appreciate being called uninformed (which I dont dispute and find no offence in) rather than stupid or pigheaded or whatever. The point of talking about things is to share and increase our understanding.
Hey, good attitude to have. I've been seeing this type of exchange less and less on HN, but agree completely that it's (reassessing their positions) something more people should be doing / willing to do.
For what its worth I did check this today and it seems to be more like 20% of healthcare is going to providers, not 7%.
However in the grand scheme of things this still isnt that bad, and I do think doctors/nurses deserve a good compensation, so given the problems associated, maybe we dont go with removing medical licences as a solution to healthcare costs
Everything is expendable if you kick in the door and fire everyone, like USAID. I think they're politically smart enough to not cut off the elderly voters, but who knows.
Well I mean this is it isn't it? Any election that does not go their way will be called "stolen" and decertified and there is no one left to challenge that. I'd love to be shown how it could be otherwise, someone convince me, please.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think he was sentenced already to serve no time. Unless prosecuted for something else, I think he’s in no danger of prison even if Dems come into power soon.
Even quoting the NIH/NSF budgets (or their line items) misses the point of the current actions. Yes, they're smaller fractions of the USG budget, but they not immaterial.
This is not an attempt to 'save money' at the NSF and NIH (and USAID). A serious, rational effort to reduce their costs / increase their efficiency does not start with grep-ing manuscripts for 'underrepresented'. Part Five of TFA is on the money. This is an ideological attack on acronyms, and what they symbolize to the attackers. The actual agencies, their relative importance to the budget, etc. do not matter. The iconoclasts are here to smash the icons.
Thanks for sharing, worth having the full quote I think:
I'm generally sympathetic to what you're doing. But I hope you will take your time and do it carefully. This isn't just a company. Companies are born and die within the system, and it's ok. But this is the system itself we're talking about here.
PG sounds nervous. I have to imagine there are a lot of nervous conservatives who didn't think it would go this far and are now too scared to stand in the way.
So you still believe government-funded research is equivalent to facts in 2025? What about the replication crisis? The political control of research finance e.g. in Alzheimer’s research?
It takes either an extreme amount of naïveté or motivated reasoning to maintain that perspective, IMO.
The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings.
Of course not. The big gain is for Trump and Musk to say they did something. Regardless of how someone voted, I can’t believe they are still falling for this shtick.
What i've learned in the last week is that if an unelected bureaucrat thinks it will hurt the Trump administration to follow their order through a manner of malicious compliance, then they will. But if they don't, then they'll ignore the order and pretend they're defending the constitution.
a serious audit of the endless money printing of the federal government is well overdue
You don't need some genius brain auditing to know that 99% of the money goes to social security, defense spending, medicare, medicaid, and interest on debt.
The stuff DOGE is playing with is such a tiny percentage it won't move the needle.
Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? Allowance for emergency payments to keep the lights on?
This is taxpayers money and these agencies report to the President under the executive power. A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.
And I’m sorry “its not a lot of money” doesn’t fly when all the “its not a lot of money” is $8 trillion dollars. The federal deficit will never get smaller if nobody looks at the “its not a lot of money” line items.
Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? ... This is taxpayers money ... A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.
Reviewed for what?
Reviewed for whether the spending was authorized by Congress? If Musk finds that money is being spent in ways that are not authorized by Congress, and cuts that spending, great.
Reviewed for whether the money is being used efficiently to accomplish the goals set by Congress? Again, if Musk finds ways to stretch the same amount of money to accomplish more, that's great. For example, if Musk makes USAID more efficient so it delivers more aid for the same amount of money, that would be wonderful.
Or "reviewed" for whether Trump/Musk agree with them? It's illegal for the President to unilaterally cut programs just because he doesn't like them.
The idea that the President, the head of the Executive branch, has zero power over Executive branch spending down to the agency level, because Congress said X must be spent and dammit they must spend it, makes no sense.
By that logic and taken to an extreme, Congress could pass a budget law (overriding the executive’s veto) to set executive spending for specific agencies to only be spent on computers, say the FBI, and the executive is powerless to Congresses control over the executive function to carry out the laws that the Congress has passed?
So clearly the intention is one of checks and balances, for example the President can’t spend money Congress does appropriate but also has some power over how that money is spent as such to exercise the power of the Executive.
So let’s see what the Constituion says as per Congress.gov!
“The constitutional dimensions of impoundment disputes have been confined to the political branches. The Supreme Court has not directly considered the extent of the President’s constitutional authority, if any, to impound funds.16 However, a case decided in 1838, United States v. Kendall,17 has been cited as standing for the proposition that the President may not direct the withholding of certain appropriations that, by their terms, mandate spending.18”
Congress quite literally has the power to pass laws. According to the Constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; the President's oath of office requires that he execute the laws set by Congress. So for example, if Congress were to pass a silly law saying "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent", then the President would be required to make sure the FBI spent exactly $X on computers, down to the cent. The President has many powers, but "deciding not to execute the laws passed by Congress" is not one of them.
Quoting from the page you linked:
Impoundments usually proceeded on the view that an appropriation sets a ceiling on spending for a particular purpose but typically did not mandate that all such sums be spent. According to this view, if that purpose could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount, there would be no impediment in law to realizing savings. Impoundments were also justified on the ground that a statute, other than the appropriation itself, authorized the withholding.
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, then Congress didn't necessarily mean "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent". It could be interpreted to mean "the FBI may spend up to $X on computers". But Congress has clarified this ambiguity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...
the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, but the President thinks $X is excessive, then the President may ask Congress for permission to spend less than $X. If Congress doesn't grant the permission within 45 days, then the President must go ahead and spend the full $X. Again, Congress literally has the power to set the laws, and the President is required by his oath of office to execute those laws.
President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.
That case seems directly analogous to what Musk is currently trying to do. Nixon lost that case in the Supreme Court.
Even if the Supreme Court did rule that the President had impoundment powers, it would probably be on the condition that "[the purpose of the law] could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount" (quoting from the page you linked). For example, the President would still be required to buy sufficient computers for the FBI, even if he spent less than $X on them. The President still wouldn't be able to just unilaterally decide "no, the FBI doesn't need computers, this is a waste of money".
So, I think it's already quite clear that Trump/Musk do not have the constitutional authority to just start cutting government programs. Do you agree? If not, which part do you want further clarity on?
No, it’s not “quite clear” as the link provided described.
Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.
Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.
And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.
So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".
you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law
It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...
They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".
Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.
Hence the confusing email (only if you don’t know how the government works) that rescinded the original mechanism and replaced it with another.
They then returned with a proposal of $700 billion in spending cuts, but that failed to convince some of those in the right flank.
It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
But unlike last time where he got there day 1 with “ok, what’s next”, he went in this time with a laundry list and an actual strategy.
Which is just smart. I’ve worked for big corps and it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.
it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.
Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)
a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon
Both legislation and Supreme Court precedent say that the President cannot impound funds. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for him to impound funds because the Supreme Court decision was fifty years ago and they might rule differently today.
Couldn't that argument be used to justify breaking any law? I think Trump must follow the law. Do you agree that Trump must follow the law even if the Supreme Court hasn't specifically reaffirmed that particular law recently?
(I'd feel differently if Trump illegally impounded some trivial amount of money just to get a case before the Supreme Court; but that's not what he's doing here.)
People rely on their paycheck to pay bills! If anyone stops getting their paycheck, that's not "keeping the lights on". Do you agree that any "review" mustn't prevent anyone from receiving their paycheck?
Isn't the elephant in the room here the massive overspending on the US military which Trump and Elon and Satya and Bezos and Altman don't seem to care about?
His voters would be very upset if a single dollar was cut from the military budget. It's the same crowd and mindset that was all in on the Iraq War. The second amendment is the only amendment and anything seen as weakening the country in terms of actual strength would result in windows being smashed again.
But cutting money from weak nerds? Destroying education? That's fine. Nobody needs it.
The financial position of the US is precarious, at best. I seriously doubt there is any painless way to correct course, as Congress seems to have lost the ability to compromise. Looking into the future, the US will go the way of the former Soviet Union if it does not take corrective action.
Is the current situation the only way, the best way, or even a good way to address the country's economic position? That is a matter of perspective. As is always the case, people will take sides. The unreasonable people (on any side) will refuse to compromise and spew inflammatory rhetoric, most often in defense of their own self interests and at the expense of others' interests.
I believe that the most sensible approach is for all parties to adhere to a metered diligence, always being mindful that the country is a collective of disparate interests. The whole point of a democracy is that through all the ups and downs, things work themselves out eventually. Sometimes there are setbacks and other times there is progress.
How do you reconcile these deeply basic facts with your point of view?
1. The US economy was the best in the world in 2024.
2. The NIH, USAID, and NSF budgets make up just a percentage point or two of US spending.
3. These programs consistently generate ROI >>1.
In light of these painfully obvious facts, isn't it clear that the priorities of this administration have nothing to do with government finances? And that even trying to frame the discussion that way is blatantly irresponsible?
Although there are minor fluctuations in the US debt load, the mean is clearly going up without bounds. Interest creates an exponentially worsening problem with increasing competition for resources. Competition for resources breeds conflict.
Congress' lack of will to compromise leads to winner-take-all scenarios with wild swings in policy.
Language such as "deeply basic facts" and "blatantly irresponsible" is part of the problem. I am as guilty as the next person for experiencing heightened emotions and using adverbs carrying negative connotations that lack denotational substance. However, my experience has been that the storms are best weathered by calm, consistent, and persistent actions or behaviors.
I don't think there's anything about that wording that implies heightened emotions - I think both are factually accurate adjectives in context. I don't think they imply anything about emotional state, and I don't think that emotional state implies anything about accuracy.
In that sense, you've committed three errors in your response, but the primary fourth error is in avoiding the actual subject at hand, which is still the fact that these governmental actions will not reduce spending, so your original claim was incorrect.
I have been around quite a while. I remember rotary phones and party lines. I have seen a lot and done a lot. I have lived through many “the sky is falling” events. I offer my unvarnished insight, take it or leave it.
This is not me “thinking about” or “supposing” — I speak from experience working with many federal agencies (including NIH) and U.S. universities.
- I have watched formerly objective journals slide down the slippery slope of editorializing, to the point of questioning the reliability of the studies they publish.
- I have talked with prestigious professors who were quite distressed about their universities (yes, plural) being bought out wholly by foreign interests.
- I have had frank discussions with researchers saying it’s not about the science or the mission - it’s about the money.
- I have had frank discussions with senior government leaders explicitly explaining how they (often unlawfully) manipulate the system to line their pockets.
- I have seen so much government funding denied because the lead was not the right sex or did not have the right color skin. (Having been on the inside of many source selection events, it most frequently boils down to favoritism and kickbacks, with ideology being the excuse for the outcome.)
- And pharmaceutical companies, like Novartis? I have watched their drug pushing in person, calling on doctors offices, borderline bribes, and strategies such as a pharmaceutical sales team wining and dining a doctor, using fine food and pretty women to push their wares. (It takes quite a bit of self control to avoid going on a long diatribe about how positively evil the pharmaceutical companies are.)
The whole damned system is corrupt to the core. The root of the corruption is not ideology — it is money. Ideology is the veneer applied to make change palatable to the public. Congress discreetly turned a blind eye until the problem got out of hand. Gerrymandering and winner-take-all politics distorted the proper functioning of Congress. Runaway inflation was the first time the structural problems significantly leaked into the public eye.
Taxes are levied on the American people and collected under threat of violence. That money should first and foremost go toward our collective safety and common defense. Instead, there is a long line of people, hands out, asking "How much will you pay me to not riot in the streets?" The whole system has gone off the rails. Competition for resources, which are no longer so abundant, breeds conflict. Congress has had decades to correct course. They did not. Why? Because nobody is willing to compromise. The incessant argument of “I am right and you are wrong” has lead to a significant cultural shift, which is what we are experiencing now.
What is happening at NIH and NSF has nothing to do with line items or ROI. It is about being swept up in a large cultural revolution precipitated by economic mismanagement and inflamed by a strategy of gradual Orwellian newspeak that has been spreading since the 1990s.
I got to hand it to Elon Musk, I was in the “nothing ever happens” camp and he completely, absolutely proved me wrong. The Great men theory of history posits that a lot of History happens due to the action of a few great men. Great has a baggage of positive connotation, I prefer calling it the “Important People of History” theory (to also be gender neutral). It posits that if Hitler didn’t exist, Germany wouldn’t go down the path it did, if Gandhi didn’t exist, India wouldn’t go down the path it did. It is an alternative to the more modern view, that tries to find sociological, economic and environmental reasons for Historic Change. I leaned towards the Great Men View but was not fully convinced by it. Looking at Elon Musk, leads me to believe that this theory is true.
If Elon did not exist/ tie himself to Trump, I don’t think Trump could have done even 10% of the dismantling of the Administrative State that Elon has done. Elon has a certain will to power, flagrantly breaks all norms but advertises it on Twitter for his Twitter supporters, an insane sense of urgency to move fast, an ability to attract talented 20 yr olds to join him for “low pay”, and “100 hr weeks” that gets stuff done. The Trump ecosystem was mostly professional grifter (and crypto scammers), polemicists who only talked the talk, and a small set of true believers who never had a private sector job in their life. If it was just them, I might have been right in the “Nothing Ever Happens” camp. Elon and his ecosystem has given them fangs. They still probably can direct Elon, to a limit, at some things like H1b immigration they will probably concede to Elon but in return they will actually remake the government in their image. Elon is turning out to be one of the “Important People in History”.
It seems like some new doctors have arrived and diagnosed the patient with terminal cancer. Being new, they have no experience of surgery so are hacking out the tumor with a blunt instrument, excising good tissue and bad. Some hope the surgeons will improve their skill over time. Some say the patient won’t survive. Some say the patient wouldn’t have survived if they did nothing. Some say the patient never had cancer in the first place.
It’s more like this:
Imagine a china shop where you don’t like some of the items or how they’re priced. So, you send an elephant into the shop. The result? The elephant doesn’t just break the pieces you dislike—it smashes everything.
This is a coup and we are calmly debating budgets. Debating the % of budget and how useful organization x is and if y will still get grant money, and, and, and... All of this is ignoring the big elephant in the room that there is one single person deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king. The right thing to be debating is how we can stop this from continuing and how we can hold those responsible accountable.
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress.
As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people.
Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not.
And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025.
But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate.
Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place.
The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place.
The existence of the filibuster seems to be a current part of things working as intended. That they might hypothetically get filibustered and have trouble passing legislation doesn't provide carte blanche to do whatever. Rather it should suggest that the rules around the filibuster should be amended beforehand or perhaps after it actually appears as a material issue.
Your reply also runs counter to the parent comment I was replying to where they state that Congress would repair any irregularities after the fact. Frankly it feels like people are making things up to support their guy doing things counter to the established mechanisms of government and your own constitution.
not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
This is what i never understand. Okay, not enough money, soooo _tax more_. Or at least stop giving tax cuts to the richest people in the history of the planet? Like, implement a 5% tax on their wealth, and just fix all the problems. We could have services _and_ rich people, we just have to make insanely rich people contribute to our world like we all do to theirs
Like, implement a 5% tax on their wealth, and just fix all the problems.
My understanding is that's nowhere near enough.
The USA deficit is $1.8 Trillion a year with $30T total. The net worth of all USA billionaires is around $4.5T. So 5% would reduce the deficit by 10% until the billionaires wise up and move their wealth out of the country.
Even confiscating it all in a one-off pile reduces the national debt by about 15%.
It's a strategy, called Starve the Beast. The idea is to collect taxes, which then forces the current government to cut expenditures. The current Trump administration is no difference, this is what all the talk about government bloat is about.
It's pretty clever in its cruelty: Once you have cut taxes, it essentially doesn't matter which party wins the next election: The have to gut expenditures anyway.
Once you have cut taxes, it essentially doesn't matter which party wins the next election: The have to gut expenditures anyway
See the current Labour government in the UK, who would very much like to spend money on government initiatives but can't because the Tories made sure there was nothing left.
The worst part about it is we already have a playbook to actually reduce the US debt, which we did very well in the 90s.
Elect US senators and Representatives to go to the floor and debate about individual programs on CSPAN so people can actually hear arguments about it.
This is why, for example, the ISS didn't get cut, but the SSC did. Both were huge science programs that cost tens of billions of dollars and Clinton's administration explicitly wanted to keep both programs but the voting public, through senators and house reps, including democrat members of both forced them to pick only one.
The worst part about it is we already have a playbook to actually reduce the US debt, which we did very well in the 90s.
Uh, we didn't. Even in the “balanced budget” years 1998-2001, the debt increased.
Unless you mean reducing the debt to GDP ratio, which we did in parts of the 1990s, and some periods since, but that's not much explained by the spending control methods you discuss, but by growing the economy.
I thought we actually ran a surplus for a year or two? My impression is the "how", though, was "take in more revenue than expected because of the tech bubble", which isn't exactly a "how" we could or should replicate.
People want the US debt number to at the very least, stop going up. I'm not in any hurry to see the debt go to zero this decade, but some people insist it's necessary (I don't agree) and they got enough sway to own our country this political cycle.
I said we have a playbook to reduce the US debt. A more correct statement would have been "We already have a playbook to audit and reduce US government spending".
It is NOT done by giving one of the least competent ketamine junkies in front of a computer with a list of budget item names and tweeting the ones he finds most offensive.
Air that shit in congress where it can face PUBLIC scrutiny and debate, not in a forum literally controlled by the guy doing it. That's how we got rid of the unfortunate boondoggle SSC and kept the better ISS.
The fed reports a doubling of tax receipts from 1990 to 2000. There has been at least another doubling since then. Because Trump is a corrupt grifter and a shill for certain corps, he has already floated a plan to cut more taxes. Trump supporters do not want to bring taxes back up on companies apparently. They'd rather keep seeing their own taxes go up.
So they're going to cut stuff. Probably good stuff, probably important stuff. I'm saying there is a demonstrated productive way to cut stuff in the US system while limiting the pain and cutting of actually important stuff and that's what they would be doing if they actually wanted to fix any problem
Also I'm pretty sure the GAO has a standing list of things to do. That would also be better than this.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. That’s not why MElon elected a president using twitter to brainwash people. They are there to get rich, not to share their wealth.
In case anyone was curious, the interest being paid on the national debt is of the order of $1 trillion per year, while the amount collected in taxes (federally only) is of the order of $5.5 trillion per year.
federally only is about $1.6Trillion, the rest is state taxes and never goes near the federal government to cover the interest on their debt. ($1.8Trillion at a poultry 5% interest)
dont know where you are getting your numbers. sounds like are confusing revenue and spending. relying on some AI maybe?
US collects about $12Trillion in taxes total (30% ish of GDP), under $2trillion of that is given to the federal government for medicare, medicade and the military, they spend more than $5trillion, which is what they spend on medicare, medicade the military and the interest on the $37Trillion debt they have accumulated spending more than they were given by the states for medicare medicade and the military - mostly bank and insurance fund bailouts to prop up the failed US financial system, adding about $3trillion to the federal debt each year, which is why it has gone from $30trillion at the end of 2022, to $37trillion now.
Getting downvoted because I do my own research instead of believing the latest gormless chatbot, that's new.
Of that, individual income tax was about $2.4 trillion, payroll tax was $1.7 trillion, corporate income tax was $530 billion, and there's about $253 billion of "other."
I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied.
I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised.
I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party.
On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection?
I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate.
Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework.
Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans.
I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection?
And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them.
Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework.
Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202. Further laws which cover this title are 5 CFR § 2641.104 and 17 CFR § 200.735-12. Musk is performing legal duties, entitled to him under democratically instituted and operationalised laws.
I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy.
And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them.
Otherwise why he would be personally so close to this project then? That doesn't make sense.
Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law
That's not enough to make what Musk is doing legal, this status is mostly for an advisor and Musk is an active executive member. The real way of making it legal is going through congress.
Not to mention the other DOGE workers which as far I know have no status at all.
I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy
Well there's two things which are not true here in this sentence. First he lied about his actions (unless you can find me a statement where he says that he'll put Musk in charge of dismantling the government), so it's not the will of the people, it's the will of Trump.
Secondly, he's not using the executive and legislative right now so it's hardly democratic, it's something you see in authoritarian regimes. In the EU, only Hungary works like that.
Hell of a coincidence. When an influential think tank puts out a guidebook for what their party’s nominee should do after winning the presidency, and then that person puts a bunch of the people involved in his administration and starts carrying it out, I’m not inclined to think this is all by chance.
We don't have a monarchy (yet). The Constitution does not say "anything in here is void at the whim of the President". An electoral win does not allow him to unleash a gang of thugs through all of the agencies, to shut down Congressionally mandated agencies, to violate civil service protections, etc. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
That's not how any of this works. Read up on separation of powers. Just to take one example...
the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing that when Congress directs that money be spent, the president is obliged to do it. [...] Presidents can certainly send recommendations to Congress that funds should be cut. The Impoundment Control Act provides an expedited procedure for having those recommendations considered. But the president simply doesn’t have this unilateral authority.
We’ll see in a year or two how this really works. My view is that there was a coup against the Constitution about 90 years ago and as a result we have decades of judicial Calvinball that need to be sorted through. Just to start with, can you find the part of the Constitution that authorizes NIH and NSF to exist in the first place?
In terms of following the strictures of the Constitution, nothing the administration has done has made things any worse in that regard and in fact, has the potential to make things much better. The bureaucracy has grown into an extraconstitutional (which is to say, unconstitutional) fourth branch of government with separated powers of its own. Destroying that independence and returning executive power to the elected executive is a massive step in the right direction.
You could make arguments of overreach but they don't come even close to "coup."
coup: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.
Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
Trump and the Republicans control all three branches of government: the office of the President, the House, and the Senate. Who exactly are you contending they are overthrowing?
It still wouldn't make sense. A democratically elected president conducting a coup is a tautology. He can't suddenly seize power by force because he already has it. You could be worried about him refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and should that occur, with the use of the military, you could describe that as a coup. We are many years away from that word making sense.
So if a presidential promises to execute all of his opposition in the legislature and execute the judges that disagree with him and execute anyone in the bureaucracy that fails to obey his orders, and then he gets elected, and then he does those things, while blatantly breaking any and all previously passed laws that he cares to, is it a coup?
Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were ever elected as heads of state. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor, but that is the head of government. The head of state is the President. Hitler was able to manoeuvre into that position using his personal army to murder opposition. Napoleon had an old fashioned military coup in 1799, then attempted to legitimise it with a falsified plebiscite in the following year.
In both cases, the issue was the murder, not the democracy. It is important that we not blame democracy for the actions of evil men.
As an expat in the EU, I have a surreal sense of being a bystander at an ongoing emergency scene. I don’t want to be yet another gawker as this situation is unfolding but am struggling to come up with actions that are within my power to take as a form of protest, resistance, or solidarity.
What are some practical actions that we can take to resist these sweeping changes?
Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route?
Honestly though, I'm in the same situation and I don't know.
I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). I unsubscribed to the Washington Post after they pulled their Harris endorsement (which was appalling), but their coverage since feels relatively thorough and they are well placed to report on all this so far, so I resubscribed. I already support PBS. I'll probably donate to Pro Publica next.
I expect media outlets will be under rapidly increasing pressure, so supporting them financially feels important and positive.
I've also have a standing donation to the NAACP legal defense fund from his first administration that I've just kept running.
The parties turn on people who show up to do the work. There is a remarkable amount people can achieve if they show up as people who are willing to learn, do the work, and have their own eyes and ears open.
Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route?
Yeah, same. Since the Brexit a lot of populist parties in the EU don't want to leave the EU anymore (only reform it). Let's hope that this is another warning that the destructive populist path doesn't lead anywhere good.
(And I hope that the UK will join the EU again, they are close friends.)
I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge).
Yeah, independent, non-clickbait news is very important in these times. We recently renewed our newspaper subscription for three years.
When you are in the EU (or really anywhere non-US anyway), it's probably a good moment to start moving your data out of the US and away from US companies. So far Trump has done exactly what he promised, so a large trade war or, even worse, a war over Greenland is possible. Since pretty much anything is fair game now, blackmailing the EU using its dependency on US tech companies is not far-fetched anymore.
Get your data out and reduce your dependency on US tech.
(And I hope that the UK will join the EU again, they are close friends.)
As a Brit, so do I. However, despite all of the evidence showing it will be massively beneficial, we won't. Not fully, imho, for a good while. Best I'm hoping for is closer ties in a customs union, but that requires compromise I don't think will happen.
Genuinely curious if you think a WaPo endorsement could have swayed the election, and if not, why it mattered at all.
From my perspective, Trump voters distrust and dislike the old media so much, a newspaper telling them they shouldn't vote for Trump would only strengthen their resolve.
Not the poster, but I don't think a newspaper pulling an endorsement out of fear of reprisal is a great sign of a free press (or, to the poster's point, a press you care to pay for.)
It is far more likely that Bezos and Zuckerberg support Trump than fear being shot. Zuckerberg particularly, what makes you think this was a 180? The man has been doing machismo stuff like throwing spears at goats and challenging people to boxing matches for years. And have you seen the way Facebook is moderated, even years ago relative to the way Twitter was moderated under their old owners? Supporting Trump is in-character for Zuckerberg, even more so than Bezos.
I must say though, this "billionaires as terrified victims" narrative is hilarious. I hope the Democratic party rescues these poor billionaires from the man they're publicly supporting!
Should ownership of newspapers be limited to mere millionaires? Or do you mean that private ownership of newspapers should be abolished?
This country was built on privately owned newspapers wielded as weapons by their owners; I'm sure you've heard of Benjamin Franklin. The First Ammendment protects this more than anything else for this reason.
Yup, this. I think it had zero impact on the election, but it was an absurd and gutless decision.
I'd rather not pay for that sort of thinking. However, I'd rather have the WaPo in its current form as opposed to severely diminished (or none at all).
I deleted my Twitter account after a period of ghost-quitting that platform. However, this action doesn't seem all that significant, so I'm hopeful I can use my energy more effectively.
Meanwhile, increasing my focus on my immediate community and sharing my creativity are fulfilling activities within my power.
The best thing I can think of is to make the EU a strong, powerful, wealthy democracy that can defend itself from invasion and try to encourage other democracies around the world.
Which means we have a lot of work ahead, to put it mildly.
For that to work, the individual governments need to give more of their responsibilities up to the EU level, which is unfortunately somewhat unpopular.
It may be unpopular but Volt is increasing its presence on all levels from local councils to European Parliament, so there’s a desire among some voters for more EU federalism. In Germany they may come close to the results of FDP on the upcoming elections.
Fortunately in my country of Austria the liberal party (NEOS from the EU Renew Europe faction) already supports a "United States of Europe", but it "only" has around ~10% at the moment (though it is growing).
But the new government of pro-russian neonazis (FPÖ) and conservatives (ÖVP) will probably be very anti-EU.
Democratic and EU unfortunately doesn't mesh that well.
In the current form federal EU would be someting like having an unelected powerful executive branch, and a semi-elected weak legistlative branch. Furthermore the populace has very little idea about what is happening in the EU and who to hold accountable, partly because the media doesn't cover it, and partly because the processes are extremely convoluted and quite opaque.
Such "democratic centralism" bureaucracy probably would have benefits like more stability for long term strategy, swift execution of policies and coordinated action, but it's also very prone to corruption and elite capture.
Yes, a more accurate characterization would be someting like partially elected legislative branch.
The parliament is directly elected, but it doesn't have full legislative powers. It can't propose new laws and the Council of the EU has veto over the parliament. Dissolving the EC also needs a supermajority.
The structure is at least way less directly democratic than any EU country.
Unpopular because it is undemocratic. The EU is a bureaucracy that works against democracy. Its goal is to steal more and more power from national governments that are run by elected representatives towards a bureaucracy that decides their next actions in Davos.
The European Parliament is directly elected by the citizens of the European Union. The European Council consists of government leaders of the EU countries, which are also chosen in most countries based on the results of elections. The only exception is the European Commission, which is chosen by indirect democracy (nominated by member countries, approved by the parliament, and they can dissolve the EC).
Why is the EC a problem? In many democracies the executive branch is instated and kept in check by a parliament. The EC are not always my picks and there is definitely a lot of politics involved, but I think it's an asset that people with some level of expertise are selected and that the executive branch is somewhat protected against making very short-term decisions because they have to think about their next election.
People should stop bashing the EU. Like any democracy it has its issues, but it is hugely successful in avoiding war between countries that have been in war for centuries, plus the EU actually has a spine and has generally (with exceptions) protected people's privacy, protected people against large companies, etc.
The primary weakness of the EU is that it cannot do enough yet (but every crisis makes leaders realize that working together at the EU-level is more successful than trying to operate as a single country).
I've heard this often and I don't understand it at all.
Every government in the world has a permanent set of employees which enact policy and turn political intentions into legislation. Usually these are split into departments, each headed by temporary political appointee.
So exactly like the European Commission, then. Why is it only "undemocratic" when the European Union does it?
Are you suggesting that all 32000 people working for it should be elected? I'm quite certain there is no government in the world which does that and it seems quite impractical.
Or should every political appointment be directly elected, instead of appointed by a head of state? You could do that, but I am not aware of any major government which does so, so if that's the sole reason to call it "undemocratic" then it's a double standard.
It's 2025. You can drive across most European countries in a day (a long day, in some cases, but still).
If Europe wants to stick to the borders a bunch of kings and princes hashed out in blood a hundred+ years ago it can, for the moment, but if we do, there's a decent chance it will just be crushed by the next global superpower (US, China, or weirdly enough maybe Russia considering how much influence they have over many US politicians now).
I love Europe. I was proud to become an EU citizen and my favourite scarf is an EU flag. I think it's an amazing place full of amazing countries and people. And it still can be! But for it to continue to exist, we MUST work together. Militarily, economically, and even practically (why is it so hard to book train tickets across 3 countries again?)
I know it stings, but the reality is the wolves are at the gates. Democracy has its back against the wall and we need a force that can fight back. Or government of the people, by the people, for the people, will soon perish from the Earth.
If Europe wants to stick to the borders a bunch of kings and princes hashed out in blood a hundred+ years ago it can
If the EU wants to stick to a technocratic structure pushing unpopular laws over the democratic institutions won in blood, it'll be probably be democratically a hard sell to give it more powers.
I agree that Europe should have more unification and coordinated action. But I don't love the EU. I quite liked social democracy, but then it was outlawed by the EU.
It was nice to have public control over the infrastructure, possibility to have industry for public benefit, possibility to nationalize out of control private sectors, possibility to retain assets and capital domestically, to control fiscal and monetary policy etc.
The EU suddenly feels flimsy and badly defended. I hope that negative motivation puts the fear into people and motivates action faster than this reality can be exploited by bad actors, who seem to be ready and waiting.
Agreed, but I don't think I'd say sudden. Some have been pointing out that weak militaries and pacifism were a luxury afforded only through naivete and wishful thinking. Hell, Ireland's whole defense strategy is "but everyone likes us!" and "well I'm sure Britain will help in a pinch".
I was always receptive to those arguments, but I think even the people making them only felt them conceptually. The thick layer of civilization and “end of history” vibes just felt impenetrable. Then around brexit times it started to feel a little shaky, and more so with the Ukraine war.
I think Trump decisively stripped the last of the illusions away, most people feel the vulnerability in their bones now.
If you're in Germany or know some Germans, talk as much as you can about how this is what Musk wants to do via the AfD to us here. The election is a little over two weeks away. Right now, the CDU/CSU ("normal" conservatives) look to be getting the largest number of votes, but nowhere near enough to govern on their own. They've been a little too flirty with the AfD (currently in second place), and the worst thing that could happen is that they forget what they learned in school about what happened to the centrist and conservative parties in the early 1930s, and take the AfD as their coalition partner instead of trying to work something out with the SPD and Greens.
There's a reason that Germany's current main center-right parties were both born after the war.
Germany can be saved only by a major political reset. The mainstream parties are so flawed that it may be easier to replace them, than to fix.
Greens just went through a stupid political scandal in Berlin where the leftist radical wing tried to frame a realo candidate for sexual harassment.
SPD goes to this election with the worst chancellor in history. CDU lost its mind and voted together with AFD. FDP is serving a few special interests groups. Die Linke are borderline irrelevant.
We are in a strange situation where we have strong presence on populist left and right, but no decent political force in the center to contain them.
Germany can be saved only by a major political reset. The mainstream parties are so flawed that it may be easier to replace them, than to fix.
Be careful what you wish for. If AfD would grab the power (unlikely at this point), it'll weaken Germany nationally and internationally like the US is being weakened now.
At this point the biggest weakening factor is our political mainstream. In 100 years, if nothing changes, Germany will be Argentina of today. I’m not afraid of AfD, they lack practically everything to become new NSDAP. I’m afraid that whatever next coalition is, they will miss every opportunity to make a difference.
Germany can be saved only by a major political reset. The mainstream parties are so flawed that it may be easier to replace them, than to fix.
Ironically enough, this very much sounds like the "let's re-write and everything will be better" fallacy encountered in software engineering.
That aside, what you are wishing for is a war and/or revolution where the pillars of society have been shattered to pieces, the old incumbents removed/killed/retired, and where a new political landscape is built upon the ruins and ashes of what has been.
I have a suggestion - at least one of several, which is to understand why we got here. The fact that this is escalating since cable TV, Murdoch, and the internet is not a coincidences.
Democracies globally are facing a similar problem, which is an abuse of a core democractic principle: Free speech.
Free speech is often valued in and of itself. However, free speech in itself is only a tool that serves a greater purpose, which is to enable the search for truth. Free speech is the goal of exchanging ideas between peoples, to foster competition in thought so that collectively we can understand our shared reality.
If such a market place were to become inefficient, or if such a market place were to resolve itself to serve the most attention grabbing takes, we would see much of what the media carries.
THIS ISNT the problem you face! This is the problem we discuss!
The problem is when someone combines the media with a political party. The media itself has no recourse but to play the game of advertizing to survive.
But once it is in service of an entity, then you can create your own justifications for war, and then declare victory yourselves.
This makes the most mercenary of politics the most succesful. It is the natural recourse of people who want to win at all costs. It is far more efficient than doing economic research to understand the pros and cons of a decision.
We can solve the problems we all mutuall face. There is more to life than our polarization.
However, if we are pulled between two magnets, and our goal is to not be pulled apart - then the magnets need to be addresed.
The problem is, in America, both magnets pull to the right. We have a far right republican party and a center right democratic party. There is no leftwing party to provide balance. There’s not a single democrat who would be considered a leftist outside America.
One magnet is the media, the other magnet is an orwellian party/media firm.
Also - this used to be hacker news. As in who gives a shit about what is, its about what needs to change.
Think of it this way - this is just a puzzle that needs to be cracked. Take it as a job application problem, and see how it can be dissected over the weekend.
Come up with some theories, then go see if you can disprove them.
Fixing anything, comes from defining the right problem anyway.
The parent was asking about political parties. In Vietnam, the leftist party runs the country. If "in charge of a politically stable, economically growing country for decades" doesn't meet the definitions of "successful or meaningful" in the context of a political party you're going to have to be more specific.
People who express this sentiment seem to consider "the world" to be composed of North America and Europe. Why do you ignore the conservatives of Africa, the Middle East, India, and Asia in your assessment of what "average" is?
However, if we are pulled between two magnets, and our goal is to not be pulled apart - then the magnets need to be addresed.
Who exactly holds the magnets here? Is it even knowable or is it even necessary to know to address the problem? I agree regarding media but how do you get your information at national scale then? The world seems way more complex than what it once was, the interdependence feels more like grappling moves as we approach a malthusian crunch.
One of my other conclusions is that, with gen AI, the old assumptions of truth are gone.
Instead we're at the dawn of something like the fiat money revolution, in analogy terms. Like the value of a idea isnt about how its based on fact, but on the relation between the person sharing it, and the person paying attention to it.
The problem is when someone combines the media with a political party.
I generally agree, but I also think this was a natural and probably unavoidable result of having many different sources of “news”.
Prior to the internet, pretty much all news in the US came from ~5 TV networks and 1 or 2 newspapers (per city). It wasn’t practical for any of those sources to align exclusively with either political party because then they would be alienating ~half of their potential customers.
Today, there are far, far more sources to choose from. People self select those sources that they agree with. In the “old days” the news was more middle of the road politically, but that’s largely gone now. This is a major source of polarization IMO.
Well, if you think so, then dont get me wrong about this - do something about it! Read up, diagnose, deconstruct, break this theory.
Unless you know someone else is going to be doing this, or you know this doesnt interest you - then see how far this makes sense to you.
I did my soul searching the day Trump won. I had a 0% chance for that occurence, and my prediction was wrong.
I relooked at everything I believed, because I had made a high confidence prediction on how the world worked, and I had made the wrong call. If this was a massive stock play, I would have been broke.
My revised position made me stop asking why Harris lost, but instead focused on how Trump ran in 2016 in the first place.
I felt it forced me to take my thinking seriously, and my assumptions seriously. Perhaps it matters and will help you too.
Public trust in the media is at an all time low along with other institutions. People are turning to social media because the press is unreliable. Reform that institution and fix many of our problems.
Maybe AI agents will be able to help identity bad reporting in the press and hold them more accountable. A sort of epistemic anti-virus.
There are a lot of arsonists complaining about fires on this particular point. The mainstream press is mostly decent.
American right-wing propaganda personalities and media outlets drive the negative sentiment to a large degree. They radicalize their audiences against traditional media institutions, and they do it very, very well. Sometimes there are kernels of truth to their criticisms. Mostly they are wildly exaggerated, or even totally fabricated. It sucks we can't have nice things, but it is what it is. Free speech is free speech.
But it won't really get better unless all that propaganda is successfully countered, even if you magically figured out how to build a perfect mainstream media.
Where things get really dangerous is when demagogues come along and join in, like Trump.
On the list of things to look for to tell if you're dealing with a rising authoritarian movement, near the top are sustained attacks on the press. Enemy of the people, Trump calls them. Zuckerberg gets threatened with life in prison. He encourages supporters to menace and attack reporters at rallies. The list goes on.
These all become the pretext for drastic anti-constitutional attacks on the free press, and we're seeing that take shape already in Trump 2.0.
We really have no way of knowing that. It's not like there is any organization that analyzes and critiques the mainstream press in any regular fashion. For instance, the press clearly knew that Biden had major cognitive impairments but they misreported it to the public. There was no accountability at all when the truth was discovered. Same with the story of Trump colluding with Russia, or the many, many different racial hate crime hoaxes. There is ZERO accountability for misleading the public.
I'm skeptical of all the talk about "authoritarianism." All those ideas seem be based on shoddy social science theorizing after WW2 - e.g. "The Authoritarian Personality." I don't think you can accurately predict the rise of a totalitarian leader based on what happened in Germany.
the press brought this up! Dont mistake the no true scotsman fallacy here.
It was openly discussed that Biden was not looking sharp (even though Trump couldn't hold a debate with a mirror).
Biden Stepped down, mid cycle - this was something unthinkable to election strategists and pundits.
It remains one of the most amazing things I've seen, because I understand what it takes to do that, and what many others did in a similar position.
If you want to talk about how perceptions are made - consider that less is made of Biden's actions here, and more is made of the fact that he ran at all.
Did you know that the Russia case resulted in 8 guilty please and 1 conviction? Trump didn't get touched because they knew of the Russian interference, but didnt expect it to harm them.
A sitting president cant be indicted on federal crimes, so the obstruction of justice case was dropped.
This is unfortunate, since it gives ammunition to everyone, at which point it just becomes a team sport.
However, having seen authoritarian states, this is 100% from that play book. And yes, it feels insane and high strung to write that, but what can one do?
It looks like a wolf, it bites like a wolf, but maybe its just a massive dog.
We really have no way of knowing that. It's not like there is any organization that analyzes and critiques the mainstream press in any regular fashion
The "mainstream press" is actually hundreds or thousands of individual institutions, some big, small, and each have their own flaws, strengths, biases, audiences, cultures and incentives. They compete with and often criticize/check one another. It's not even all that unusual for an editorial columnists to lambast their own publications.
I don't want to idealize it too much, but feedback loops for self-correction are baked into the pie, and they do actually work from time to time.
There's a completely different physics in the right-wing media world though, best illustrated by the aftermath of the 2020 election. Fox had to pivot hard to election denialism because they were getting killed in the ratings by upstarts like Newsmax and OANN who went all in on the election lies. The right-wing media feedback loops don't self-correct, they incentivize extremism, grievance and conspiracy theory.
For instance, the press clearly knew that Biden had major cognitive impairments but they misreported it to the public. There was no accountability at all when the truth was discovered.
This is mostly right-wing media fiction. Stories and commentary on Biden's age were quite frequent in my experience.
(There's basically a whole genre of faux right-wing media criticism in the style of: "The mainstream media won't talk about X...", even while headlines about X all over the place in on "mainstream" media outlets)
Same with the story of Trump colluding with Russia
It's not quite that simple. That's not a single story, it's was an ongoing series of stories and investigations that developed over time.
There was plenty of measured, careful reporting around all of that stuff. There was plenty of irresponsible reporting too. There was also plenty of self-flagellation afterwards over a lot of it.
(The Trump campaign, along with folks in it's orbit, did collude with Russia. People went to jail. Paul Manafort literally met a Russian spy on a park bench, kind of like you see in the spy movies, to covertly hand over proprietary voter data. Roger Stone was coordinating with Russian hackers and wikileaks to leak hacked DNC data, etc.)
I'm skeptical of all the talk about "authoritarianism."
If you can't recognize it as a sign of authoritarianism when a sitting president nearly murdered an entire building full of cops, legislators, staff and his own vice president in a mad, desperate bid to nullify an election and seize power, I'm not sure what can break through.
But we are backsliding, there's no doubt about that. How far we fallback will depend on how effectively we oppose... well.. the current ruling party as it currently exists.
I like how you analyzed that, one addition: I also think some form of the anthropic principle is at play.
The societies that exist have something that allows them to continue to exist. Free speech can allow a society to seek truth and being aligned with reality can be important in the survival of a society. But so can cohesion while being "wrong".
There's a lot of information floating around and there's a lot of play between truth seeking free speech and cohesion signaling going on. Esp. as noise has been added to all signals including the scientific channels both via corporations and via well meaning ideologues.
I'm sure this is naive but I assume most of us would just love to be able to filter the signal from the noise in places that are relevant to us and be able to ensure low malfeasance in the places that aren't.
Read a commentary on the Abram's dissent, where Holmes made the first step toward articulating a "marketplace of ideas".
Holmes was suprisingly nihilistic, and I feel his formation of the search and competition for truth held now idealized beliefs of human behavior.
He accepted that people woudl be driven by their passions and biases, including things like a desire to create cohesion. That this was also something traded as a value and motivating force.
People in the EU need to pay attention and think hard before voting for similar candidates and parties.
This is a global phenomenon. It’s part grassroots, driven by discontent with sclerotic establishment parties that are not solving problems, but also being driven by propaganda from authoritarian countries like Russia and China. The latter is opportunistic.
Americans voted for this and I find it very hard to believe they didn't know what they were voting for. So that's on them.
Personally, I am working on replacing any American made products or services I use myself or through my job. Both as an act of protest and in preparation for the upcoming economic war they plan to wage.
As far as I can tell, Trump is doing things he openly announced he would do for at least a year. So all of this is either a result of robust public support for his policies, or, (my preferred explanation) an even more robust public repudiation of the only alternative that was put forward by the other party, a candidate famous for dropping out before Iowa in 2020 but somehow was coronated the nominee without any voter input.
The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.'
Now, you can make limited inroads to block executive actions with the courts, but even when SCOTUS was friendly to the anti-Trump cause, when that's done to advance an unpopular (majority-disapproved-of) agenda, it is usually a hollow and temporary victory. To get the policies you want, you need to win over voters. That's the part the DNC seems to be completely unaware of. You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~ bluesky, or by protesting. You win in a democracy only by convincing the very reasonable middle that you share their values. The DNC has taken a position of "Everyone not already in our tent is evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists," but to their chagrin, their current tent is under 50% of the voting public and it isn't growing.
Trump said so many things, so many outlandish things that I think a sizeable percentage of the people who voted for him didn't quite believe he would do. I don't have hard data on that but I did speak with several repubblican voters who dismissed the worries saying that he was just joking to provoke the libs.
He did. I only hope next time that the people who voted for him because of the truthiness of what he said (vs the actual truth) will think twice the next time they vote.
The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.
In other words, the left needs to learn how to love the right (and many people within the left). But I don't know if that's the case. I think there are a lot of people on the right who want the left to love them but believe that the people on the left do not love them.
I believe the problem is that people need to learn how to feel loved. To realize that even our enemies are trying their best and most likely care about us a lot more than they would ever admit. Both sides struggle with this. People on the current left tend to just resign and give up on the relationships. People on the right tend to seek vengeance.
I am exactly who you are talking about, I live in a very purple city in the midwest. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, my family was Amish 4 generations ago. I'm also a 90s kid and grew up on south park. Turned into a redneck hippy.
It's a complete social poison pill in the city to have voted a certain way. Have had the same look of "how could you be that dumb" from people ranging from strippers to lawyers.
All I want is love and belonging, not sure how to feel love when I've heard the word "barbarian" to describe certain types of people. Not sure how to feel love when men's loneliness and suicide problems aren't being prioritized
Yeah, the hurt turns into anger sometimes, but yes, I need them too. For me to exist, my opposite has to exist, and I should love us both.
I appreciate you sharing this story. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit and while I voted for Kamala, I have a lot of friends and family who either openly voted for Trump or who I imagine secretly did. And while it can be so hard for me to not call them stupid (I tend to default to insulting people's intelligence sometimes because I feel so confident in mine), I try really hard to see how they're really just struggling/suffering.
And it can hurt me so much when I see people in my life attack people very hard for voting for Trump. The ones in my life who voted for him sometimes seem to be the ones who are craving the most social connection, the most interaction, and don't get it. They seem to want to engage with people and sometimes the best way to engage is to say something controversial. Like the kid who can't get the mom's attention and so starts hitting her in the leg.
People on the right are not a basket of deplorables, they're human beings who want love and attention, often from those who they fear think they're better than them. Often from those they admire the most, who keep ignoring them and running away from them.
So thank you for sharing this and helping me see this even more deeply and lovingly.
You see the same desperation when a religion starts faltering/drying up. Loads of good folks start to break away. Those that remain tend to be beneficiaries from the system, or are sociopaths who don't know how to adapt, or are gullible folks who don't know how to discern lying, or are andbusy folks for whom inertia is less painful than change.
I see that in politics in a lot of ways. I'm still figuring out my concept model for it, but the experience of religious exit is showing similarities.
People have despaired of making common cause, because bipartisanship IS punished within the republican party, and by FOX.
I can apprecaite my fellow man, but I must also answer the question posed by the success of their tactics. I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him. Someone who openly doubted McCain?? Good gravy, that would have been something to see.
But reality has drifted, and political success has dependend more and more on extremism and animosity. They can dispute the existence of evolution, and succeed in making it an issue!
Today, all that seems to matter is poltical efficiency. People have voted for Trump even KNOWING that he is going to be terrible, but because he is better for their goals.
I can feel for everyone, but as the right likes to say - who gives a frig about your feelings?
What matters is winning.
Make emapthy win. Make bipartisanship work again, then you have a chance. But why should the republicans ever do that? Their approach has given them everything they have ever desired.
Gaining voters from the right shouldn't be the Democrats primary focus.
Their primary focus should be retaining voters, by broadening the range of opinions which are acceptable within the party.
They are a decade down a purity spiral, which has resulted in the range of acceptable opinions within the party shrinking considerably, and the shunning of many individuals unnecessarily, who either stop voting altogether or find company on the right.
I gave the example above of how the republican party is able to accomodate a significant number of both pro-life and pro-choice members. The Democrats will similarly need to learn to expand their umbrella as well. Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.
If they can fix this, they will grow, because their biggest source of new members is young adults becoming eligible to vote, not people they pull away from the right. The Democrats just need to stop churning so many people away.
I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him.
The Bush era has been the worst disaster for the right wing this century in both the US and potentially globally. He was a warmonger, an economic vandal and an unprincipled man at the helm of a state that flubbed any chance at setting up for meaningful long term success in favour of the patriot act and slaughtering goat herders in the middle east. Under his eye the Republicans exiled the right from cultural relevance for around a decade. The party around him were cut from the same cloth.
There is a reason the modern Republican party went with Trump rather than another person who looked like Bush. The entire Trump story has been the Republicans - without too much recrimination - attempting to purge the remains of the Bush era because they were a gross embarrassment whos legacy has been little short of a disaster. If the US Democrats had undertaken the same purge instead of embracing the leadership of the same era then they wouldn't have tried to run Biden then Kamala.
Purity spirals are a social dynamic where members of a group compete to demonstrate ever-increasing levels of ideological purity. Moderate perspectives are seen as dissenters and are shunned as the group becomes more radicalised.
It's a big problem for the left because numerically they are now the minority of voters, but are still trending away from the center, and shedding their more moderate members.
We know it's not as much of a problem on the right, because the rate of party switching is still far lower on the right than the left, by a factor of about 1:4.
On the right, you can be shunned by MAGA or shunned by the religious right, but still be welcome within the republican party.
On the left, you cannot challenge with any of the tent pole policies without being shunned entirely.
I think YMMV here based on who you're around. If you're right-leaning in an urban setting or a coastal city, you'll find a lot of heterodox views. If you live in the Rural South or Rural Midwest and do not almost literally worship Donald Trump, you are shunned.
The opposite is true for the left and the Democratic Party. Those circles tend to be very orthodox if you live in a lefty urban area. Disagree with one major platform issue and you're immediately suspected. If you're in the suburbs or a rural area you'll find that left-leaning people are much more heterodox.
Purity spirals are most intense in enclaves, which are echo chambers.
You'll find the same phenomenon online with regard to echo chambers. If you're in a left or right wing echo chamber, the purity spiral phenomenon is intense.
One could argue the right with its views on abortion and religion suffers the same problem, one they've largely tackled by voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
The difference I think, is that the purity spiral on the left encompasses the entire party. If your perspectives are too moderate you are shunned from the entire hemisphere of politics and often suffer a barage of name calling (e.g. bigot) from your own 'side'.
On the right, this is far less often the case. The right is significantly more tolerant of people who fall outside of purity definitions. For example, the majority of republicans are pro-life, but co-exist with roughly a third of republicans who are pro-choice.
In contrast, most Democrats will not tolerate a pro-life member under any circumstance.
I do think purity spirals exist on the right, but they are not as all emcompasssing as on the left.
You can be shunned from MAGA, while remaining republican. You can be shunned from the religious right, while remaining republican.
There is significantly more ideological diversity within the republican party than within the democratic party, and the result is democrats switching to republican at a rate 4 times higher than the republicans switch to democrats.
Bro I'm a gun owner and a big time first amendment proponent and all that. I've been called a socialist, communist, American hater, a racist and more by those on the right as soon as I contradict dear leader slightly.
The right is every bit as bad at this as the left because at the end of the day people are going to people.
Democrats for life of America disagrees with your assessment. The organization has existed since 1999. Henry Cuellar is a member of the democratic party and is very "pro-life".
The issue is that "pro-life" has morphed into anti-choice. What is happening in Texas and other states is not pro-life. Forcing women to die is not a pro-life stance.
Free and fair elections are likely a thing of the past in the United States after this administration has completed its term, so it doesn't really matter if the left is competitive. They'll be a placeholder opposition party without any change of taking power for the foreseeable future. Trump and Johnson were already colluding to refuse certification of the 2024 election if Trump lost. They'll have a far more robust plan prepared next time.
You could have just condensed this down to: democrats bad and only their fault.
Because if people in the middle can be so damn gullible to vote for a criminal who said:
"I don't care about you, I only want your votes",
like Trump because he promised good economy I don't know how anyone can conclude that the issue here is with democrats and not the people's lack of critical thinking.
It's a bit late to correctly point out that focusing on demographics as you voter base is stupid and that it's interest groups you should focus on (as this should've been done in 2008 after Obama's victory), because this isn't a race between two sane candidates.
The left don't have to any soul searching to do when again the so called middle literally voted for a man who to their face told them that he doesn't care about them he just wants their votes, who yes is a criminal that has swindled, lied and now rug pulled.
Well if the left wants to lead, it should never stop doing soul searching. Why not ask ourselves, "What have we done that may have contributed to people in our lives wanting to support such vengeful behaviors? How might have we and other people like us hurt these people over the years?"
But name calling works goddamit! Why shouldnt everyone do that??
Trump is 100% about names, holy shit.
I think the left needs to get better at name calling, and match the winning strategy. Maybe it needs to keep coming up with new funny names.
TO be serious - nthing the left does will likely work, because they have to somehow appeal to everyone. Be polite and strong, firm and flexible, forgiving and retributive.
When the left called the right "weird" that had more effect at driving liberal enthusiasm than any PDF of a policy ever has. Because it worked pretty well.
One problem is that the "left" has NO media at all. Republicans opt in to a completely controlled media platform, on Truth Social which is owned by Trump, on Fox News which multiple times has had to argue in court that nobody would take anything they say seriously, and also was knowingly lying to their audience, on AM radio which is used to yell at you 24/7 about how the dems are going to destroy you ANY DAY NOW, on Joe Rogan the podcast viewed by a hundred million people as it talks about how oppressed and cancelled it is and also if Biden said that it's evidence of brain damage but if Trump said that he didn't mean it, on our local news which is bought and paid for by a conglomerate that contractually obligates it's stations to pretend they came up with a story on their own and run identical pieces all across the country about how "damaging to our democracy" democrats are".
What do liberals have to push whatever message they want pushed?
Reddit? Nah, it's half dead, most activity is literally bots reposting year old threads comment for comment to build up karma, it has the cultural pull of HN if HN didn't have YC behind it.
Facebook? You can call people mentally disabled on there now for the crime of being born with genitals that don't match your brain.
CNN? Give me a break. Nobody has trusted CNN since at least the original gulf wars. After that Malaysian airlines plane vanished they asked a aviation expert if it could have been a black hole that swallowed up the plane. They were bought recently by new people, who want to be more pro Trump, mostly because it's just outright more profitable. People watched more CNN during Trump's first term because shit was always being broken, while nobody watched during Biden's term, because nobody expected biden to do anything.
MSNBC? Weirdly popular with "liberal" celebrities and hollywood, but nobody on the east coast cares about it. Even on a good day it has HALF the viewership of Fox News. It's also more like "Laugh at republicans doing stupid things" than actually about liberal policy. MSNBC will tell you that what Trump is doing is illegal, but they wont comprehensively explain why
Liberals and progressives don't seem to be even remotely as willing to opt in to a purposely ideological media stream. I guess AOC does well when she goes on twitch, but even on that platform, the big """leftist""" streamer is a bad person and Noam Chomksy style "america bad" concern troll, and there are multiple much more popular streamers who teach literal children that if video games don't have hyper exaggerated overly sexualized anime women in them, they're "woke". The "I'm a child who likes video games, I'm going to watch video game content" to "I hate women" pipeline is truly insane. Even the people who are part of it don't seem to understand the part they are playing. A group of 12 year old boys met one of their favorite streamers from the Fresh and Fit podcast, and after getting a selfie with him, chanted "I hate women, kill all women", as the podcaster went "what, no no don't hate women!"
90% of the Fresh and Fit podcast is the hosts, men, complaining about how women are inherently less rational than men, complaining that women overreact, complaining that women are shallow on a podcast ostensibly about "gains", bringing very very drunk women on to argue with them about, anything, and shouting them down if the women try to make a point, and threatening them with legal action if they argue too much by claiming the women (who have been invited onto the show) are "trespassing", complaining that women are less accepting of outright facts than men like the fact "women are inherently less rational than men", complaining that women are whores and use sex as a weapon...
But he had a shocked pikachu face when his 12 year old fan said he hates women.
You're more than welcome citing where I stated the left should never do any soul searching, I specifically said that when it comes to people being so gullible to vote for Trump despite his character is no argument for democrats having to do any soul searching because there is nothing to be reflecting about that.
Yes and im saying if we have people we love in our lives who were gullible to that, should we give up on them or fight harder to love them? I choose the latter and that requires me to do soul searching, of mine and theirs.
This is going to sound partisan, but I genuinely think it’s because Trump connects with people on more levels than the Democrats do.
The name calling is part of his blustery comedic Hollywood side, which people understand is different to his policy making side. Watch the all-in podcast episode with him if you genuinely want to see a different side to him.
In contrast, Democrats often come across as only having a singular serious facet to their personality, and so immaturity undermines their entire character.
I have the same perspective. On top of it, society has gotten use to seeing reality TV shows. DC looks like a reality TV show for ugly people to them. It's not even done well.
Whatever different side you are seeing is the act, the name calling is part of his normal behavior. I don't want to say too much, but I have a family member who had to deal with Trump briefly in the 00s. From the things I heard back then, I know for sure that he tries to bully people to get what he wants and will end up shouting threats if things don't go his way.
It goes from "its the lefts fault, and maybe you shouldnt call people Nazi."
To "It works for Trump!"
to "trump connects to people. the left doesnt"
Lol. This is like when you are in an abusive relationship, and you are always wrong, and theres no real way to explain why you are always wrong - until you accept that one side is meant to be the loser in an abusive realtion.
What about the right? Trump is a champion name caller and garnered sufficient respect to win his election after he pushed our country to the closest it ever has been to an actual coup.
I agree. Both sides need to stop calling names, but more deeply, need to see the goodness in the other side (and in ourselves).
The problem can be, someone can feel attacked even if the other person is treating them in a very kind and loving way, because they think it's fake.
On the contrary, someone could receive verbal and physical abuse and still not feel attacked because they maintain faith in their and the other person's good intentions.
So I think it's more about changing the behaviors of the person on the receiving end than on the giving end.
I agree with you in spirit. Everyone is equally responsible on "how" they communicate. When the giving side is coming from a place of contempt and disgust, the work for improvement shouldn't be trivialized.
But the receiving side can also get better at receiving contempt and disgust and realizing the pain the other person is going through. Honestly, working on how to receive punches has helped me so much in my life. An ex-girlfriend of mine lied to me about being pregnant (I think). And at first, I was furious. Then I realized that if she were to lie about that, she must have been going through so much pain, and I probably did something to contribute to that pain. I apologized to her and felt a lot better and it also allowed me to regain trust in women again, maybe even deepening my trust.
I agree in principle but how could you work together when republicans they follow the newt gingerich doctrine which to literally demonize the democrats for political brownie points?
So first he did lie about that on record saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025.
Then he certainly didn't say that he was going to dismantle the US government with Elon Musk outside of any legal framework (or I missed that). And even if he did, that wouldn't make it okay either.
You win in a democracy only by convincing the very reasonable middle that you share their values
I feel like you haven't paid enough attention, this isn't a democracy anymore but a mixed regime, convincing opponents is still necessary but isn't enough to influence power anymore.
Look at Hungary if you want some indication of how it's going.
Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.'
Call it whatever you want, the fact of the matter is that you have an unelected private person, who happens to be the richest person on earth, taking control of federal agencies. I don't think anyone should consider this silly, as nobody thought it was silly when MAGA tried to actually stage a literal coup by force 4 years ago.
You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~
The last years have made it very clear that's exactly how you win. You seem to be under the impression that the democrats, not MAGAs, are unhinged in their rhetoric.
The only elected members of the executive branch are the President and VP. The president is employing Musk. Your claims of him being unelected is irrelevant.
A simple mental exercise using analogies, might help explain why the current branch of the simulation should be backtracked asap...
- Imagine if the president allowed Jeff Bezos to reprogram the Treasury’s payment system as if it were an online shopping cart.
- Picture the president authorizing Sam Altman to treat the federal payment system maybe as a live AI experiment.
- Envision the president allowing Larry Page to run the Treasury system.
- Imagine Mark Zuckerberg not only with the power to update federal payment rules, with access to all U.S. taxpayer data. Incredible coincidence Musk runs, privately, a social networking site...
I dont include an example with Palantir...Because some of the 19 years old bros working with the Musk team, were interns at Palantir. So I am just going to assume Thiel has all the info on all US citizens now...
No concerns with conflicts of interest, no vetting, no official role because...People voted for the current president? When did voting become a
blank check?
Exactly. Voting for someone, even if they say they will break the law, doesn't mean they're allowed to break the law. AFAIK, that's not how representative, constitutional democracies work.
The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as [...]
The reason people are calling this a coup is not (only) because they disagree with what Trump/Musk are doing, but because their actions are illegal. A president is still expected to follow the rule of law and respect separation of powers. If there are no more checks and balances, then it's a coup. If Congress decided to allocate budget to something, the president should not ignore this. The legislature is losing its power.
Who says they are illegal? Can you cite some sources please? Like actual legal experts, not the guardian.
As far as I know, the chevron deference ruling makes it easily arguable that these agencies don't necessarily have any legal standing anyway.
The 8 month buyout was completely legal, Clinton did the same.
I actually find it highly unlikely any of this is illegal, it's just completely unbearable to anyone who is part of the bureaucracy. But prove me wrong. Show me the legal opinions.
Boy howdy there's a lot to pull apart here but ;et's start with your core statement regarding chevron deference. The recent (and wildly stupid, I think but besides the point) Chevron deference ruling says, in summary, that federal agencies have very little latitude in deciding their internal policies where not explicitly defined by congress.
The current administration replaced the head of an agency and had that agency shut itself down. Shutting yourself down is clearly not a power given to any federal agency, so by the very policy you're citing either the judicial or executive branch must act to allow such a move.
Instead, our cheeto in chief decided that those other branches don't actually need to do any of that pesky work and it's a lot easier if everyone just does what he wants.
Overturning the 14th amendment of the constitution by executive order is illegal.
Shutting down an agency like USAID require congressional approval, but was done by executive order.
Withholding congressionally approved funding for government agencies is illegal.
Sharing sensitive documents from the fiscal service with (Doge) team members who do not have the appropriate security clearances is illegal.
Giving Elon Musk an unofficial seat and allowing him unfettered access to the entire federal government without any congressional confirmation is illegal and basically amounts to setting up a shadow government.
Congress mandates that weed is illegal, funds the DEA to go after it, yet no one complains when Obama, Trump, and Biden decided not to enforce that law. Executives clearly have discretion.
This is flatly false. He is running the Project 2025 playbook which he expressly disavowed. It is also reasonable to assume he meant to propose a smaller budget, not supercede Congress.
He is running the Project 2025 playbook which he expressly disavowed
He's a conservative, and Project 2025 was from other conservatives.
You would expect there to be some overlap in policy perspectives because of the ideological overlap. It doesn't necessarily mean he's taking orders from the heritage foundation.
Before he got inaugurated the narrative is that the democrats are crazy for thinking that he would enact such unhinged policies, he himself said he knows nothing about it. Now the narrative is "that was expected".
Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.'
At this point any discussion on HN about Trump delivering his campaign promises (which got him a resounding electoral victory) seems to be filled with elitist rage ("Every single IT board I'm on") and thus is just proving his point.
This is the blowback for the medical overreach of the covid years, for the 1984-esque re-labeling of open gender- and race-based discrimination as DEI, for basically shaming every opposing view as
evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists
and many more transgressions.
I'm saying this as a non us citizen working in a sector in Europe that is very likely to get absolutely clobbered by Trump. The blame is simply to put at the losing side.
Them denying the merit of their loss, the lack of any introspection and instead just one-upping their everybody-i-disagree-with-is-hitler mantra is at least comforting in the sense that I know they shouldn't be in charge.
but even when SCOTUS was friendly to the anti-Trump cause
Sources requested for this statement, made unilateral with no evidence.
Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.
A single person, who somehow owns multiple major companies with, clear conflict of interest, is not a coup? What? He & his "engineers" reportedly have access to American citizen information. Where's the required oversight by Congress? I get trimming the government, but let's talk about it in the open rather than relying on his word and his word alone.
You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~ bluesky, or by protesting.
Would you say that to Tea Party folks who widely protested Obama? What? This makes no sense. Didn't they also insult Obama and his birth? Or anyone who voted for Obama? Whataboutism.
Frankly, I feel you are delusional and have bought into the ruse of the current news cycle.
"Everyone not already in our tent is evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists," but to their chagrin, their current tent is under 50% of the voting public and it isn't growing.
Funny how democracy works, I recall an election recently not a coup.
Government is not a monolith, this isn’t the action of one single person, but the result of tens of millions people voting for change (that you disagree with).
People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law. People can't vote to break the law. They can vote to rewrite the law, sometimes, depending on how the law is written. Often in the US we vote for elected officials who write law and then the elected president who enforces the law.
So whether tens of millions of people voted for Trump doesn't mean Trump can just disregard law because people liked him and maybe even liked that he said he would disregard the law. As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies.
People don't vote for the millions of public employees. They vote for the president. Everything Trump has said so far indicates Musk is doing all of this at the discretion of Trump.
I do recall Trump not wanting to let go of that power, in it? It wasn't out of his own magnanimity that he stepped down. Checks and balances still worked, appallingly sure, but they still worked.
He was unprepared last time, and made the strategic mistake of having a few non-sycophants around in positions of power who could tell him that he had to surrender.
Please read the Jack Smith final report. He broke laws to stay in power, he did not give up any power willingly. And if the Supreme Court hadn't delayed things so much, he would have gone to trial and been found guilty before he could be reelected.
Just because he's an absolute dumbass who had no idea how to effectively overturn the election doesn't mean he didn't try and doesn't mean the attempt wasn't violent.
A riot where he specifically told them in the speech before "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." ?
I like how your literal argument is that Trump failed at becoming a dictator so he's obviously not one. Despite you know, demanding people find votes and organizing a riot.
A failed dictator is still a dictator. What's next, the events in South Korea weren't the result of a failed attempt at a coup?
Really, that attempt was several steps down the line. First it was many attempts to overturn the election by convincing states to change their reported votes or just sending different electors. January 6th was the last-ditch attempt after those efforts failed.
When an elected official goes far beyond their legal powers to take control of the country, that's called a coup. Yes, even if they were perfectly legally elected.
I had an idea in my head about what the word "coup" means and why it is bad and I'm struggling to figure out how it applies to this situation (possibly because being no-American I don't get their news).
My understanding is the USA executive is an obscenely powerful position by the standard of the rest of the Western world and they can also delegate that power to accomplish specific objectives.
Is this a coup of Musk against Trump or the executive doing things its not allowed to do or a coup of the executive against the legislature?
(Maybe tabooing (in the rationalist sense) the word "coup" might help...)
Aside: the article paints a very concerning picture about the consequences of contemptuous ignorant imposition of abrupt blanket rules on valuable complex systems. I thank the OP for posting it.
It’s not a coup in any literal sense of the word, not even in the autocratic sense.
The reason it’s being used is a combination of the US having never experienced a real coup, and thus it’s citizens not really knowing what the word means, plus one side of politics being sore losers after having lost an election and using whatever insult they can think of in order to deflect rather than self reflect on why they lost.
We have better words for that than "coup", esp. because is is not clear at all if Trump will uphold the constitution, law and traditions of the USA by just abdicating at the end of his 2nd and final term.
How about "Gleichschaltung", or "synchronization" for the English speaking folks, instead?
Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean?
In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself.
It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore.
I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens."
Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens.
By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated.
The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
"The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests."
you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that
Most certainly not overwhelmingly:
Trump: 49.80%
Harris: 48.32%
This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the United States. Not even 1.5% more and the result is "near total evisceration of the federal government" compared to "largely the same".
The result is even worse with the Senate. 55.9m votes for Democratic Senators, 54.4m for Republican Senators, and yet Republicans ended up with 53 seats.
And this doesn't even get into gerrymandering for House seats, which is predominantly Republican-driven.
This is by a good margin not a representative government.
Both the President and the Senate are representatives of and voted on by the States, not the people. The only representative of the people in the US Federal government is aptly named House of Representatives.
When people vote for President, it is only to inform the State of how they want the State to vote, and the State has significant freedom to allocate its votes for President how it wishes e.g. some States use a proportional allocation instead of winner-takes-all.
Popular vote for Federal office was largely a 20th century invention.
And? That doesn't change the fact that he was not "overwhelmingly" elected. He won by a slim margin. People acting like he has a massive mandate from the people are at best ignoring the facts, and are mostly trying to delegitimize the opposition.
My point is that the popular vote is misdirection no matter who uses it, people weren't voting to get the most votes nationally and strategy reflects that. It focuses people on a thing that doesn't matter to push a narrative.
The only votes that matter are the votes of the State. It may still not be "overwhelming" at 58% (312 out of 538) but pretending that wasn't the result only serves to muddy the water.
I think you’re making an academic rather than practical point. Sure, he won a much larger share of the electoral college than the popular vote and the existence of the electoral college likely influences some voting patterns. Even then though, in PA he won with barely 1.5% more of the vote yet got all 19 electoral votes. Given the how close the election was forecast and how important PA was, I don’t think the electoral college drove much of the voting patterns. So my point still stands: he barely has a mandate and most certainly did not win an overwhelming victory. And yet, he gets to implement a radically destructive gutting of the federal government.
Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
> Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
Even those who crafted the American system knew that it was not perfect. Benjamin Franklin said:
"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government."
Uh maybe read the declaration of independence and some of the writings of the founders? They most certainly did NOT want the executive branch to be a king...
ALso a slim majority of the 60% who voted is not an overwhelming majority. Biden's win against Trump was bigger.
This is not a coup, because Trump is still in his lawful 2nd and final term. Until then let's call it Gleichschaltung [1], because that's what it is: bringing all aspects of society under totalitarian control.
Him assuming the office of the president is legal. But him trying to replace the law which has gone through due process using executive orders is unlawful.
It is not a coup because he became president by force. It is a coup because he is consolidating power. (The president is not supposed to be all powerful.)
The Wikipedia-article explains why "consolidating power" as part of the government is Gleichschaltung and not a coup. A coup is the sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government [1] which is not the case here.
No one is going to start calling this Gleichshaltung, so stop trying to make it happen. Words can be flexible. The current situation approximates a coup, and so people will call it a coup. Honestly, splitting hairs over definitions while our government is being stripped for parts? This is part of the problem!
I mean, to be fair to them, Gleichshaltung is a good word for what's happening. I'm not opposed to discussing the analogues between current events in the US and Hitler's consolidation of power in Germany. But I find the insistence on "proper" terminology tiresome. I don't think it's the other commenter's fault in this case, so maybe I shouldn't be so snippy, but it's a really common tactic among bad-faith actors to "well, actually..." a discussion into a debate about semantics rather than a debate about the actual matters of real import. It's a learned defensive behavior on my part, but not right in this situation. What matters is that we see what is happening and can describe it in a way that we all understand, not that we use specific technical terminology.
Fair enough, I yield. I'm on your side, it is dire times, and we have more urgent things to do than discussing proper distinctions on an internet forum. Any action now is better than the perfect action later, so let's get out on the streets and protest, instead.
It’s true, Vladimir Putin never did a coup either. He became a dictator through ostensibly democratic steps (without any actual democracy of course).
I wonder if Trump and Vance in 2029 can somehow pull the Putin/Medvedev switch, where the real leader takes a nominal secondary position until they can fix the constitutional issue.
Definition 2: a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, often by the army
Musk is committing illegal acts, over a weekend, in taking government power by, at minimum, not being appointed and confirmed. This is a coup by the definition YOU provided.
whatshisface uses whataboutism! it was not very effective.
Illegal acts TO CONSOLIDATE POWER. You're missing/ignoring a key phrase in your defense of fascist takeovers. This, right now, is still a coup. What about another time? I don't care. This time is happening now. We have a coup now.
The 6th January capitol attack was an attempted coup, what's happening now is Gleichschaltung. Please read up on "Gleichschaltung" [1] if you think that's in any way or form less of an condemnation as "coup".
"Gleichschaltung" is literally just how the administrative coup was implemented in Nazi Germany. Just because you'd rather talk about the logistics of how to coup once you are already in power doesn't make it not a coup.
They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation.
Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.
I thin you want to be a little more precise in your definition. A president doing things they dont have the authority for would probably mean every president conducted a coup.
Precedent holds that Congress has the power to establish executive branch agencies and lay out their jurisdiction and functions. It also holds that, once so established, the president has the power to decide how they’re operated. There’s a constitutional distinction between this power to create/define (legislative) and the power to run (executive).
The article doesn’t seem to be about abolishing the NIH and NSF. Instead it seems to be about NIH and NSF grants to third parties. That seems to fall squarely on the executive side of the line.
It would seem to follow that the executive’s power to run has limits itself. If the legislative has the power to create an entity and the executive runs that entity at such minimal function that the entity effectively doesn’t exist, that usurps the legislative of their creation powers. You could tarpit any agency they establish. The power to run still means you must run the agency in good faith.
I don't disagree with that. But what's discussed in the article--exercising control over grants--is squarely within the domain of running, rather than abolishing.
once so established, the president has the power to decide how they’re operated.
This is the third time I've seen someone pushing this line of thinking on HN in as many days and I'd like to know more about where it's coming from. Can you cite any source that supports it and justifies it?
FWIW, the conventional wisdom is that the independent agencies really are independent, and the president's control over them is exactly what is stipulated in the legislation that created them. If the statute of the Dept of XYZ and says the president can fire its governing board but only on weekends, then he has to wait til Saturday, period end of story. The idea that the president can interfere with the independent agencies because they're part of the executive branch was, AFAICT, invented out of whole cloth in the last couple of years, and has no constitutional support at all. So I'm curious to hear more about what this new theory is and how far it extends. In particular, if the president can decide to cancel NIH grants because the NIH is under the executive branch, what keeps him from raising and lowering interest rates?
edit to add: to be clear, the president does have a great deal of power over most of the independent agencies; in most cases he hires and fires their leaders. But he has that power because Congress specifically granted it, not because the executive branch is his personal fiefdom. If he wants to, say, get a pharmaceutical drug approved, he has to direct HHS to direct the FDA to do that in the usual way, not just decree it. This has little to do with thwarting his power and lots to do with effective and efficient governance.
You're hearing the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that the president is essentially a king. It's based on a purposeful misreading of the Constitution, of course. To arrive at this philosophy, you have to essentially ignore the entire point of the Revolutionary War, the writings of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, Article I, Article III, Article IV, the Bill of Rights, and the president's oath of office.
There really is no limit to the power, but they say the check is impeachment -- if the people don't like it they can elect a congress that will impeach the president. But in reality it doesn't work that way when the president's party controls congress.
It's not a "theory," it's simply reading Section 1 of Articles I, II, and III at a 6th grade reading level.
Article I says: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." May Congressional staff exercise legislative powers independently of the Congressmen? Nobody thinks that.
Article III says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." May judiciary branch staff exercise judicial powers independently of Supreme Court Justices and lower-court judges? Nobody thinks that.
Article I says: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." May executive branch staff exercise executive powers independently of the President? My sixth grader could understand that the answer is "no."
There is nothing in here about the president being a "king." It's simply that the President controls the executive branch, in the same way the Congressmen control the legislative branch and the Supreme Court justices control the judicial branch.
See, that's what I mean about ignoring all of American history to come to your unitary executive theory.
The Constitution establishes control and checks on that control. "checks and balances". Unitary executive theory is all control, no checks. How does Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch in this scenario?
And you're also trying to do the same thing to me right here. To accept that unitary executive theory isn't about being a king, I'd have to ignore everything the advocates of the theory have said and done. He argued in court that he has absolute immunity to commit crimes, including directing the government to kill his political opponents. You can't argue that in court and then tell me it's not about being a king. That's dictator logic.
Look at the executive right now, he's essentially got the power of a king. He can't be arrested, charged, or investigated. Can commit crimes and hide them. Can direct others to commit crimes and pardon them. Can direct his DOJ to investigate and prosecute anyone he wants. Can control and direct his military without review. Congress can't conduct oversight. Can you explain how the president is now functionally different from a king, and square that with the point of the Revolutionary War?
This is the third time I've seen someone pushing this line of thinking on HN in as many days and I'd like to know more about where it's coming from. Can you cite any source that supports it and justifies it?
It's Civics 101. You should have learned it in 8th grade. Congress makes the laws. The President executes the laws. It's also right there in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.").
If an independent agency is exercising "The executive Power," then it does so derivatively of the President. Article II doesn't say that "the executive branch" shall execute the law. It says: "he"--the President--"shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Note also the parallel structure with Article I ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States") and Article III ("The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish").
The President is the executive branch, in the same way Congress is the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court and the lower courts are the judicial branch. All of these branches have various offices and subdivisions, but they are within the control of one of those three constitutional actors.
Congress cannot create an entity that exercises executive powers but does not answer to the President any more than the President can create an entity that exercises legislative powers but does not answer to Congress.
FWIW, the conventional wisdom is that the independent agencies really are independent, and the president's control over them is exactly what is stipulated in the legislation that created them.
That has not been the "conventional wisdom" for anyone who went to law school in several decades. The notion of an "independent agency" exercising executive power independently of the President was an absurd idea cooked up by a racist in the early 20th century who hated democracy and had fantasies of "scientific government" (https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-c...). It peaked in the mid 20th century, but the project of whittling it back to constitutionality has been ongoing my entire lifetime.
If the statute of the Dept of XYZ and says the president can fire its governing board but only on weekends, then he has to wait til Saturday, period end of story.
The Supreme Court held in 1926 that the President's removal power over executive-branch officials is essentially unconstrained (Myers v. United States). The Court then reversed itself in 1935 (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) but that case has since been limited pretty much to its facts (Seila Law LLC v. CFPB).
Thanks for responding at length, though your derisive tone isn't winning you any converts. Is it your position then that the president can legally wield any power described in any legislation? If not, what can't he do? Can he, for example, raise and lower interest rates over the objection of the Fed? Approve an IPO that the SEC rejected? Lend money to his supporters through the SBA and deny loan applications from his adversaries? Refuse to deliver Hunter Biden's mail? If not, why not? I'm not trying to play gotcha here, but it seems like your position is that he can do these things.
"The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters 498, 38 U. S. 513; United States v. Eliason, 16 Peters 291, 302; Williams v. United States, 1 How. 290, 42 U. S. 297; Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 135 U. S. 63; Russell Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 514, 261 U. S. 523. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."
The Constitution, of course, imposes limits on executive power, and statutes create private rights and obligations and provide procedures and substantive standards. But if the executive power otherwise may be exercised, Congress cannot constitutionally insulate the exercise of that power from the President's influence. Put differently, the procedural framework of a law can't merely be there to insulate the exercise of executive power from the President's influence.
To address your examples:
Can he, for example, raise and lower interest rates over the objection of the Fed?
Probably.
Approve an IPO that the SEC rejected?
It depends. The securities laws regulate private conduct--that's important--and impose various standards and procedures. So the president can't alter private rights without following those procedures and standards. But can the president supervise and direct how the SEC does it's job? Yes. The Arthrex case is relevant here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf.
Lend money to his supporters through the SBA and deny loan applications from his adversaries? Refuse to deliver Hunter Biden's mail?
No to both, because nobody at SBA or USPS could permissibly do those things.
Musk's operations likely are using illegal means and are an overextension of power, while legislative and judicial branches, as well as internal executive branch watchdogs, have abdicated their roles in oversight and control. This is effectively an overthrow.
When I read your comment I am sympathetic to your characterization that its illegal. I expect it will be litigated.
But then you conflate illegal with "an overthrow" (of what?) to show its a "coup". This is incredibly hand-wavy and makes the "coup" language look like hyperbole.
Trump is essentially ruling by decree and taking actions far outside his authority. If successful, this will de facto strip Congress of much of its power and transfer it to the President. If you want to see what the outcome of that looks like, read about events in Germany in January-March 1933.
Democracy is a broken, hackable system and it shows why. Theoretically in democracy you're supposed to be elected by the majority and then ensure the rights of the minority. When you're elected by the majority and then make the life of minorities as hard as possible, that's fascism- which is what real world practice of democracy has become.
JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around.
The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no rule of law at the federal level for some time now. Once the Chief Justice leaned back and tolerated the open sale of the court, that was basically it.
We don’t have the same system of governance anymore… we’re like Italy 1936 or Argentina in 1948 now. We’ll invade Greenland instead of Ethiopia, and skip the funny hats.
The question is do we continue on this trajectory or is there a real coup with tanks on DC streets at some point.
I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.
Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution.
And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.
Most don’t even have sufficient clearances to know the names of random middle managers in many many offices in the CIA/NSA, let alone do anything to them.
They can be fired, there’s a variety of processes to do so.
The obsession with firing people is this weird narrative the right wingers are always obsessed with. The cognitive dissonance between these high and mighty principles and what our principled republican colleagues have and will do is beyond ridiculous.
Functional government is the goal of any mature stakeholder. We have 100+ years of spoils system that aptly demonstrates why that methodology doesn’t make sense in a modern society.
Viable processes don’t suddenly pop into existence just because someone says so…?
Most of Congress can’t acquire sufficient clearances to even learn the names of random middle managers in many offices in the IC, let alone to do anything about them.
They can defund the whole office, subdivision, or function.
Life isn’t an episode of the apprentice… nobody in congress sees their oversight role as firing random post office clerks. That’s idiocy. Congress controls the law and the purse. Conservatives have been wielding this power for years - that’s why single moms are routinely nabbed in audits for earned income fraud, while rich people get away with donating millions to phoney foundations that they control for years. (Congress limits funding for enforcement)
The executive has broad authority to take personnel actions while adhering to the law.
They can defund the whole office, subdivision, or function.
This doesn’t make sense, to suggest they have the opportunity to defund something that they don’t even know exists or what it includes is just not credible.
How could if possibly come to their attention in the first place?
Why this amorphous "the government" wording? The people elected Congress and Presidents, who did this over decades with popular support.
Executive agencies are not unaccountable. They have specific charters and there is a huge volume of rules they have to follow. eg:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). Congress writes their budgets every year and the heads of those agencies are reviewed at congressional and presidential levels.
Accountability means democratic accountability. The APA is not meaningful democratic accountability--it just means that lawyers like me end up running the country.
For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about any change.
This using an unaccountable fall guy to break the law at will, so that congress can avoid accountability is gross. Folks with your opinion like to wax on about constitutional principles, blah blah blah, as we stand by and watch the shitshow that is happening right now.
Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution.
People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).
The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws.
I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.
The other big elephant in the room is that the self-appointed wanna-be ruler, Musk, owns companies which have received very large amounts of both government (taxpayer) grants and contracts.
Back in 2015, the LA Times reported Musk's companies had received nearly $5 billion in grants. That's taxpayer money. Plus there's the SpaceX contracts--not saying those are unwarranted, certainly SpaceX deserves the contracts more than Boeing--but my point is that it's a huge conflict of interest.
A person receiving very large amounts of money from the government is now deciding which parts of the government should be cut in order to "save taxpayers money".
If this sounds like something that would only happen in a place like Russia, or the DRC, it's because it's something that would only happen in those places.
In other democratic countries you go to jail for this sort of thing (i.e., Nicholas Sarkozy in France--not saying the situation is exactly the same, but there's an actual judicial system in place that doesn't exonerate someone just because they're president, like our SCOTUS did).
Most of that $5 billion in the LA times article was not received by Musk's companies at the time, and I'm not sure if they ever received the full amount as it was contingent on reaching several milestones in the span of 20 years.
A big part of those $5 billion was not having to pay sales taxes on possible future Gigafactory production, for example, but that gigafactory never reached the initally planned size AFAIK.
The big question then is did the incentives then get clawed back. The pattern I'm familiar with says probably not; usually the company building the factory doesn't lose much of anything they were given when they fail to meet the milestones.
First, it's usually structured that you meet X target, you get Y incentive. Second, what doesn't get clawed back is true of all companies though. So it's not unique to Tesla in any way.
Some of it is a loan, I know Tesla had a loan from the govt, they paid it back early if I remember correctly.
Plus all of that is in the past. What would be a huge problem is if the federal govt started throwing grant money at Tesla now, while Musk is running around playing in the govt.
All that said, I think it's a terrible state of affairs we find ourselves in, but I mean we voted Trump into power, what did we expect would happen? Rainbows and kittens?
Most of us will change the channel or scroll to the next social media clip. Most in the media will “both sides” the end of our democracy into a melisma of euphemisms and equivocations. Most of our political leaders will focus on the pitch for their next fund-raiser email. And if this oblivious, indolent cowardice continues as I fear it will, we will look back on these days of chaos, destruction, hatred and lunacy as only prelude. Unchecked, we are on the path not just to autocracy, but to the worst form of malevolent dictatorship.
My reaction is not hysteria. It’s not exaggeration. It’s not premature. Where we are is a place we have never been in this country and the threat we face is by no means one that we can survive—because something precious and fragile is at dire risk of being lost.
A coup? This was a general election and the person who won the election is allowed to choose his staff to run the executive branch. Pretty much everyone in the executive branch except the president and maybe the vice president is unelected. Was it a coup when the current people at the NSF got their jobs?
Well, here you are, dear Americans, you all have got a chance now to show the rest of the world that you, of all nations, know how to deal right with the chutzpah in your government that has just dropped the mask of democracy, by leveraging the constitution, the law, the right for protest, peaceful or not, and whatever else that is available to a citizen in such cases.
Because you're not akin to those apathetic passive supporters of their criminals-in-power like Russians and Israelis, are you?
This hurts, but it also presents an opportunity for rebuilding.
An outcome could be a greater diversity of voices influencing research, rather than the NSF and NIH continuing to serve as monoliths.
The NIH is the dominant force in medical research. Remember how theories for Alzheimer’s having an infectious etiology were sidelined for decades? And, to this day, for autoimmune conditions?
I think it means the next administration would have to hire new people to offer grants to researchers. This would bring new perspectives into the process. There is never any shortage of researchers to fund.
And that the ranks of researchers, which are often stagnant due to a shortage of jobs for PhD holders, would experience turnover in the interim, creating openings for fresh voices when the funding resumes.
Ideally, imo, the grant process could be distributed across more organizations rather than being as centralized as it has been. The next administration might be free to do so if the existing orgs are no longer thriving at that time.
why.. where will the money come from? And next administration?
This is 14 DAYS since election. March isnt even here yet. There are 4 tax filings before the next election.
Please take a look at things like demonitization, or many "harsh" medicine programs in other countries.
The fallout is going to be decades. The government is going to pivot to bread and circuses. The sides are going to get more entrenched, and then theres going to be riots and violence.
This will pass, and new crap will come in. This is banana republic territory, not America territory.
The Alzheimer’s debacle was already a generation. Perhaps a timely retirement or two would have cut that short.
When I have the privilege of working with new college graduates, they get me out of my old modes of thinking. And they are quite talented. We will still have college graduates in four years.
Granted, if you believe there is a significant risk that the United States falls into irreversible autocracy within the next four years, the analysis does change. However, I just don’t buy it. There are two branches of government that check the executive branch. Trump has been elected as a lame duck with no possibility for a second term.
While I still don’t think it’s likely, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. The conversation is shifted to a slightly different topic at this point, but going back to the NIH and the NSF, they aren’t exactly democracy’s bulwarks.
Considering 90s norms for the present is interesting. I see social taboos that I’m grateful we’ve revised, though that social progress is not what you’re talking about, I understand. But I would still say that you can’t step in the same river twice, and that the red lines of yesterday might or might not be important today.
though that social progress is not what you’re talking about
Right! but its a point that we can acknowledge. We've made progress on overcoming some taboos. Hmm, in a way, we've overcome taboos here as well, its ok to be an asshole politically.
So the question becomes one of utility and morals - some taboos were ok to remove, others were not.
You can use that to compare how certain red lines have moved more in accord with your values, and others are being breached.
Either way, this is a tool for you, and others who read this, to look to their own values and judgement, and decide objectively if they should reasses and start responding.
From my experience, the answer is heck yes. For people who are in a constant state of gradual escalation, their red lines get massaged fully out of shape, and you look to your peers to see if you are nuts.
Which is why the idea is for you to judge the red lines for yourself, against your own ideals.
At least thats what I am thinking by brining that comparison up. The 90s werent so far away that they couldnt be used to compare agains today.
Some people here seem to be upset. I don't get it.
More than 40% of US adults are obese. The rates of chronic diseases are through the roof. There's obviously a systemic problem in these institutions who are tasked with the well-being of the country. We know of many fraud in social sciences (ever heard of priming research?), medical science (eg. alzheimer researchs) and nutritional science (eg. saturated fats). In fact I'd argue it has become systemically untrustworthy.
Robert Kennedy Jr vowed for: (a) dedicating 20% of science funding to replication studies, (b) systemic publication of peer reviews alongside papers, (c) publication of null results.
Which seems like a very good improvement over what we have now. The field is in dire need of a reform.
Yes, let's blame scientists for obesity. Not the fact that most of our society has been built around fatty foods and cars to get everywhere.
Where are these scientists arguing for that?!
Hell, science has been wrong on a number of health issues. But diet and exercise has been a staple of good health science for as long as I can remember.
RFK believes in things that are provably false and you seemingly believe things without evidence either. Our institutions cause obesity? Who keeps refusing protect the environment? Who refused to directly address the COVID crisis when it was starting and pedalled fake cures. Effective policy is hard to get right but the Trump admin are immeasurably worse than the alternatives.
Catch your breath before you start writing. There is no reason to read past "although I keep removing curse words", it totally undermines the credibility of the piece.
As an european I envy so much this great purge - here entire castes build on feeding from grant money, perpetuating DEI, green transition, gender studies etc. Overnight nothing-scientist/ NGO profesionals carreers are over, like in those "AI stole my job" videos. Sadly EU still holds strong perpetuating this grant bottom feeding, poisoning academia and discrediting NGOs.
I'd like to offer: both can be bad. Any large system is going to have a lot of inefficiencies, and something to dislike for everyone. But its overall function can still be important enough that taking a sledge hammer to the whole thing is still much more harmful than whatever motivated picking up the hammer.
Any large system is going to have a lot of inefficiencies
Hence one needs the free market. The govt. typically lack the checks and balance that the free market automatically provides hence it _always_ results in bloat.
Right, understanding that the government itself creates the space for the free market to operate, so any tinkering with it ought to be done carefully. New companies will replace old ones that die- and this is good. Failed states can and do happen, and it would be hubris to think it couldn't happen here.
Right, understanding that the government itself creates the space for the free market to operate,
In the US the gov has become too big so that it cannot support a free market.
( there are some estimates that say 60% of our income goes into taxes of various forms). More over govt are the reason for a no freemarket. For me Govt is synonymous with the mafia, a more polished, legalized version ( yes, we differ here, so we can leave it at that)
so any tinkering with it ought to be done carefully.
Most of the govt can be removed and no one will notice except govt employees.
No I do not think so- America owes its success to the common Americans, not to the govt. Personal question: Have you lived/worked at length in any third world country?
In fact I have! And that has greatly informed my opinion: the people I encountered in those countries were every bit as capable as common Americans, but they lacked the institutional support which Americans so easily take for granted.
Timothy Snyder's book "On Freedom" might be a good read for you. It's about this common (but quite recent) fallacy that freedom means only freedom of government interference or oppression, rather than true personal freedom being something that needs to be built and maintained by society at large -- which would be the core role of government.
In simple terms: how free do you think you would truly be to lead life the way you want if there were no institutions that produce and distribute electricity, manage communications networks, research and produce medicine, provide emergency services, build transportation infrastructure... something to think about. Few modern westerners would equate the idea of "freedom" with that of fully self-sufficient, isolated hermit life with everything that entails.
A lot of people today probably simply forgot how much of their cushy lifestyle was made possible by government, because they never had to work or fight to build it.
"There has been a government-wide purge going on of references to any sorts of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) criteria, and indeed, various elected and unelected officials have for some time now been using "DEI" as a scapegoat term and apparently a shorter way of casting suspicion on anything that is not being run by some white guy. As a white guy myself, I find this phenomenally offensive, and I can't even imagine how I'd be feeling about it as a direct target of this garbage"
This is the kind of comment that caused all the public backlash against DEI. Completely out of touch. If you talk this way, don't expect the public to believe your claims about defunding.
This is such a politically charged article and full of political hate. Is this really worthy of HN. Are political editorials now ok for HN? In addition to his obvious political hatred of the current president, the author goes out of his purview to repeat third hand rumors and allegations of illegality at other agencies he has no experience with.
Just a few quotes from the article:
"...This is amply laid out in the Project 2025 documents, and let me say right here that I was volcanically pissed off at the way that topic was handled during ..the campaign.", and
.. That’s a gigantic can of worms that I don’t have the energy to open at the moment, but past that, there is a broader hatred of education and expertise of all kinds. I hate to bring that one up, because it makes me sound like a crank, but there really is a strain of Trumpism that is nothing more than a desire for revenge against snooty over-educated elites who try to tell people what they should do based on their so-called "research." So if by pummelling the NIH and NSF you can simultaneously punch some huge bureaucracies in the face, revenge yourself against your imagined pandemic enemies, and cause distress at a bunch of big universities where they mostly hate you anyway, well. . .what's not to like?
...
I strongly urge everyone to make their voices heard with their Senators and Representatives about these issues: the Republican ones need to hear that not everyone agrees with this stuff, and the Democratic ones need to hear that their constituents are not in a handshaking bipartisan mood."
We wouldn't be here if government funding was not overrun by leftist politics. How many grants have been rewritten the past few years to put a facade of DEI or to grab funding from funds specifically targeted for DEI or other leftist goals?
Another win for China. While the US guts its research capacity, China already dominates scientific research (according to Perplexity, 29% of the most highly cited peer reviewed articles are authored by Chinese scientists). Of course all those people who voted for this regime don't believe that there is any benefit to funding science. After all, what did science ever do for them? (OK, except for the science of pick-up trucks - I'll give you that. Oh yes, and the transistor: I think I may have one in my phone. But otherwise: name one thing, bro). Maybe those hats should replace the "A" with a "C".
The slump began from first DJT presidency. US lost the 5G race to China. If deepseek etc. are any indication, they are losing the AI race too. Looking and the prevalence of cheap Chinese EVs all over the world, US is losing on that front too.
Meanwhile MAGA are patting themselves in the back because they are "tired of winning".
"Regulations, basically, should be default gone," the head of the White House's Department of Government Efficiency said on the call, as spotted by HuffPost. "Not default there, default gone." "If it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we can always add it back in," he suggested.
It's to some extent advocating for the "first, do no harm" default of not treating doctors are supposed to have.
Musk's definition of "missed the mark" likely varies wildly from mine, though.
It's past time these institutions were audited. I had an NSF fellowship and was on numerous NIH grants during my PhD work (Chemist). All of them, even in 2013, had DEI language that made it clear if you were a white/chinese/indian male you were not going to be funded. The institutions, already, were self sabotaging, doling out tons of taxpayer money, not to the best ideas, but to labs that had a few women of various colors other than white working in them. It pushed me and almost all of the other chemists (who were generally white/chinese/indian males) in my class to leave the field either after our PhD or post-doc.
I will elaborate, for the intentionally obtuse and for people who have not lived in the world of academia. When writing NIH grants you typically have a section describing prior foundational work in the field or in the lab itself that the grant proposes to fund.
In our lab, at the time I was there, the majority of our publications were from 2 white and a chinese male. When writing grant proposals to continue this work (to be continued by the same 3 chemists) the gender/racial characteristics of other members of the lab who were female and of other racial backgrounds were described in great detail, even though they had not contributed to the prior work and were not going to continue the project in the future. Our backgrounds were left unmentioned. This was the way to secure funding was what the PI in our lab told me when I inquired about the glaring discrepancy.
It is my opinion that backgrounds should be irrelevant and funding should be granted on the strength of the proposal. That's not the case today.
EDIT: I left academia in 2013, maybe things have changed.
This was the way to secure funding was what the PI in our lab told me when I inquired about the glaring discrepancy.
I'm not saying that what your PI told you was wrong, but I will say that it would've been useful to get some additional information about why your PI decided that was the right thing to do. It might have been useful at some particular time or in some particular situation.
EDIT: I left academia in 2013, maybe things have changed.
That's an important piece of information, as when I read your original post, "even in 2013" made me think that you were still in academia.
I'm not disputing your personal experience, but I've worked on numerous science-related NIH grants over the past decade and the vast majority of performers were white (sometimes asian) males (myself included).
The institutions, already, were self sabotaging, doling out tons of taxpayer money, not to the best ideas, but to labs that had a few women of various colors other than white working in them.
This isn't an auditing. This is a gutting based on senseless and illegal procedures. You want to get rid of DEI, fine. That doesn't mean get rid of the whole agency. This is incredibly alarming.
Here is another perspective, there are many more deserving research proposals than there are grants. Even if they banned all minorities from grant funding there would still be many disgruntled and unfunded scientists languishing without grants.
I think the "many more deserving research proposals" more funding as well. So we should judge the proposals by merit, and not the immutable characteristic of the researcher. By the way, why should tax payers fund grants for foreign countries research and education?
I can only speak for my own experience, but this is 100% not what I have seen (as an NIH-funded white male PI, and one of many at my institution and in my field). I just submitted an R01 last week, and can firmly say that there is no "DEI" language in the grant application forms or in the program announcement; anybody who is interested can easily see the kinds of documents that are required in NIH grants: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/samp...
I am a male of Indian descent, my PI was white male and we collaborated with a number of Asian male PIs and postdocs. I was in PhD research starting in 2015. All of us were funded.
This is an absolute trash take. I've been through the NIH grant process as a white male and there was absolutely 0 mention of diversity, DEI, or whatever other qualifying characteristic of my grant. It came totally down to the content of my proposal. You don't know what you're talking about
Research labs wholly owned and operated by large corporations were prevalent sources of innovation throughout the 20th century in the United States.
Obvious, probably for Hacker News crowd:
• Bell Labs
• Xerox PARC
• IBM Watson, Almaden Research
• Dow Chemical
I'm missing the big ones from petroleum and agricultural businesses. Aerospace.
I'm willing to believe that a political retreat from 21st century choices looks towards legendary captains of industry, rather than sprawling government bureaucracy, as a source of American greatness.
My attempt to frame this week's gleeful destruction of government institutions as a revitalization of the fountainhead.
But I don't know. It's easier to just call it the same old spiteful hatred of science that is as American as apple pie.
From my basic understanding of Bell labs, the government granted AT&T a monopoly in communications with the condition that they spend a portion of their revenue on public research. The other labs I don’t know much about, but my guess is it was either similar situations or high corporate tax rates incentivizing spending profits on research to decrease their tax burden.
Not good
Yep. Destruction of systems (orgs, ...) that take care of us.
Meanwhile, TikTok (et al) tells us to talk about ourselves ... the current focus of attention of the Fifth most popular social network of the citizens of the United States. [1] [2]
Q: how could we have avoided this pathetic crawl into encouraging stupidity?
(Feeling sad, thinking, 'Look at our Works, and cry.')
[1] https://later.com/blog/tiktok-trends/
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net...
The cynic in me thinks that the US is going to roll over and take this fascist shake down. The optimist in me thinks that the people will rise up with a resounding NO and do something about it. Right now I'm not sure which I believe.
At this point, almost certainly the former.
1. Most Trump supporters do not think that there is a problem.
2. “Regular people” — that is, the folks who don’t track news — won’t notice any problems in their day-to-day lives until after said shakedown has been completed.
The only way large swathes of people will demand action is if they are hit hard in the wallets in an immediate and clear way (e.g., rapid price increases to one or more critical goods or services) or if a critical process (e.g., social security checks) gets disrupted. I’m not sure the current types of changes will reach that level.
I don't know why you're being downvoted.
Talk to any conservative -- even people who are/were skeptical of Trump -- or browse any conservative-leaning social media. It's clear that the people who voted for Trump fully understood what they voted for: they wanted what's happening. Project 2025 is a good thing in the eyes of many. Maybe they think politicizing the whole executive branch is a little distasteful, but in the eyes of literally millions of Americans, it's a means to a well-justified and long-awaited end.
This is a very tight and succinct summary of many conversations I’ve had with conservative family and acquaintances.
The votes on my comment are going up and down like a yo-yo.
I’m pretty sure it’s because I used the term “regular people”, and I used it in quotes. I get the sense that some people are reading more into that phrase than I intended.
They believe it has already been politicized by people who hate them.
That's a great point as well. "They've been doing it to us for decades, what's happening now isn't any worse".
The Project 2025 document is really interesting along those lines as well. It's close to 1000 pages, but you can skim pretty much any section that isn't about the military and get the idea. Politicizing the executive branch is an explicitly stated goal, over and over. And furthermore, the push to disband the department of education is specifically an overly political, not because it's ineffective in its mission, but because it's "a one-stop shop for the woke education cartel" -- and yes that is a direct quote.
One thing conservatives are famously not good at is anticipating the consequences of their actions. What could possibly go wrong with immediately deporting all the people who harvest our crops?
But what if they are replaced by government workers who are made redundant? It might just balance out.
I'm not sure how a person working a desk job for the government suddenly being told to work long hours in hot fields picking crops is going to work out. And if you hadn't noticed, most people working for the government don't live in the middle of farmlands or anywhere near them. I'm not sure how you can think this could work out at all.
Your comment also tells me that this was never about immigrants taking our jobs.
You seem to be living in a right-wing fantasy world that really doesn't exist. Things are going to get really bad in the country with this administration, the first two weeks have been extremely messy. No, these policies are definitely not going to lower the price of anything - we're on track for wild inflation with these plans. The leopards are going to be well fed though!
These "regular people" that you seem to condescendingly speak about absolutely notice it at the pump and at the grocery store. They aren't mindless robots.
Boy are those folks gonna get what they voted for…
Price of eggs dropped yet?
I just had a follow up conversation with a lady at work who had said she was voting for Trump because things like eggs were too expensive. Her comment about egg prices now was that she didn't understand why liberals were saddling Trump with egg prices, because the president can't control things like that. She literally did a complete 180 on the topic seemingly without any self awareness. I don't know how to reach people like that. I honestly don't.
I fear there is no reaching some.
Orwell wrote about this in 1984 (and also, incidentally, fought fascists on the ground during the Spanish Civil War):
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
There was zero condescension in my tone or intent.
I put “regular people” in quotes simply because I think most people who do follow the news absolutely don’t realize that the vast majority of people don’t.
A simple litmus test for this is to ask random people you meet outside of your personal social and professional circles (e.g., the front desk person at the gym, a cashier at a grocery store, a rideshare driver… whatever) a simple question like “Who are our US senators?” or “What is the NIH?” I’ve done this, and the sentiment was largely “don’t know, don’t care”.
This isn’t a criticism. It’s just an observation that some issues that some folks on HN care about (e.g., details about how lesser known parts of the government function — for example, what’s happening at the NIH and NSF) just aren’t on the radar for large swathes of the population.
I think we agree on this, right?
And my point is that price changes for most things won’t hit immediately.
1. There have been delays in most of the tariffs.
2. The impact of some tariffs will take longer to hit than others. Fresh food will be fast. Goods with longer shelf lives canned goods, alcohol, and prepared foods might take a while.
If your engagement with politics, civics and public policy begins and ends with how much groceries and gas cost, then you are the perfect consumer, and something less than a thinking, rational human with agency and awareness. What is a human without curiosity or critical thinking, but a biological consuming robot? Which incidentally is what the new department of education will try to create a population of, by destroying public education.
Edit: Scratch that, they plan to abolish the department of education
Thank you for writing this in such a polite and erudite manner. You saved me from posting an obscenity laden ad hominem.
Don't states have their own DOE?
States also have their national guardsmen, does that mean it's a good idea to disband the army?
Does this mean there is no value in maintaining federal education standards, or do we want to let states decide if they want to abolish theirs as well?
Yes - and states actually control much of the curriculum.
However, the DOE does things like make sure there is funding for children with additional needs, which lets be honest, are not going to be replicated in certain states if the DOE is indeed disbanded.
From what I gather, life for most of these "regular people" in Germany was still very much in the tolerable range until well into WWII.
This was a very weird realization and one that left me pretty sad.
Edit to clarify: I also mean no condescension toward "regular people".
Correct.
I’ve heard some harrowing stories about the moment of realization straight from the mouths of some of these people.
Edit: To be clear, I’m referring to my family and their friends who lived through it.
I’d love to know more.
Probably not news, but here are a few big ones that I remember from our conversations:
1. Family member lived in a rural area. They could see the train line that ran between two major cities. I can’t remember the exact order of events (e.g., construction), but at some point they noticed packed trains turning off the main tracks to go to a facility. Packed trains went in, and empty trains came out. At first they didn’t think anything of it… just resettlement stuff or war stuff or whatever. But then it continued. And continued. The rumors started. Everything was hush hush. Nobody dared to ask the authorities. Only later did they learn that it was a concentration camp and what actually happened there. That one kind of blew my mind… they had no idea about what was going on except vague rumors, most of which were wrong.
2. One family member had access to privileged information about the war (in the later stages of the war). One bit of info they knew was about causalities, and how certain assignments were less survivable than others. The propaganda machine made it seem like it was noble to go fight the war that would inevitably be won, but this person knew with a reasonable degree of mathematical estimation that some of the kids being sent off weren’t likely to come back. They said it was tough to look those parents, especially mothers, in the eyes when they made some comment about hoping their kid came home safely. My family member knew that these parents would likely never see their son again, and all for what was looking like a lost and/or questionable war effort that was still playing on nationalist sentiments.
3. This really isn’t that interesting, but… The propaganda late in the war made it seem like Germans in general and the troops specifically were eating well with an abundance of good food, while people who actually grew the food had to do things like use sawdust and straw as filler in their bread. They had a long list of accommodations that they told me that they made so that they didn’t feel hungry, and I don’t remember them all. The cool thing is that there were ways for the rural folks to get access to food beyond the rations. Sometimes they could sneak some extra food to the city-dwelling family members, but the folks in the cities seemed to have it tougher. They were sort of bitter about how the food situation got progressively worse as the war progressed as well as the total disconnect from reality that the propaganda was presenting.
Note that these were stories that were told to me decades ago about stuff that had happened many decades before then. I’m sure that some stories were embellished while others were muted. I’m also sure that some of the details were “lost in translation” — either via my mediocre German, their mediocre English, or the limits of language assistance that some of the bilingual folks provided.
I don’t really feel like I did these stories justice.
Almost 80 years has passed, some details get lost, but it is important to keep things like that alive in our consciousnesses. Even if you didn't to justice to those stories, I still read them with attention. Thanks for them!
Thank you for the kind words.
I just remember feeling like I had been punched in the gut after some of these conversations. It was like history had come alive right before my eyes.
I remember having a few sleepless nights just processing the things I had been told.
I remember almost throwing up once (the night after the story about the trains). I just couldn’t believe the level of depravity was so easily able to exist with basically no questions asked.
I remember my naive younger self thinking about what I would have done had I been in their shoes. It didn’t take me long to realize that I probably wouldn’t have done much differently, mainly because their range of options were so limited (or at least perceived to be so, with detention, death, or “disappearing”being the consequence if you were wrong).
I also remember them talking about neighbors snitching on each other (probably to the gestapo, but it could have been another entity). Some neighbors with petty intentions would make up false claims about neighbors they didn’t like. This forced everyone to be on “perfect behavior”, and it sowed a lot of distrust in normally tight-knit communities. There was one story about a tattle-tale who had a come-uppance, but I can’t remember any of the details. I think that was the first time the word Schadenfreude came alive to me… it existed in that story on multiple levels.
Thank you for sharing!
You’re welcome.
There a little more commentary in a reply above to jventura.
The old quote, "first they came for ..." was written by a Nazi sympathizer -- until he was in jail by them. It's rooted in truth how it played out to him.
"First they came for DEI and I didn't speak out, because I was not Black..."
And what of those who speak out against it because they find it belittling personally? What of those who do not want to be included as a token or talisman, but would rather participate based upon their qualifications and merits? Are we allowed to speak out and have differing opinions on DEI or will you compare us to National Socialism collaborators?
There were plenty of companies like Coinbase that ignored DEI initiatives and requested that employees leave "politics at the door" - and we all knew what kind of politics they meant. You could have voted with your feet.
I'm fully onboard with employees asking employees to be respectful to their colleagues regardless of gender, race, creed or color, that's just good for business.
I have voted with my feet by avoiding the self-announced inclusive. My objection is specific to reducto-ad-hitlerum.
Do white people feel like tokens because the merit of other people isn’t considered?
DEI makes sure that everyone is part of the merit process.
It’s like how white people feel like Babe Ruth is an all time great, but say Josh Gibson isn’t because he played in the all black league. But playing in the all white league doesn’t count against you at all. No one considers them any less.
I am moving all of my assets to cash. Maybe no one else cares, but I do, and I would rather invest in a functional democracy.
Never know, if enough people divest , people might give a shit.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I think the former is most likely. The people are largely unhappy with how things have been and it's unlikely to get materially worse for the majority of people in the near term, so I don't think there will be a fire lit under enough of the population to rise up.
If it gets bad enough that most people are starving, rather then just struggling, we'll see action, but I doubt it'll get there anytime soon.
That’s pretty optimistic…
This is an understatement to say the least, and the fact it's been denied and even refused by the powers that be until today is why the pendulum has swung as hard as it has.
Americans wanted change, and they finally got it with ferocious retribution because it's been held back for so long.
Like the old Mencken quote:
`Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.`
The sentiment I get in this regards is that people are angry and want to "burn it to the ground", without any thought of what might possibly take its place.
The weird thing is these same people will tell you the US is the greatest place on Earth and if you don't like, then leave!
The real U.S. In these people's minds, the federal government and its millions of employees are a parasite sucking the blood of the real U.S., not a part of it. I will leave analogies as an exercise to the reader.
Exactly. Freeways and airports and fallow fields fully paid for. Cheap imports and complete and utter physical security. BLM land to hunt and graze and drill and fell. Rivers that don't catch on fire, not even a little bit. And it would be so much better without the got-damn'd feds.
They literally worship the flag.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin
More like Americans repeatedly vote for change, because the change they got four years earlier was too bad. It reminds me of Chile, which keeps oscillating between socialist and conservative presidents every four years.
I'm confused. Are you saying specifically that you think the experiences described in this article are for the good of the country? Or do you think they're an exaggeration/lie.
I don’t think that’s what the comment said at all. You’re extrapolating too much.
Explaining the pendulum swinging violently because folks didn’t feel heard is not the same thing as saying that it’s a good thing that the pendulum has swung so violently.
I'm a Trump voter (2016, 2020, and 2024) so I obviously find all this a good thing, just for transparency.
That said, that is tangential and irrelevant to explaining how and why the pendulum swung back as hard as it did.
Trump won his first term in 2016 because Americans were fed up with the Bush+Obama status quo of endless wars and waste. Drain the swamp, fuck the establishment! As the sentiment of the day went; remember Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party? Biden winning 2020 was a sharp rebuke by the powers that be; how dare the people demand change and elect an outsider, how dare the people demand peace and effective government. Biden and Harris's 2024 campaigns likewise were based strictly and ultimately on continuing the status quo; Harris "had no policy" in large part because the "policy" was the status quo.
Trump winning again in 2024 with a historic campaign is a sharp rebuke to that, he is the people's retribution for being denied and refused for so long time and time again. For voters like me and us, NASA and the like having their funding slashed and denied is merely collateral damage for a greater and long-awaited cause.
Trump won his first term in 2016 because Americans were fed up with the Bush+Obama status quo of endless wars and wast
Does this include threatening Greenland with military action or does it not count as war if there is little resistance to be expected?
Or now Gaza. I guess they don’t count trade wars. Dalewyn could have his family deported and still think Trump is doing the right thing. I gave up responding.
And no Trump supporter can actually spell out clearly what that cause is besides "own the outgroup" and a religious faith in everything getting better for the cult member despite every single piece of evidence pointing to the contrary (unless you already happen to be a billionaire, of course). And I mean religious in the literal sense: a belief that some ill-defined paradise awaits the true believers and it will be worth it in the end even though it kind of hurts that their faces are being gnawed by the leopards (but at least the outgroup’s faces are being eaten too so it’s all right).
Burning the system down because of hurt pride doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
Your agent of retribution is now threatening my country.
It's because of people like you that I now have to start thinking of what I have to do if they start massing troops in Buffalo. No wars indeed...
And just so you know, invading us will never work. You are right to not want the US to enter a war. Because it has lost every war it has ever started.
Oh no the consequences of your incredibly stupid decisions!
NASA is ripe for some cuts. The Senate Launch System is a waste; both Space-X and Blue Origin have cheaper big boosters. There are too many NASA centers. The Space Force can take over Canaveral. The moon base should be all robots.
It sucks that the guy currently in charge of cost cutting has a blatant conflict of interest in getting rid of the SLS. It really does need to go, but he's not the one to do it.
It just needs something small to be taken away or happen that ignite and capture the collective imagination.
Something small like in-person gatherings for several years in response to a pandemic? Like someone else in the thread claimed was a made-up problem that's only in peoples' heads?
It's really interesting seeing how widely varied peoples' definitions of these things are.
The pandemic was a national emergency. Covid was an extremely contagious disease without a lot of existing immunity. The right call was made for the safety of several hundred million Americans. Most other countries made the exact same one.
I wouldn't say most other countries made the exact same call, only because there are plenty of people who think we didn't go far enough. When the comment I was referring to said "Covid response in the US wasn't that bad," I actually wasn't sure whether they were saying the lockdowns weren't that bad or their effectiveness wasn't that bad. (I can kind of assume the former based on the rest of their messaging, but still, there's a range of opinions people had/have about it.)
I'm glad to have lived in a country where they had strict lock downs pre-vaccine. I imagine there are funerals I didn't have to go to as a result. But flip side people could claim I was under martial law etc. stripped of my freedoms.
I thank NZ for leading the way.
I'd love the fact that NZ went ahead and banned tobacco cigarettes if I lived there (sad they wimped out on it before it went into effect), but there are plenty of people who'd be very upset about that here in the US. And I'd love it if we banned cannabis again here, but again, there are a lot of people who that'd piss off. I can understand where they're coming from even if I think they're idiots for using recreational (sometimes toxic) drugs.
People only care about the freedoms to do things they themselves enjoy. Nothing new about that. Much like people only care about authoritarian overreach when the opposition is in power. We should always care, because the power taken by one will remain for the next. Eventually if too much power accrues to any branch it will end the separation of powers. It may have already happened, and once it does, there are no parties, only that boot. Authoritarians are all the same party, they exist at the integer wrap of left vs right. It is why you see extremists from both ends swapping parties far more often than those towards the middle.
The majority of americans aren't paying much attention and aren't going to notice things are off until things have really gone off the rails, but by then it'll be too late. There's also a lot of "It can't happen here" attitude (apparently because we're special or something) which is exactly the kind of conditions that make it more likely to happen.
Living in Germany quickly made me understand that Germans were not special - as in, did not have some unique weakness that made them particularly susceptible to fascism. The corollary, that Americans did not have some innate virtue that prevented it, took longer to really get through my thick head.
American Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug.
The weird spanner in the works is that while people may be unhappy, they are unhappy because of things they believe that aren't true. Covid response in the US wasn't that bad; global warming really is causing the floods and fires and hurricanes and the EVs really are helping, as would methane emissions rules and so on; if people think the bi-coastal elites are looking down on them (and they are), like so what; that's not a serious problem. If the wealthy don't pay enough taxes, the middle class will be harmed. Making sure black folks and other historically disadvantaged groups do better will raise the quality of life for all of us; if we don't encourage the successful migration and acculturation of people from around the world, our population will decline and our economy will decline. If we don't invest in science, we will loose power and knowledge to those that do. The entitled white folks that teased all the kids that were good at math and science in the 1970s etc. might wish it weren't so, but it is so.
But they now believe that movie actors are drinking the blood of babies and that China somehow rigged up the increase in CO2 as a way to confound us. They think scientists are mostly lying.
It's not clear from an information theoretic perspective how to restore stability to the US system.
Maybe once they've killed a million immigrants, I'm sorry had excess mortality in the camps in the hot SW and in Cuba, and things all around them are worse for their own children and families, they will repent and embrace truth, justice and the American way. One can hope.
It's a third rail to touch but important: "wokism" has been weaponized by the right, and for low information voters (i.e., a majority of the population), voting is an emotional act. Hate and anger are powerful emotions.
...what?
Trump's son-in-law was put in charge of supply distribution, refused to invoke the defense production act, and when they finally did, Trump took ages to actually "order" ventilators. They refused to implement testing because they knew that tests would show how bad things were and justify measures that would hurt the stock market.
Trump largely didn't do anything at first because COVID-19 was most severely impacting the coastal blue states because of higher population densities.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/did-trump-kushner-igno...
and https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-th...
They routed supplies away from blue states to red states. He sent ventilators to Russia, FFS:
https://ru.usembassy.gov/delivery-of-u-s-ventilators-to-russ...
Trump told states to get their own PPE (because blue states needed them more badly than red states, and he didn't want red states to have to pay for it), then the feds outbid state agencies for PPE. And when that didn't work, just outright had customs steal them:
https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-deman...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/how-the-federal-gove...
Our state's orders for PPE was impounded at the port by the feds, who them claimed they had no idea what anyone was talking about. Our state got a bunch of PPE because the NFL football team owner sent his team's 737 to China to pick up masks and gowns (which turned out to have all sorts of problems, like being sized for children.)
Our governor stopped just shy of saying "yes" when asked if he'd sent state troopers into NYC to meet the plane and escort the truck.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/04/14/baker-mum-on-whether-st...
"Will be"? It's been going on for decades. Bush and Trump tax cuts made it even worse and skyrocketed the deficit to boot.
Ugh it sucks to be reminded of all that bullshit. Though it's good not to forget.
But I think the earlier comment may have been referring to the restrictions in the US relative to other countries. Most other countries were much more severe for their lockdowns
I think what the commenter meant to address was the right-wing perception that mask mandates and shutdowns were the first step that ends with the government taking away your guns.
The president just threatened Greenland with military action. That is absolutely fucking unprecedented in living memory, and well before.
And that passed without much more than an exasperated sigh.
No, I think the populace will go along with whatever these folks deem acceptable. It’s like a bad movie.
The latest is that the US is gonna take over Gaza and deport everyone there. I do wonder if there's any hot button items anymore.
My (perhaps naive) take is that we all got “Trump immunity” from the first time around the rollercoaster and understand that a lot of it is ineffective bluster that never goes anywhere. Look at the tariffs that’s already been “delayed”.
In a normal administration, gutting the NSF would be the main story. If his statements on Gaza are indeed just bluster, they still succeed in focusing attention away from his current actual actions.
I'm not American, but my read of this announcement looks something like:
* The Trump Administration doesn't believe in the two state solution stalemate. * They have leverage over The Netanyahu Administration in Israel due to the ongoing military support needed. * The Netanyahu Administration wants to incorporate Gaza into Israel as also doesn't believe in two state solution but cannot do so without repercussions. * US could take over Gaza as the West won't sanction it, China needs to sell to it, RoW not an issue. * Trump wants US to take over Gaza, use US corps and workers to rebuild paid for by Israel, and then sell back to Israel at a later time.
I don't agree with that position but I think that's what the deal looks like overall.
What does Israel produce that we want? Are they paying cash for this service, seems expensive, how did they manage to get so much US dollars?
They are the US's proxy against Iran in the Middle East, primarily, which makes it a strategic relationship. Addition, based on the 2022 data, the US imported $21BB from Israel and had a trade deficit of ~$7BB.
If I have to hire a hitman to take out my mistress I'm going to just opt to not have a mistress. I guess we will have never ending reasons for needing a proxy against Iran?
When their children are being drafted to go die in some war things will change rapidly. I'd give it a coin flip that's where we're headed right now.
EDIT: To be clear, that's predicated on assumption things are fundamentally different here and now from Germany in the 1930s. If not, we're already cooked.
It's hard to take stuff like this seriously. Even if you're worried about fascism specifically, why Germany in the 1930s and not Italy in the 1920s? The latter seems more relevant to the present moment. I think the reason is that the German Nazis are the bad guys of history and these kinds of comparisons have less to do with historical parallels but more with Godwin's Law.
The economic conditions that were present in both Italy and Germany in the inter war years just aren't present here and now. That's why I think there's a chance we can avoid fascism. Or maybe I'm wrong. We'll find out!
With all these things, part of why it's so exhausting is having to deal with most of the statements being totally bullshit. They chuck around threats without restraint, but they only carry out some of them. So far.
Protesting for Gaza was squashed last time by basically everyone, and will be again.
Nine missed meals.
If it gets bad enough that most people are starving, rather then just struggling, we'll see action, but I doubt it'll get there anytime soon.
It's mostly too late to do anything at that point. People won't even have money for ammo.
Something depressingly self defeating about people paying money into the system to acquire ammo for the purposes of..
bringing down the system?
Win or lose, I'm thinking money is flowing up to the same people.
lol yeah...
Deport all the people who harvest crops, and people in the US will be starving pretty quickly. It could happen within 1 year. And this is exactly the track we are on right now.
I don't really get this argument or why it's adopted by left-wing commentators. It assumes that supply and demand don't exist and the agricultural industry couldn't get workers if they paid market rates for such labor. It's basically advocating for immigration as a way to subsidize the agricultural industry by giving them a desperate workforce they can exploit.
You can't make a change like this, this quickly, and expect people not to starve. Crops will be literally rotting on the vine while farmers desperately plead for people to work long hours in hot fields for low wages. Do you know anyone who would do that? No? I don't either. I'm not sure how you expect farmers that work on thin margins to suddenly be able to offer a higher wage that Americans would do this work for. It's honestly insanity to expect this to work out in the short term.
I'm not sure why conservative commentators can't see the result of this knee-jerk policy of deporting every illegal immigrant, and even those with birthright citizenship. It's a scorched earth policy, and you are only going to reap ashes from it.
Reposting because my previous comment was unjustly flagged: The US just facilitated a genocide in the previous administration. This is not just me saying this - this is the consensus ruling of the International Court of Justice at the UN.
Barring all of the hyperbole of your comment, I find it astounding how you're unaware of this with such a "thumb on the pulse" of world news:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/feb/04/benjamin-...
Trump said Palestinians have “no alternative” but to “permanently” leave Gaza due to the devastation left by Israel’s war on Hamas. He described Gaza as a “pure demolition site” and claimed Palestinians would “love to leave Gaza”. “I don’t know how they could want to stay,” he said.
Trump’s comments marked the first time he has publicly floated the permanent relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. The US president’s remarks in effect endorsed ethnic cleansing of the territory over the opposition of Palestinians and the neighbouring countries.
Trump is literally for completely ridding Gaza of the Palestinians so Israel can colonize it. An ACTUAL genocide.
This was the goal of the Biden administration. The difference now is that without Israel demolishing Gaza every day, the resistance has demonstrated they cannot be dislodged. Trump has no credibility. They simply cannot do it and both the U.S. and Israeli officials that enabled this are war criminals that should be prosecuted immediately.
Hasbara bots are out in extreme force.
you said it brother (or sister)
The consensus ruling of the International Court of Justice is not hyperbole, it's a fact. Are you going to call the UN antisemitic like Benjamin Netanyahu did?
And actually, you in fact can argue that Trump has been better on the issue than Biden. Multiple news outlets have reported that it was Trump that forced the ceasefire:
- https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-forced-netanyahu-to-make-a...
- https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64825
- https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-01-13/ty-article/.p...
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-sway...
Everything you find with regarding Trump is rhetoric while his actions have been much more peaceful than Biden's.
Which brings me back to my main point: it's absurd and hysterical to be claiming that Trump is uniquely fascist here. Whoever is freaking out now about him, and was not freaking out about Biden, is a fraud and should be called out as a fraud.
The US was telling Israel to hold back and trying to get aid into Gaza. That's not happening anymore. https://abcnews.go.com/International/shutting-usaid-major-im...
The US was in favor of a two state solution. The US is now saying that half of one state, by population, is no longer available. It's clear to anyone with two neurons to rub together that the other half is gone within the next four years.
Kinda amazing that Trump had been acting as de facto president all year even before the election - telling Congress what to do, meeting with Netanyahu, Putin, tons of other heads of state, and he now suggests that Israel just get handed Gaza. Just like Bibby wanted.
ICJ has not done so; it will take years to make a determination. (And it should fail IMHO).
And I don't think that the US was mentioned by the ICJ, even if it had confirmed genocide.
they ruled that it was plausible enough to pursue the case
Time to leave HN for me. It's become a cesspool of this vitriol.
s/sess/cess
upvoted
Which bit of that is vitriol?
If I were to be fair to cft the comment does really seem much different than ones which said they can't wait for people to rise up against Biden because he's a communist. I.e. just a short comment throwing charged political labels rather than discussion the actual meat under consideration.
I'm not all that big a fan of that style comment rising to the top threads like this myself, even though I likely lean very opposite of cft on political matters and what I think the impact of this will be like.
BTW, I have a written many (widely cited) papers supported by NSF grants during my PhD and postdoc. So it's not a political view, my practical opinion is that NSF needs to be cleaned up. A lot of big grant money goes to outright hopelessly useless stuff.
There are extremely well cited papers for and against various COVID-19 topics but you could sooner convince me the Earth is cube shaped than research publishings in academia are free from being politically charged.
The thing I find strange is that the other wealthy and powerful stand for the destruction of things that gave the US a huge competitive advantage. The average person isn't hit immediately by the destruction of science. But a far-sighted person with some power should by self-interest not want this.
And this, I think, points to the corruption of the entire political class in America with just being upshot.
Elon can live anywhere in the world. Very rich people are global citizens. They cannot be patriotic.
A few countries may not want him after this.
We allow them to live. Never forget how much we outnumber them by.
So shrill.
Who are "we"? Software engineers with comfortable lives? Minimum wage workers? Police force? Military?
wE
What if I don’t agree with you - am I still one of “we”?
We also don't have a hive mind.
I believe that what we're not accounting for is the belief among many wealthy people that scientific research and all other intellectual labor will soon be automated by AI.
I believe that what those wealthy people aren't accounting for is the need for some class of humans to act as a translation layer between the expert AI systems and the rest of us in order to allow the discoveries and results to percolate through human institutions.
Or, rather, they may be underestimating the bottleneck that will be introduced by trying to hoard all of those results within their own circles of trust and influence.
More fucking morons. The gap with biomedical research isn't in the realm of language models, but in the amount of information that exists in biology that we don't know. I'm not sure what percentage of all the genetic data on Earth we've sequenced, but it's not much, and we still don't quite have a mechanical understand of a single cell, much less some complex multicellular organisms with proteins affecting gene expression, cell membrane receptors being reused in 50 different tissue types, molecular secretion and diffusion altering our minds functioning, and electrical currents synchronizing brain firing at a distance.
No LLM trained on PubMed will be able to suss this all out - more data is needed.
Even in pure mathematics, where I am currently a grad student and as needed a big fan of trying to get LLMs to explain stuff to me at 1 am, they just aren't that good. If it's a popular question where I could have tried math overflow, sure, it's probably just going to get some details weirdly wrong, but for subtle complex concepts, it's not making some golden age of truth and understanding.
And God help the LLMs trying to understand physics that are trained on all the BS on Youtube and the blogs.
But are they wrong? I'm pretty sure that I can ask any LLM to produce a followup for "Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" and get one as good, or even better than the original. Lack of percolation would actually be an improvement.
Sure, LLMs may indeed produce plausible bs akin to the classic bs paper you mention. But it should be considered that all science is being gutted, including unambiguously substantial fields (biology, physics, chemistry).
The wealthy will just take their money and leave the country.
And for all you HN readers supporting these massive changes: you'd test changes beforehand and plan their deployment carefully if this were software. So why why do you support explicitly not doing those things when the livelihood of 300 million people depend on the economy being stable?!?
And before the inevitable derail or whatabout attempt: Don't play political games with people's lives.
And, again, everything is political, including every aspect of discussions on HN.
Where do you suppose they will go? Russia?
Culture warriors only care about about their "side" winning. It's not an intellectual battle, but an emotional one. Rules be damned, their side is winning and dishing out retribution for, and rolling back decades of defeat on the battle for social values - civil rights, race mixing, gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, and the gall to elect a black president, BLM, #metoo, etc.
Precisely. This is probably not a long-term constructive plan, but rather "they punched me, I'm gonna punch them back 10x harder." (didn't Trump even say something like that before?)
Vengeance can make people do crazy things and the craziest thing is how people don't realize vengeance can destroy them just as much, if not more than their intended target. Not so much shooting ourselves in the foot, more like stabbing ourselves in the heart.
My life and work is to help people to realize how responding with hate or indifference will destroy us, and that responding with love is the only way through.
They don’t need anything else though. Technological advancements helps society as a whole but if you have more money that you could ever spend who cares?
You can buy another countries tech if it benefits you or just move.
Yeah, Elon is mostly wealthy because of the USA and what is gave him. The fact he wants to destroy it seems seriously self-destructive.
You can see it just here - Paul Graham made money making a web store in the 1990s (which I can tell you wasn't that hard), then investing his money in a bunch of internet startup (a bit rarer, but I feel like a large percentage of the people that wanted to be rich and had 1 start-up success in the 1990s succeeded); he regards this as equivalent to inventing the standard model of particle physics or inventing the mRNA vaccines, rather than a reasonable capable person at a very lucky time to be good at programming.
Andreesson has the same blindness - he wrote the first web browsers (having not invented HTTP or the web or browsers) and parleyed that into a fortune by investing. I guess he's a skilled investor, a smart financial person, but there is no evidence that he has some special science expertise or extraordinary intelligence. From my observations, one can understand nothing about science or the physical world and do well with software and investing.
As far as "far-sighted," the history from 1980 onwards is the destruction of many things in society devoted to the long view in favor of short-term financialization.
By the time there is any actual mass recognition of what is happening, nevermind any attempt to intervene, it will be far too late.
There was a successful coup and the USA as such has fallen, now presumably on the route to failing.
Not a coup. Trump said he was going to dismantle the government, and the majority empowered him to do so.
If we want to predict things, look no further than Project 2025
An auto coup is still a coup.
I live in the US; born here, lived here all my life.
The former is 100% how it will go. The only question is: how bad will it get?
A poster down thread mentions a million dead immigrants. I personally think it will just be in the low 6 figures. Maybe high 5 figures.
It wouldn't take much of that to completely destroy the U.S. food supply chain. Those 9 meals separating us all from anarchy will go by quick.
So I am moving all my money to cash, I would rather not invest in a fascist state.
I thought the US has quite a bit more people than millions in total, regardless of which groups you wish to include or exclude.
If only HN had a reminder option.
The doom and gloom in these comments is truly funny. I remember the exact same when Trump won the first time.
It’s like HN has no memory.
Trump was surrounded by establishment Republicans last time.
This time no checks and balances exist within the administration, and the supreme court has been turned.
I wish I could laugh.
Yeah this thread is like being on Reddit. "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" The hyperbole was thick and fast last time he was elected, with accusations of fascism and certain doom. It turns out, he didn't in fact blow up the world. Quite the opposite. He was the first president in decades not to start a new war. People were inoculated during that first term against hyperbole. Even if "fascism" were to appear now (and I firmly believe it has not), people would no longer care. Well done those of you who cried wolf so vociferously. Trump is president because of you.
I think it’s distinctly not funny people who voted for a rapist think they’re good people.
Trump as POTUS ordered the VPOTUS to overturn an election, and when Mike Pence refused the order, Trump sent a mob to have the VPOTUS assassinated. It’s distinctly not funny, though very memorable, that people who voted for Trump again think of themselves as American patriots.
I remember the racist lie of birtherism.
You can grab them by the pussy, they let you do it. I remember it.
I think some are addicts to the anger, drama, and depravity of Trump TV. Perhaps they can be treated like drug, sex, and shopping addicts.
The stupid and malicious are probably lost for our lifetime. The best thing to do is cut them off. They’re not good people. They voted for a rapist, that’s how desperate and low they’ve become.
I remember Mike Pence boilerplate Republicanism wasn’t good enough. Trumpers want and need an abuser. They voted for that, not despite it.
A good deal why we’re here is liberals coddled Trumpers, forgave them in advance, helped to normalize the depravity by inviting Trumper friends and family to all the usual social functions, despite the insanity. We were too nice. And this is permission. We gave them permission all along.
Kick abusers to the curb. All of them. They’re not good people. Stop trying to make them better by lying about who and what they are. Stop normalizing the depravity. That’s the beginning.
It’s absolutely fascinating how divorced from reality people’s worldview can get to the point that the level of arrogance gets so high that people proudly declare their responsibility to be judge, jury and executioner of vast swaths of the permanently unredeemable population.
Ironically I assume this is how people like Hitler took power.
“Kick Jews to the curb. All of them. They’re not good people. Stop trying make them better by lying about who they are. Stop normalizing the depravity. That’s the beginning.”
It’s almost like I’m reading the moustache man’s words himself.
You replaced my word "abusers" with "Jew". Abusers should be kicked to the curb. Jews were not ever merely kicked to the curb during WW2, they were mass murdered.
Your attempt to be treated as some sort of victim is denied.
Wouldn't rise up lead to a coup? Isn't this exactly what Trump is waiting / routing for?
Roughly half the voting population wants a king. It's not just rolling over, this is welcomed with open arms.
I try to understand how the "other side" is thinking about this. Disagreements on policy aside, why would "freedom loving Americans" want a king that can rule unilaterally?
Not trying to start a flame war or pose a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
I think you're misrepresenting. His side won, and now they get to do what they want. It's always that way, no? Like, isn't that the point of an election?
They get to do what they want within the rules established by the courts and constitution.
And this time, people don't seem to care about that anymore. Despite the right supposedly being the group that's all about the constitution and rule of law.
That's true in theory, but it's not what's happened in the recent past. A lot of the problems Trump faces are due to "rules" established by the civil service itself - often directly and unashamedly just to spite him, and stop him implementing the policies he campaigned and won on. There's no theory of government in which this is supposed to play a part.
For example, the civil service passed new rules in the dying days of the Biden administration intended to stop Trump implementing Schedule F. This didn't come from Congress or the courts. They just passed it themselves. Trump is the boss so can undo that rule with a new rule, but they passed it within a framework of yet more rules they made themselves to slow that down so - if followed - it will take months. This is purely self serving protectionism and has nothing to do with democracy or the Constitution.
There's an interesting document here [1] that goes into all the ways the civil service betrayed Trump in the first term. Betrayal is a correct and moderate term to use. They were doing things like forging documents, lying to appointees about non-existent laws, refusing to prosecute legally clear cut cases in order to propagate woke ideology (e.g. discrimination against Asian Americans), deliberately keeping their bosses in the dark, refusing direct orders to do work if it would run contra to woke ideology and many more things.
From the Trump team's perspective the rules are largely fake: when they align with what the left want they're followed to the letter, when they don't they're ignored or subverted without consequence. He played that game in his first term, and is apparently no longer willing to do so. It's hard to know what Congress will do but presumably they're aware of the fact that their own laws have created this situation to some extent (even if not the full extent). It wouldn't be surprising to see civil service reform bills appear soon.
[1] https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Tales_fr...
This is resistance. It is justified. Expect more of it.
OK, well, but that sword cuts in both directions. There has been eight years of subversive #resistance to Trump and now he holds the whip hand, with allies who are highly effective. What's happening now is their own #resistance.
This is false equivalence.
There is such a thing as true and false, and there is such a thing as right and wrong.
I know which side's views and plans are almost always on the side of the false and the wrong.
One side wants to divide, one tries to unite, one seeks the truth, the other side does more than lie, it attempts to erase the very notion of truth. One side denigrates, insults and immiserates the weak and the poor. The other attempts to lift them up.
Often in a moral quandary ask yourself 'Which position would be more difficult for me to take?' that's a strong indicator of what is right.
It's easy to divide, denigrate, spread rumours, and to make statements without regards to truth or falsehood. It's easy to hate, to dehumanise and to cause pain.
I've said it in another post. Why are there so many people ready to line up to defend the powerful against the weak, the rich against the poor?
What a brave and noble purpose! I'd love to see you defend that.
No that's not how elections work, there's supposed to be a separation of power. In theory, he only has the executive branch.
Democracy isn't electing kings.
You’re describing an autocracy, a dictatorship. Of course they aren’t allowed to do what they want, there’s supposed to be this thing called the rule of law, "checks and balances", separation of powers, any of that ring a bell? Plus a two-party system is a fundamentally malignant example of democracy, not to even mention the crazy amount of power the POTUS has compared to well-functioning democracies.
I didn't mean "do what they want" as in ignoring law.
I meant "do what they want" as in: the winning party gets to choose the policy. The winning party can ignore the will of the losing party.
Not an American, but my 2c - a good chunk of people are actively trying to find a reason why their lives are worse than others, haven't gotten better in decades, and are seeing how life is fine across the pond despite not being the richest country in the world. They'll keep blaming everyone, and everything, and whatever comes into their sights. At the same time group of people will exploit it for their gains, as "fighting for a cause" is historically the best way to somewhat control people's emotions.
Every week a new target will be set, and no matter what will be done, people won't realize that the cause of their own problems are internal. Canada, Denmark, Mexico, Panama, you name it. At the same time there's a superpower (China) that is actively trying to unseat the leader. Superpower with more people, better manufacturing, more potential for the future income, more manpower, not cool with getting bullied and etc. That will also make the citizens unhappy, because "how dare China be better than us?!".
It also doesn't help that Americans aren't having children, which is objectively bad for the future of the leadership. The push for natalism, banning contraceptives, choice and etc. is points towards "you will have children no matter what and you will love it" scenario.
It's like a culmination of multiple problems that have been left rampant for the past couple of decades. Now they're trying to frantically swing the pendulum, but there's a chance that they'll end up pulling it a bit too hard so it will break.
I don't disagree with any of this and I can definitely see this in the election results. But this has been the case for a while now. The US has lagged other developed nations on many indicators for a long time. Income inequality, life expectancy, education, you name it. There was a lot of heated debates and intense feelings during the Obama era too.
But this time around something seems to have changed, where his supporters are ok with trump and team doing whatever. Be a forever president, rip up the constitution, rule by decree.
But ... I'm not American, I'm just looking in from the outside, but to me it seems that all these things (income inequality, life expectancy, education, ...) are things that the Democrats try to improve while the Republicans want to limit social security, decent health care, and try to tear down decent education. Yet people vote Republican? To try to improve the things that Republicans will not improve?
It's a sentiment I often see, not just here, and I just don't understand it.
An alternative perspective from someone say in the de-industrialized US Midwest four years after Obama was elected would be something like the following. They voted in Obama. Instead of improving income inequality, life expectancy, education, etc., the Democrats brought in a bunch of social changes. Life expectancy lowered in the US and I think lowered even more in the Midwest (mostly because of drug use, but economic factors must have contributed to drug use). In the end the Democrats didn't improve anything and they voted in Trump.
Biden comes in, it was similar, maybe worse because of inflation and increased income inequality. Imposed a bunch of social changed as well. Democrats say a bunch of things and all that ends up happening is a bunch of social changes that most of the country find strange. Now we have Trump again.
Did that help things?
Democrats say they want to improve these things, then get in office and worry more about trivialities then doing the work of governing.
A green new deal that set out to get electricity to people's houses at $0.08/kwh and stood a reasonable chance of doing so would have been a great start. That's not what it was, alas.
You can't just look at what the parties say they want to do when they're in power. You have to look at what they actually spend their time and energy on while in power.
Both parties are pretty hypocritical when it comes to stated goals vs revealed goals.
My sister is naturalized American, and the way she describes it — even if dems were well-intentioned, they had no guts to pull the trigger to make things better. Because pulling that trigger will, for sure, hurt a lot of people and they care about their image.
I can see some truth to it while living across the border. The things move extremely slow due to enormous amount of legislative barriers and opposition. When you make any big disruptive change, obviously families will suffer, incomes will be lost and etc. So, if you want gigantic changes (good or bad) for a huge country, you need either backing of super majority of people or ability to be above the law because everyone would be afraid to go after you. From my point of view, that’s why China can do drastic changes to their established sectors (tech, private education, construction and etc.) and keep pivoting as necessary. Sure, I don’t agree with their political ideology. However they have an enormous bureaucracy that will sit down and rewrite laws when the goals change.
I’ve met some Republicans throughout my travels, and after some drinks have heard how they want to feel proud of their country. How they used to be proud of their land, origins and etc. Nowadays, they just don’t feel it.
It would be very dumb of me to generalize, but when a good chunk of people don’t feel proud of anything in their lives, it shows signs of cultural weakness. A weakness that’s incredibly easy to exploit as the feeling of pride actually feels good. Current admins are giving a sense of hope that they’ll restructure entire government to some point where citizens will be proud of their progress.
Because, for many, Christianity|Whiteness|Capitalism|Patriarchy|* is a more sacred and immediate value than Democracy. (You are beginning to see this on the left, albeit with different values, with the inteolerant woke, and those who demand you vote "blue no matter who".)
This is classic anacyclosis in action so none of this is surprising to me. I've talked about this for years, hell even here on HN.
We're at the final stage of the cycle—ochlocracy. (Mob rule)
I don't think Trump will be king, to be blunt he's too old and not skilled enough.
I'm worried about the next guy or the one after that.
There was just an election! The people literally just voted for this.
What is happening is a good thing. rm corruption -rf
The corruption is currently in the White House, they could start there?
Ah, yes. Billionaires who funded the campaign with hundreds of millions, being delegated powers that the president does not have the authority to delegate, getting free access to classified information without any clearance, demanding things they have no authority to demand, promising buy-outs they have no authority or intention to ever honor (if you believe otherwise, I have a hell of a lot of bridges to sell you), crippling programs and agencies meant to keep normal hard-working citizens safe and healthy, everything in order to steal as much taxpayer money as possible? That corruption?
The only government efficiency they’re concerned with is the efficiency of funneling other people’s money into their own pockets. Even Putin’s oligarch buddies are nowhere that bold nor think they’re that much above the law.
Some people think politicians make money in corrupt ways but the richest people in the world do it through very clean ways. Almost as if very very rich people are super genius, but the semi-rich people are just corrupt.
Ironically, the essence of a confidence trick, or con artistry, is to convince people that you're superhuman, much much much smarter than everyone else.
This will probably decide it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If one party wants to do things democratically at all cost, and the other party wants to bring down democracy, then the latter will win.
Sure. I can’t tell you how much I love my tax dollars fluffing the pockets of god knows what while also having to deal with insane inflation due to no accountability in government. More than have the country welcomes the purge
He's an old man. I don't know whether to hope he dies of old age soon or to hope he doesn't because that would mean JD Vance would become president.
Seems like a good opportunity for other countries to recruit scientists.
I think its underappreciated how much of America's modern success comes down to attracting scientists and intellectuals from war torn europe in the 30s-50s.
I hold the idea that brain drain, i.e. emigration of skilled people, is one of only a small handful of real methods to hold fascism to account.
With that, as things start to get real bad it seems leaving is something of a moral duty for anyone who cares, has skills that hold real weight, and can still afford to do so.
Obviously where this "real bad" point is is hard to say, and there's important tradeoffs to consider. I also could be talked out of this position but from what I see it seems about accurate.
There were skilled people in the French and Dutch resistances, as well.
And really who would choose to stay in 1938 Germany if you could leave. Even if you are some rich upper class Herr Doktor Professor, life for the next 20 years in Germany wasn't that great compared to England or the US. Why risk having your children killed paratrooping into Greenland. The world is still quite beautiful and quite full of kind people.
Interestingly, Werner Heisenberg was decidedly non-Nazi (and was regularly attacked as a “white jew”), and even though he had ample opportunity to leave, he chose to stay to work on the German nuclear fission program.
I don’t think it tarnished his scientific legacy, but it definitely created some friction in the post-war years.
It's funny how the politicization of science in Nazi Germany led to things like "Aryan physics" to counter the "Jewish physics" of Einstein's relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
Along with the flight/expulsion/imprisonment/murder of top scientists who weren't ideologically or racially "pure", it's no wonder their nuclear program was such a failure.
I am withdrawing my money from the US stock market. Other people might not give a shit, but I want to invest my money in a functional democracy.
Out of curiosity, where are you moving your money to?
It works better when there is some viable alternative. Research job market is terrible in Europe right now because our governments are trying to make a US like system (project driven and without stability) but without putting the money. There isn't a lot of space in the world to accomodate US brain drain. A bit in Japan, a bit in Europe, most of it in China maybe.
This is the obvious conclusion. As the US trashes its own research ability other countries can offer good conditions to the scientists. I've never seen an own-goal so great.
I want to believe some will move for lifestyle reasons, but the problem is the post war IPO landscape (post 1980s really) across biotech and ICT has made one stark barrier: USA is a place where you can go from $100k to $100m vesting if you are lucky. That very few do achieve this isn't the point: you cannot do it, in almost any other economy.
You have to be socially smart enough to see that a $100k salary and lifestyle outcome for your remaining working career is enough, if not better than the prospect of uplift into mega-wealth, if your IPR pans out the right way.
For career scientists who were on the NSF grant train, they'd cracked a magic egg open. Beneficial to both them and us, society at large. Well, the other economies do fund research. They fund it badly compared to the NSF, the paperwork burden is less I am sure, but so is the size of the pot and the duration. You may well spend more time hassling next grant, than doing the grant funded work.
I've known US scientists who moved to my economy (OZ) and they say its a great place to live, but they keep ties to US funded research because its what made them attractive to the non-US university or corporate research environment. If that tie is going to be cut, they're competing against one quality only: skill. Sure, a more level playing field. But that, and english language competency aside, it will be a competition against scientists from the rest of the world, who also used to go to the USA and now are seeking jobs in other economies.
I totally agree with you. Scientist originally from the UK who moved to the Bay Area. Salaries are much much better here
I will say that for myself, money is a means to an end for living a “good” life. I am starting to wonder personally where the line is for the trade off between salary and its ability to translate into a good life here in the US
I should say $100k was a terribly bad choice of salary, for either $USD or "$plausible other economy" -the key point came across I think. Your decision to move on would be made even harder by the IRS: you have a very long tail of consequence for your 401k/roth, property, and even just income: they want to know worldwide income for a long, long time. I almost took a gig in the US from Australia and realized I'd drop out of lifetime rating in the Australian private health insurance model, I'd lose payment to australian superannuation and the US versions I made would not be considered tax friendly income, unless I spent a lot of time and money with an accountant. I decided against the move for other reasons but financial complexity paid it's part.
Having said that, I got stung by 49c in the doller on my British USS Pension transfer in (I'm 63) for the lump sum. Sometimes, you just can't win.
That's a kind of lottery-mentality that Europe doesn't want to attract anyway.
the problem with the European thinking you describe is not lottery vs sure-thing, it's the idea that everybody within a geography should should think the same way and not all mentalities "belong".
Not at all. It’s that we experienced several times, first-hand, that some mentalities and mindsets systematically drive our societies to discord, war and death.
And to those mentalities… yes we ought to remind they’re not welcome.
gee, no matter how many times Europe has told the Jews that they are not welcome, they've kept coming back, bringing ses penchants for assessing capital risk in middleman trade, and hedging financial risks!
Your comment, and you for it, is despicable.
I tend to agree, but having met some of the people who pursued this dream, they are very very inventive. They're smart. If that energy chasing a dream could be redirected, they'd be doing amazing things. Mostly, they wind up realizing that the goal is illusive, and re-pivot to a saner outcome but by that time they are fully vested in "america" as a plan.
The bounty here, is the people on the cusp of realizing its not going to pan out but who are both very smart, and smart enough to realize they need to pivot. It would be almost a given they are consciously walking away from IPO manna. I guess if you include it in the pre-sort on applicants, you get to winnow out the people still glued to money-is-the-prize.
BTW the EU would welcome more IPR inside the EU. Some amount of bonus may have to lie in the packaging, to get to where the EU wants to be on IPR. Novo Nordisk style.
Yeah, in Germany the rich stay rich.
Whereas in the US the rich get richer? Or the poor stay poor? What's your point?
Except that it’s the opposite of a lottery.
It’s almost entirely based on your skills and the decisions you make.
There are right-place right-time effects, but it’s still your decision to be in the right place for the current time.
Europe’s economy is badly lagging the US economy, and it’s because culturally they hold these types of incorrect, fatalistic, zero-sum views towards success and innovation.
It's almost entirely based on your skills, the decisions you make, and your privileged background.
You're just not going to get past the first few rounds of the entrepreneur game if you're not a certain kind of person.
The US has terrible social mobility. Objectively, by any measure. This isn't up for debate.
Guess which state is #1 for social mobility?
Wrong. It's Utah, which is a low bar because it's 28th by GDP.
How about CA? 38th for mobility. TX? 45th.
It's a mythology of meritocracy excusing inherited privilege.
https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-5...
This is nonsense.
The US is full of billionaires who came from underprivileged positions.
Infact, your advice is worse than wrong, it is actively harmful, because you're discouraging people from trying by (falsely) telling them that their efforts don't matter and they were destined to fail from birth.
And need to compare with countries outside the US. It's misleading to try and talk about differences between states.
You don't even need to look for the count of billionaires. My grandparents were poor-as-dirt farmers. My dad's education stopped at high school. He even went to a one-room schoolhouse until he was 14.
My brother and I are both college educated and, while not "rich", have a lifestyle and income my grandparents could have only dreamed about.
It is truly painful to watch people preach learned helplessness through failure and destitution as the only possible outcome.
This is common in Europe as well. I would guess more common than in the US.
The relevant metric is not “did your grandparents farm” but “where in the socioeconomic continuum were your parents, and where are you”. In the US, these two answers are more likely to match than in other rich Western countries.
Who are these billionaires from underprivileged backgrounds ?
Larry Ellison, Oprah, François Pinault, Howard Schultz, Jan Koum, Kenneth Langone, Ralph Lauren, Sheldon Adelson, JK Rowling, George Soros, John Paul DeJoria… to name just a few.
No, this is apparently information that clashes strongly with your prior beliefs. The US is packed solid with underprivileged adults who came from underprivileged positions, and highly privileged adults who came from highly privileged positions - regardless of whether it has a dozen counterexamples.
https://osf.io/preprints/osf/tb3qz_v1
There are ~250 $1 million+ lottery winners in the US every year.
There are ~750 billionaires in total.
The average American has a better chance of becoming a billionaire through hard work and prudent investments if, at age 18, they decide to live in a cardboard box underneath a bridge and steal metals from construction sites to sell for cash to be used to purchase lottery tickets.
They can then win the multi-million-dollar prize and invest that wisely to reach billionaire status.
Easy! Why doesn't everyone do it?
From your link:
Four Pillars of Social Mobility: To rank each state, we measured a series of indicators related to social mobility across four pillars: Entrepreneurship and Growth, Institutions and the Rule of Law, Education and Skills Development, and Social Capital. Scores for each pillar were combined and weighted equally to create a state’s overall social mobility score.
I would think a measure of social mobility would include income percentile vs parents' income percentile.
Only if you're trying to be objective. "Social mobility" in this case is their invented metric to arrive at their prearranged outcome for the study.
Wouldn't this be a much worse metric? It would have to net out to zero change on average by the definition of percentiles. If we take abs change to look at both downward and upward mobility, the measure wouldn't tell us where most downward mobility happened, up and down could all happen within the bottom 25% and none in the top 75% and this metric would say we are highly social mobile if there was a lot of movement there.
Here, this one uses the simplest metric possible; a poor child is much more likely to remain poor in the US than in the other rich western countries looked at.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-dream-social-econom...
https://osf.io/preprints/osf/tb3qz_v1
The US has very low average/median social mobility (and it'll only get worse due to insane education policies and less standardized testing), but it has very high variance.
Going from $15k a year to $150k is a lot more common in Europe,, but doing from $150k to $150m is a lot more common in the US, and it's the latter that creates most of the value.
You know that Sweden has a higher percentage of self made billionaires than the US?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sweden-b...
That’s not lottery mentality and thinking that it’s equivalent is why Europe isn’t innovating.
If someone wins the lottery and gets rich, society isn’t better off. If someone starts a new company that made a cure for some disease and gets rich, society is much better off.
You absolutely want to attract people that want to make huge breakthroughs with unlikely odds of success.
The reality is that you get crap like Facebook, Instagram, Xwitter.
You get both, Facebook’s job is to be known about, so you know about it. There’s a ton of companies doing drug research basically silently… in the US. Most fail, it doesn’t matter as long as a few succeed.
It's worth pointing out that the biggest innovations (both scientifically, but likely also monetary) in the biomedical field in the last years happened in Europe not the US. So that seems to disprove the point that innovation happens in the US because of the chance of going from 100k to 100M.
Please tell me what those pharmaceutical companies with a similar maker cap to Facebook Are.
It's fine to want that and to attract those kind of people. What you don't want is to attract people who want to do that in order to make a lot of money.
Yeah but you don’t spend 10s of years of your life studying if your primary goal is just « more money ». The incentive is waaay too far.
I used to think that too, but realized it’s very naive later in life. At some point people are good at what they do, but get tired, start a family, want to settle down. Money helps quite a bit to have those folks motivated.
If you want innovators, motivate them with rewards. Money is a great reward since you can turn it into mostly anything you’d like. Want to buy a mansion? Fine. Want to travel around the world? Feel free. Want to give it away to charity? Great!
Maybe I should have been more explicit. There's a difference between "money" and "a lot of money". People are in this thread talking about the likelihood of getting $100 million. If someone does a thing because they want to start a family and settle down, great. You don't need $100 million to do that. You don't even need $10 million. What I'm saying is you don't want to attract people who are aiming at making vastly more than what is needed to handle the "settle down and live a comfortable life" situation that you described. But right now our society does incentivize and glamorize that, and I think we're worse off for it.
[flagged]
If the goal is financial security to the extent that you could not work (if you still need to work you're not really secure since you could lose that job) then I think you actually would need about $10M. By the time you buy a house, pay for your kids school (elementary through college) and medical insurance for the rest of your life theres not a lot of change left. That to me has always been the goal, I've never truly felt financially secure my entire life and even on a good tech salary I still dont cause I'm one layoff in a bad market away from being in a pretty dire situation, with a family to support too.
Until we fundamentally change how the world works, wanting to make a lot of money is no better or worse than any other reason to innovate.
What you really, really, REALLY REALLY don't want is to attract people who want to do it for free. Money is at least honest.
Once you get past a few million, you quickly get into "can't possibly spend this money in several lifetimes" territory. And wealth divides like that come at the cost of massive societal wealth divides.
The US sustains that high number of people who strike $100 million+ through having a social safety net that barely exists, which results in far more people being seen as completely disposable. It also comes at the cost of worsening public education, worsening public health, crime rates beyond most first world countries, companies that constantly invent new evils like making all formerly paid-and-done services into monthly subscriptions. Few if any that hit 100 million are doing it ethically. They're doing it by milking the residents dry.
Some countries have national pride and resent the idea of stepping on their fellow countrymen. Some would kill half of them if they were promised a few % off their yearly taxes.
This is incorrect and you’re really out of touch for suggesting it.
Let’s say you have a 5 million dollar exit in the Bay Area. After tax you get roughly 2.5. That’s enough to buy a nice but modest house and now you have no money left. You now have to work a full time job to pay the property taxes, the rest of your living expenses, and try to save for retirement. Same thing applies in LA, NYC, SEA, etc.
This is false. The US spends more on healthcare than any other nation, it just goes to a bloated system. More tax money from the 0.1% won’t change that.
Gonna need a citation there. This is likely a result of guns being legal if you’re talking about gun deaths or a result of the war on drugs if you’re talking about incarceration. Neither of those have anything to do with taxes.
We’re talking about biotech exits. Drop your “muh capitalism bad” gish gallop.
Pure cope. A broad unsubstantiated statement about ethics followed by talk of milking residents dry when those residents have more disposable income per capita than nearly anywhere else in the world.
If they do this by treating huge breakthroughs like you are doing, they are stepping on all of their fellow countrymen through oppressive tall poppy syndrome. Knocking anyone doing well down is not how you lift everyone up.
So what you are saying is that ONLY if you work your brains out AND win the "lottery", then you can have a decent retirement in the US?
Maybe Europeans are just too smart to accept that kind of proposition.
The "American dream" is a lottery system used to lure people into doing hard work and consequently rewarding only a few.
You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this post, as well as in others in this thread (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42947261). If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
That's doubly important if your points are good, since by posting like you did here, you discredit them.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
It takes many billions to buy a Twitter, even when Saudi Arabia is footing most of the bill.
There's some nice article out there that clearly explains how money "changes" at different income levels. First it's security, then it's comfort, then it's power.
Buying Twitter isn't spending money, it's exercising power.
You are assuming that only money will make people do incredible things, but you only have to look at open source to know that this is false.
No I’m not. But it is what motivates people at a large scale.
There are very few open source contributors that are actually really good. The nature of software means that their labor of love can scale very well.
Additionally, there is nearly zero barrier to being an open source developer. Buy a laptop and start writing code.
So open source only works well because when you get lucky and get a combination of a motivated contributor and essentially zero distribution cost, a single group can ship to billions of people.
If we want someone making an artificial heart, it’s a completely different story. The research and development is very capital intensive so you need a war chest to even start tinkering. Then once you have something you want to try to get approved, you need either to be a medical doctor or employ one, which is a huge opportunity cost for a medical school debt ridden doctor.
All of the capital needed to fund this is high risk so it needs a high upside return if private investors are involved.
Now a founder could eschew all of their equity, but after going through all of the work to do this capital raising it would be quite unusual.
Almost all of the really high quality open source projects got that way because companies paid devs good money to work on them.
We can't ignore the influence of money even on open source, though. How many people are contributing in an anonymous manner, so they can't claim financial benefits from publicity and networking? How many open source projects are rejecting VC funding?
Actually, society is much better off since the money is dispersed into the economy faster and to a much greater degree than most other windfalls.
And most other windfalls are crafted to accumulate money from the economy, so the difference in who ends up with the money is another major factor.
[flagged]
$1bn / 200k people is $5k each. For a drug that probably costs $4. When you mark up the cost of saving a life by 1,200% I don't think you get to call that "wealth creation" or "saving lives" or even "preventing death". That's called "extortion."
Why wouldn't you rather want to attract people with much higher odds of a reasonable quality of life regardless of whether they personally hit the jackpot?
In terms of expected value (which you'd hope that scientists and entrepreneurs understand at least at a surface level), that seems like the rational move.
You're the one incorrectly using the concept of gambling replying talking to someone taking about risk versus reward (investing).
It is hard for somebody who believes in gambling to win at investing.
The US has both monetary and social incentives to create new businesses. I live in NZ where founders are discouraged by financial incentives and by social incentives.
That's an interesting distinction you're making.
Gambling and investing are very close together. You're only able to make rational decisions on perfect information which is not available.
So investing seems to be a sort of gambling to me, it's just part of a different societal institution.
It’s not lottery mentality, it’s risk taking. And it’s something that the EU should be fostering. The US encourages risk taking where failing isn’t even seen as a bad thing.
Ending up homeless for failing is probably not the risk taking encouragement Europeans want.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31524645
That is the thing though: with the increased safety nets of the richer European countries, you would think that taking risks would both be more encouraged and naturally less dangerous than the US. And I am a big proponent of said safety nets. But we don't see this "moderate-risk-taking" mentality in the EU...
...or don't we? I am not sure. We are definitely not seeing the runaway successes of US big tech, but is it because people are not taking measured risks, or do operations fumble at a later point in their development? I don't know. What I do know is that revenue sources in the EU come with extremely onerous strings attached, are orders of magnitude below US levels, or are only available to big corporations of the old guard.
I'm not so sure there even is so much less risk-taking in Europe than in US.
There are many structural reasons why Europe doesn't produce gigagrowth oligopolies like the US. EU has a highly fractured internal market that is more difficult to dominate, EU is not bathing in reserve currency windfalls to be thrown all around and EU doesn't have as ruthless foreign/trading policies.
Also there's a difference how "risk taking" is portrayed in the public discourse. In US success of companies are seen more as result of risk-taking of individuals, whereas in Europe success its seen more as resulting from collective effort, and founders/CEOs of successful companies are not lauded as heros, or are even usually especially famous.
This!!
Risk-rewards calculus is simply worlds' apart for exploratory/long term R&D versus tech deployment, which is sadly what elon/faang/openAI/nVIDIA are only about.
(I imagine Musk thinks he's bringing back a closed, for profit Bell System, though!)
I dunno, maybe Arc Institute/research hospitals poised to collect all the bionerds falling out of universities, these are the oligopolies that have any chance of morphing into semi-open Bell Labs-like setups.
Are there nothing of comparable scale in Europe?!? (Not many, I imagine, due to mostly what you already pointed out)
There's a lot of other benefits to the USA attracting high skill talent than just salary:
* English language school system so your kids (if you have them) will speak a world language.
* Racially and culturally diverse cultures, cuisines, and communities.
* Exposure to goods from most of the world, even if marked up.
* Availability of international franchises headquartered in other countries in major metros.
* A strong passport that offers visa-free travel to many locations and very favorable visa terms in many others.
and more.
My partner and I are (different) Asians and the higher-skilled members of our family who wanted to emigrate mostly rejected Europe because of non-English language instruction and honestly just feeling racially uncomfortable in most of Europe. I have some family in Germany (who like it there) so it's obviously not impossible, but European ethnostate thinking is just unattractive to a lot of non-Caucasian talent. Canada, UK, and Australia are not like this and have potentially a lot to gain if the US kneecaps its research bureaucracy.
Eh, that's not a unique set of strengths. In any European country I know about (at least a dozen) you can get all-English education from kindergarten to PhD. In some for free, in some that's paid, but probably not as expensive as in the US. Everything is really rather a matter of tradeoffs and bang-for-the buck rather than categorical differences. Some European passports offer more access, but without the downsides of the US one. The only matter in which I don't know how to compare is the racial issues, but I hear the US is not exactly free of those either.
I dunno - I'm in Berlin and my kids go to a private school for English education. I don't think somebody who couldn't afford it and wasn't a native English speaker would be getting English without parental effort before 4th grade.
Also in the area I'm in plenty of people don't speak English - I just went to an eye doctor and they didn't speak English although to be fair that's the first time it's happened to me in 2 years.
Canada and Australia are immigration nations. The UK definitely is not.
The national dish of England is chicken tikka masala, last time I checked.
Most common first name in France is Mohammed. I really don’t understand what he means with immigration, unless he means he wants mostly-Asian immigration because others are a problem.
That factoid is because Muslims are obsessed with the name, and you will find someone named Mohammed in the majority of Muslim families, not immigration. It doesn't take much for the name to enter the top 10 boy names when they become 0.1% of the population.
Historically/as national origin story, no.
But it has in recent decades accepted quite a large number of immigrants, and is at this point at a higher foreign-born % than the US, if still lower then Canada or Australia.
That's not quite the same as having a culture rooted in the immigration narrative, but it has changed significantly.
And I'll also mention that while integration of significant immigration into an existing society is clearly a challenging prospect everywhere, the UK is overall, doing noticeably better with it than most of it's European peers. Both from my subjective perspective as a somewhat regular visitor, and from a lot of the metrics I see.
This is a decent piece for the data side of that claim: https://samf.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-integration
Most of these perceived advantages are not unique to the US. I think there are only two things that still make the US more attractive nowadays: higher salaries and more jobs available to immigrants than in other places. If these two things disappear, the whole proposition starts to fall apart.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" - John Steinbeck
But how do you expect officials that are so bad at transitioning professionally enough, to be good at maintaining and fostering an economy that will support this financial attractiveness?
Most scientists that I know aren't motivated by the prospect of going from $100k-$100m. As long as they have a good wage, they are far more motivated by having decent funding and facilities for their work so they don't have to spend half their time applying for grants.
And this is irrelevant to (very conservatively) 99% of scientists in the NSF and NIH.
Never underestimate the lengths many people will go to for a cleverly framed lottery ticket.
I mean it is psychologically irrelevant to almost all scientists in the US and not something they consider in their career choices at all.
I’m a scientist currently on an NSF grant. I am certainly poking around other countries to see what’s out there, and I’m not the only one.
A lot of scientists (at least in my field, computational chemistry) have decent skills that are transferrable to other areas. So I expect quite a few to move on.
Good luck getting 500k+ grants in other countries. If you leave there won't be a shortage of postdocs looking for a new tenure track position.
Yeah that's kind of the thing.
I think a lot of these guys and gals are fooling themselves with the whole, "find another country" thing. There is no other country that is A) doing research at these levels, B) Flush with cash, and C) needs you because they don't have a population that produces the necessary thinkers. That's basically only the US.
Is the USA flush with cash? Last I checked they were deep in debt and its getting worse
I think GDP/economic output/labor productivity continues to rise briskly. The government accounts are in debt because people in the US refuse to consistently vote for [people advocating] high enough taxes. But we could tax more (still less than Europe) and get balanced budget.
Higher taxes do genuinely restrict economic growth, so it's not like raising taxes is a magic bullet.
Personally, I think there is plenty of grift and wasteful expenditure we could look at addressing first, especially within the healthcare and defense portfolios.
Not as much as having insufficient resources dedicated to the education of the young hurts economic growth (long term).
I agree not using the world proven efficient healthcare strategy of universal coverage is pretty stupid economically, as is spending a trillion USD per annum on the military. But we are so rich these mistakes can be absorbed for surprisingly long.
The US controls its currency and has no mandate for a balanced budget. So yes, the US is very flush with cash
And importantly enjoys a privleged position in the world economy that enables them to run these types of long term deficits with minimal negative consequences.
Something which might shift over the coming decades.
Those are the same thing. Higher public debt means there's more private credit available.
Yes, but when you borrow, you have money in your hands.
US firms are also very highly priced relative to their profits when compared to firms elsewhere. So while things are probably not quite sensible in the US there's still money.
The European research budget is not insignificant. Horizon Europe 2021-2027 is the current vehicle that much of the funding is going through (European Research Council [ERC] being one of the most well known parts). It has a budget for the time-frame (all years) of EUR 96,899,000,000. [1] Of that, the ERC has EUR 16B [2], Digital, Industry and Space has ~EUR 15B, Climate, Energy and Mobility has ~EUR 15B, and several other sub-groups have smaller amounts.
Those then work with the country level organizations of Science Europe, and those together each spend about EUR 25B each year. [3] It's not insignificant. I tend to pay attention to space, and lately almost all there's been is European achievements in telescopes and astronomy.
[1] Horizon Europe, https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/downloads/HorizonEuro...
[2] ERC, https://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/erc-glance
[3] Science Europe RFOs, https://www.scienceeurope.org/about-us/members/?type=Researc...
Thanks for the numbers!
For comparison, the NSF budget is about $8 billion. DOE Office of Science is about the same. NIH is $45 billion
(Also, compare that with the profit of large tech companies)
That isn’t going to be anything even close to accurate before the week is over and that is kind of the entire point here.
This, the US is the country most willing to make daring bets on innovation.
Europe will not spend even 0.1% of its pension/welfare fund on big research bets. The private investors their will only want real estate investments, not fancy wancy "VC".
Young talent will flow one way from other countries to the US, because they've already seen what the grass is like on their side.
… a critical tool of which we’re currently dismantling…
If the sentiment upthread holds, and large numbers of US academics move overseas, then relatively shortly, Europe may shift towards being more willing to make big research bets.
The population shift introduces new ideas, new perspectives, new ways of operating research, new connections towards funding and money, new views on what big bets even means.
The influx of foreign scientists and academics into America over the last century caused significant shifts in how America operated and viewed the idea of research and academia. Post-war Europeans (Von Braun's crowd being an obvious example) caused a large shift in the way America funded "big bet" projects. Saturn V perhaps. Same may happen in Europe.
Those academics can use HN from the opposite side of the Atlantic. VC money especially has the possibility of being territorially bound, yet its often far less constrained by the those types of lines in the dirt than many funding opportunities.
This theory presumes there is shortage of talented researchers in other countries, which is not the case.
There aren't countries with unfilled academic positions awaiting people from the US. If anything, the landscape is even more competitive outside the US.
The sentiments that you see online are meaningless. Ignore what people say and look at what they actually do. I guarantee you that very few US academics will move to Europe. The US has long had positive net migration from Europe, and some temporary changes to federal government funding policies won't significantly change that trend.
Depends on the kinds of positions. There's more to academia than tenure-track faculty (which isn't in my future at all anyway).
People around me tend to be in the RSE (Research Software Engineer) scene, which is growing in Europe. I, and many of my cohort, could fit in as research staff or faculty in many different disciplines.
Wouldn't get rich or famous, but certainly have a comfortable living working on interesting problems.
That sounds nice.
It sounds as if the universe revolves around the US. Did you know that one of the biggest HPC cluster in the world is in Saudi Arabia? I know grad students who went there got duplex villas for free lodging.
Before you start criticizing Saudi government, the reason we are discussing this right now is because a fascist government is forcing scientists out of the US.
There’s not that many jobs going in academia in other countries, and you’ll be looking at a significant pay cut due to the strong US dollar.
Most likely, people who leave academia will be leaving for industry instead.
I do feel for those in the hard sciences, they have become collateral damage in what is mostly a battle between politicians and humanities departments.
I've been suspicious that the quality of life cut is distinct from the pay cut.
Living in a dense European city, you do not need a car, healthcare is free, and you are generally afforded more time off and a stricter wlb compromise compared to the US. One doesn't need to eat takeout as often if there is time to cook. Depending on the country, rent/housing costs are more or less under control.
On the other hand swiss/Netherlands food is expensive even by bay area standards.
Swiss maybe, but as a Dutch resident who was just in SF for the holidays... SF food is definitely more expensive.
Fair, my basis for comparison was the Amsterdam airport. I paid 35 euro for a soggy reheated sandwich and coffee. SFO has 18 dollar poke bowls.
Perhaps Amsterdam airport pricing is extensively marked up compared to local pricing (understandable). Geneva was just plain expensive.
airports are always a nightmare!
the other important thing to keep in mind is that in the EU in general, there's no added taxes on the bill, and tips are less of a thing here, so there's not a magical 20%+ hidden charge to factor in on everything you order.
Your basis for how much people pay for groceries was how expensive a sandwich was at an airport?
We get signal wherever we can :) Boston Logan has about a 20-30% premium on normal groceries. SFO is probably closer to 5-10%. I assumed the premium could not be greater than 50% for Amsterdam airport.
A desiccated Swiss roastie will cost more than a michelin restaurant in SF.
To be competitive in academia in Europe, you’re not going to have as much free time as you expect.
You’re unlikely to be able to afford to live in the center of a dense Western European city on researcher wages, and most of the jobs aren’t in the city center either, so you’ll probably still need a car.
I think in the US people romanticise living and working in Europe to an unrealistic degree. There are good reasons why the net migration of skilled workers is towards the US rather than away from it.
I lived in both the US for a while (Bay Area), but I am now back in Europa. Quality of life in Europa is really high and you can certainly live quite well in most Western European cities from a typical wage for a researcher. Although many people would indeed not need to own a car (public transport is often very good, in many places you can also get around via bike or even by walking), most do and this easily possible with common salaries. There are places which are expensive, but many cities are quite reasonable. Universal healthcare, a stable society, low crime are among the many advantages.
Having lived in both, how would you equate your personal “purchasing power parity” between Europe and the US? At my firm, I could generally move to Berlin whenever I desired - however this comes with a 50% pay cut. I'm honestly unclear if I'd be ahead or behind where I am in the states if I took that deal.
Not OP and I haven't been in US but I've pondered on this since I've worked in Europe where taxes are among the top3 highest, and also Japan. (And ALSO had the opportunity to work remote, hired in one living in the other)
Basically the take is first what anyone that have lived abroad (or economist should) know, that you can't flat compare salary or PPP since the expenditure and quality of goods/service per expenditures are drastically different.
So one have to also consider what your expenditure, and quality requirements are. In the most extreme case, if your goal is "early retirement" then probably work in US retire abroad is optimal. But if your goal is "working in something I like while not having to be stressed about it" then it falls to the latter. What about your requirement for socialization and size of housing, dating/children, etc. How many products do you buy and how important is that? 50% paycut but no need to upkeep a car, no need to worry for healhcare, no need to save for kids college, can all add up.
The only thing that I think you can say with absolute certainty from the personal PPP in EU vs US comparison is that if traveling abroad (and buying products from abroad) is absolutely crucial to your happiness, nowhere beat the dollar & high salary.
Since you have your high US salary why not visit the Berlin office, or travel there. Try to find someone in a similar position in life as you are, and extrapolate from that
Universities in Europe tend to have quite central locations in the cities. Also universities are practically guaranteed to have good public transport connectivity, as students have to be able to get there.
And even though researcher wages can be low relative to US, within the respective countries they are solidly (upper) middle class, and housing isn't a major problem.
I live a 5-minute bike ride away from the Delft Technopolis, and 20 minutes by train to Leiden's Bio Science Park. If I want to, there's 24h train services to the dense city centers of Rotterdam (15 minutes), Den Haag (15 minutes) and Amsterdam (45 minutes).
I do own a car, but I actually have to set a recurring reminder on my phone to take my car out for a ride every so often to avoid the battery draining empty. I think US people romanticise car ownership because they can't imagine how good the alternative can be.
That said, I don't work in academia and don't know what the median wage for that would be. But I don't see why a researcher wouldn't able to afford to live where I do currently, it's not wildly expensive here.
Where you live is comparable to somewhere like Raleigh and not comparable at all to NYC/SF.
There is a saying that Europe is better if you are poor and the US is better if you are rich or middle class. I think that is broadly speaking true.
Of course European countries don't allow poor Americans to migrate so the only people who would be better off aren't allowed to move.
You do need a car if you care about personal safety. A lot of the public transport network in many big cities are not safe for women anymore.
Can we stop with this lie that healthcare is free in the EU? It is not. You pay for it through your taxes and those taxes are downright confiscatory.
There is an ongoing housing crisis in many European countries so I am not sure how you can say that housing costs are under control.
Quality of life is highly subjective. Different people prefer different things. Many of us who value open space and privacy would see moving to a dense city as a step down.
30 days of vacation plus 24 days for overtime are very often found. especially in university/governmental jobs.
The U.S. has also become ridiculously expensive.
Yeah the dollar is stronger which is great to buy imports.
But you cannot import housing, most healthcare, most services like cooks, cleaners and bartenders.
Services are naturally expensive when people are earning more. That's a sign of low income inequality and low unemployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
See Agatha Christie's quote about how she couldn't have imagined affording a car before WW1, and couldn't have imagined affording servants afterward.
Those in the liberal arts probably have it even worse, as their experience usually doesn't translate to industry at all.
No idea if that kind of "research" is funded the same way as hard sciences in the US though, it definitely is there.
It's the hard sciences I feel for because they typically deliver good returns on taxpayer funded research expenditure, and are generally disciplined enough to keep their head down and focus on their work, rather than engage in culture wars.
In contrast, the humanities made their own bed. They became politically partisan, engaged in systematically discriminatory hiring practices, and routinely conduct research that the public perceive to hold little utility.
Ultimately academics need to keep in mind that they rely on the generosity of taxpayers to fund their research. If the public aren't happy that they are getting value for money they will defund these programs.
I hope that the blowback is contained to the humanities departments, but guilt by association is unfortunately a thing in politics.
I think very few people proactively decide to become partisan. Most liberal arts academics just want to work in their special field. Sometimes the things they study get politicized, but that’s mostly the doing of talking heads.
If somebody wanted to become a partisan hack, there are easier ways than getting tenure, right?
It's not so much that people want to become partisan, but rather the culture of the discipline.
The culture within the hard sciences is to challenge existing theories and narratives.
The culture within the social sciences is almost the polar opposite. It still superficially presents as a science, but in practice is a purity spiral with an orthodoxy of established conclusions which cannot be challenged without severe career consequences.
The hard sciences had their Galileo affair 400 years ago, the soft sciences are in the midst of theirs right now.
I dunno man my salary is six figures and I’m an academic scientist living in the Netherlands. My life is much higher quality than the equivalent could buy me in anywhere worth living in the USA. Like I agree the salaries can be low but you simply don’t need to make 300k usd to have a nice life here. I have a flat in the middle of the city of Utrecht where I cycle to work and pop off to the pub after and the gym is two minutes walk and I have a 400m ice skating track twenty minutes bike away. And on the work side I have free compute on an 3000 cpu cluster with also an gpu cluster of h100s and lots of resources for travelling for conferences and other stuff like that. And a lot of my startup friends here are here specifically because they went to San Francisco and got investment offers around 1 millionish and then tried to hire around and all the engineers were expecting 250k+ and then came to Europe and found people just as good who work for 80-100k. That’s a completely different runway for them and they actually have time to develop a product because they don’t have to pay so much and their people are still happy with their lives. Like I do agree there aren’t that many jobs like mine and Europe needs to get their heads out of their asses and poach as many America based scientists and engineers right now as they can. But I think American based people have this idea of Europe that prevents them from seeing their options here. I do think Europe needs more resources and less bureaucracy surrounding big science projects but I’ll make that point when I have my own big science project haha.
Hear hear - Utrecht might be the finest city in the world, too.
And Europe is missing a gigantic opportunity right now. The fact that talent is cheap, there's a strong social safety net, and we don't have enormous amounts of entrepreneurship is really strange.
Yeah I don't get it. I know that Cherry Ventures just raised another 500 million euros but that is really nothing compared to what is in America. I think there is really a missed opportunity both from the government side of things and VC side of things. The government could relax restrictions on small businesses, hand out more tax credits, make it more beneficial to move here (e.g., my understanding is netherlands has a small business visa but it only lasts a year and you have to prove you are making money which is hard for a startup to do after a single year), more government money for research and more money to bring research results to market. Like the european research council (ERC) has a program called something like proof of concept where you get add on funds to an existing ERC grant to produce a proof of concept that could be taken to market but you are required to be the PI on the original grant to apply for the proof of concept. If instead you let anyone apply like the way NSF grants for startup work that would be better. for example postdocs that worked on the original ERC cannot apply for the follow on proof of concept money to try and make a startup that commercializes the research. only the PI of the original ERC grant can apply. That seems silly to me since probably the postdocs are better positioned to be startup leaders than the PI since the PI is more likely to have a permanent academic job and be uninterested in leaving that job to start a company out of one of the research agendas they are pursuing. you probably would get way more results out of the program than it generates now. I think from the VC side of things they could simply try and recruit more of these people who are working on such grants to become founders. In america there is a more clear MIT/Stanford/Caltech pipeline into silly valley and VC offices than there is in europe. VCs are responsible, imo, to create such a pipeline not academics. Anyways, if you are VC reading this feel free to reach out if you think that I am making sense. If I am not making sense feel free to tell me why. I am, of course, just some guy on the internet.
I have a proptech webapp that I built for myself but now gets several signups per week and has active users, yet nobody wants to invest. My last job was for an idiotic startup that had literally three dozen users at its peak yet was able to get over $2 million in VC, perhaps because it was in the US.
I really don't see why Europe can't figure this out.
yeah one thing VC is about the startup but the founders. if you went to the wrong school, got the wrong parents tough luck.
Maybe because the "greed is good" thesis of America really is "correct" with respect to geopolitical competition?
This might be the sad truth. Good morals don't look like a winning strategy
safety and trust are hard to sell. it is widely known. What you say shows that "immediate gains always win" with no context.. It is literally unwise over time.
It is better that we not fight wars and that we endeavour to increase the quality of life for all then we win some made up game of geopolitical competition.
I agree, but does EU via NATO not fight or encourage wars? And is encouraging or sending weapons but no soldiers to proxy war morally better? Ukraine?
It's easier to run a startup in the US, so why do it anywhere else? The financing is easier, the labor laws more business-friendly, and the native market bigger. And that's how it's going to stay for the foreseeable future. EU internal market integration has been paused for decades, weakening labor laws is a non-starter in any European country, and European pension funds are generally not allowed to invest in index funds, let alone something as risky as VC. If you think the EU will ever catch up, think again. The political will to do so is just not there.
Yeah, but I like that my kids can bike around and not get run over
From my PoV, the EU doesn't need to catch up. The US will be the one crashing down. There is an ocean in the middle but I can still see Americans digging their hole deeper and deeper.
I'm more worried about the US conquering Europe.
Are you saying that US is the only country in the world where there are many jobs in academia?
China, for example, could set up a very European-style English-speaking institute in Hong Kong or Macau with high salaries to attract scientists. Singapore and South Korea too. One day Americans might well follow the money and the research freedom?
Heck, China has a reproduction of Jackson Hole, Wy. (See the documentary Americaville)
China's drowning in their own PhD's. The competition is fierce, and the pressure is enormous. The best and brightest over there are insanely capable men and women.
In all honesty, it's hard to see China wanting many of the PhD's that would be available from the US in a worst case scenario NSF/NIH funding collapse. There may be a place for the top 0.1%? But for 99.9% of PhD's, there are Chinese replacements that are, frankly, better and cheaper.
Hate to bring it back to money like that, but there it is.
China has been funding students from global south, that has big room to grow if China can overcome xenophobia problem in its culture.
As for PhD from developed countries, it’s gonna be hard as you said.
There's also the angle that enticing the brains away from 'the west' is about denying the west something.
I see Chinese nationals in US labs thinking a return to China is a more attractive now than it was a few weeks ago. Chinese institutions should absolutely capitalize on this.
It's been happening already for a few years. Many prominent award-winning faculty are leaving US institutions and setting up brand new labs in top Chinese universities.
Some of my favorite novels are David Lodge's campus novels, and an element in them is the never-ending lure of American academia for British scholars.
Now it's the EU's turn. Computer science is already becoming very, very French. See you guys in Grenoble.
France is extremely unattractive for research. Lecturers positions suck (high teaching load and you need to speak French). Full-time researcher positions are extremely hard to get, and they pay very little, especially junior position. 2500 euros per month, which isn't enough in Paris and just ok in a smaller city.
What kind of employment does INRIA offer?
The World Wide Web essentially exits due to grants from the NSF and alumni from those grants starting Netscape.
the irony of Andreesen now being one of those now gloating over its destruction
Is he really? Where? I'm no Eric Bina but I ate from the same table and would be happy to remind him of the petulant brat reputation he left behind in the halls of NCSA.
start w/ his twitter feed (@pmarca)...
I’m not going on one arrogant asshole’s platform to make jabs at another.
I've heard several interviews about the decisions he made at that time and came from a neutral opinion to hating his guts.
It's like he was surrounded by knowledgeable people and decided to make wrong decision upon wrong decision just to spite them because he resented them being better than him.
I got to sign an MOU from NCSA about wage ranges about a year after he left because Marc was trying to extort more money out of them to stay there working on Mosaic. He left in a huff is the story, after they paid him a bunch including his tuition.
The plus side was I was already making 10% more than any of my other friends and got another 7% for signing it.
Read the interview that Ross Douthat did with him in the NYT
Just the ol’ pull up the ladder trick
I don’t think that is a fair characterisation of Andreessen.
He’s always been a Democrat, including supporting Obama and Clinton.
His recent support of Trump appears to be a tactical reaction to some of the misbehaviour during the Biden administration such as debanking political rivals and encouraging race-based hiring.
He's pretty explicitly said it's because the Biden administration tried to do the smallest amount of regulation in the tech industry. When Obama and Clinton let the tech barons run wild, he was happy to be a Democrat.
Someone has forgotten the Clipper Chip.
A16Z specifically doesn't have exposure to the big tech anti-monopoly stuff the last decade. They've just been doing crypto scams for the last decade.
Yeah, and the previous administration was pretty anti crypto.
He is a legit Moldbug techno-fascism believer now.
No he hasn't! He's been a Republican all that time and supported Romney.
https://www.businessinsider.com/surprise-silicon-valleys-her...
People are just so surprised to find out he's a Republican that whenever it happens they assume he's a recent convert.
Not really.
He wanted Romney to win the Republican primary, believing him to be more pro-tech than the other candidates, but he ultimately he supported and voted for Obama in that election.
"Both Sides" Citation, please. Really interested in learning more (but no paywalls if possible).
Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is what you're looking for here. The FDIC is accused of violating the APA and some constitutional amendments during the Biden presidency for it.
He's openly neo-reactionary for fucks sake
But WWW was made up at CERN, you might as well say it exists due to EEC grants.
I’ve too many recollections of browser developers bitching and moaning about yet another memory leak they discovered in libwww to believe that.
And I said the web as we know it, not the web period.
it would be a dumb move. any scientist who moves on a whim so easily to chase money is more likely to not be doing good science.
This is a funny take. As researchers, half of their job was just writing grant applications to get more money. Lab supplies don't grow on trees.
as an American I'd be sad to see science move out of my country at the same time I'd be happy and relieved that science continues to flourish and treated with the respect it deserves in other countries (hoping these would be democratic countries with a high regard for human rights such as those of Europe or elsewhere), decentralizing itself away from the US's chronic political issues that show no sign of abating likely for the next few decades at least.
As a seventh generation American and 17 year Air Force veteran (long separated), I’m suggesting everybody the US who has any skills, talent, sociability or empathy to leave the United States as quickly as possible.
I think that that’s probably the best route for anybody who is currently in America and doesn’t want to deal with the next 20 to 50 years of total deprivation.
Unfortunately some of us can’t leave so the best most people can do is find some place safe to land.
Are we to tether it's decline to the different immigrant groups that came after then?
I would think if you are a European national this situation would have a silver lining in perhaps incentivizing European scientific investment to remain at home and strengthen those nations' scientific research institutions and grant programs. If the U.S. sees fit to rework its institutions, that's its own business. If funding in the U.S. dries up, then doesn't it make sense to go your own way and seek funding in your home country?
So I think you're right. This could be a big opportunity for countries to poach some of these scientists or to repatriate those scientists who have left their home countries.
I don't think Operation Paperclip was about "attracting".
Hundreds of high-ranking scientists left Germany in the 1930s. The exodus had nothing to do with Operation Paperclip.
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/5299/The-scientific...
Not happening. Getting significantly more than $100k is close to impossible in most careers in any other country and the dollar is the safest currency to get paid in. Not convinced the desperate folks who want to move despite these are good hires. Anecdotally the only people working any job at all outside of USA that I’ve met were doing that because of their non-US wives not liking it stateside. This isn’t a large group as you can imagine.
There are literally millions of people around the world who earn significantly more than US$100K and don’t work in the US.
e.g. in Australia, many medical specialists earn more than US$200k - it is common for experienced oncologists, cardiologists, paediatricians, gastroenterologists, etc, to earn more than US$200k.
'most careers' and Australia is a special snowflake, too, though yes, a valid example. on the other hand you have Eastern Europe, 6h drive to the 'West' from approximately anywhere and salaries in the shitter except for some professions in capitals (cardiologists would probably also qualify).
That’s spare change for a US doctor.
Did you accidentally a word? Because if you cross any border literally the first people you meet are border control officers, who work a job outside the USA, most of whom with no interest in living or working in the US.
Incidentally if you travel abroad you will also meet heterosexual women and homosexual men, who don't generally have a wife at all.
would be if any other country actually put money in research... Well there is China, but in Europe we already have more PhD than research position.
if you're going to boil down our "success", if you must call it that, to a root cause, it has a lot more to do with our insatiable greed and lack of respect for, well, anything. The talent is just a small detail in the narrative of America and that narrative is driven far more by capital than it is by interesting people.
The talent narrative makes for excellent propaganda, though, neatly whitewashing a violent and hateful culture.
I think this comment confused a few things.
First off, there is no evidence the US will never fund science again.
Second, top scientific positions in the US are at academic labs, not at NIH (bare a few top people spending some time there). The top academic labs in the US get some funding from NIH, but the top ones get it from a ton of sources with NIH not being the bulk of it.
But does anyone take any science seriously anymore, if the conditions of the US funding would be that don't even mention the topics related to women or climate change?
But those aren’t real research anyway /s
"The top academic labs in the US get some funding from NIH, but the top ones get it from a ton of sources with NIH not being the bulk of it."
This is wildly field specific.
No one other than the USA was really doing that. That's what makes US, US.
Also, some top scientists who previously would have come to the US, will decide not to.
That's not going to be negative feedback that registers for the decision-makers in the US. But it's good news for competing countries and their institutions. And it's possibly better quality of life, overall, for the scientists who decide to go work somewhere currently more sensible.
I might move somewhere that gave me a person grant. The U.S. works primarily on project grants, where you are funded to do a thing, but that thing doesn't always work, and most of the time it's a bit contrived in order to appeal to the funding agency. (This is probably so the bureaucrats can exert power over what is studied.) The system would work much better if individual scientists got guaranteed salaries to study whatever seemed appropriate, and if you needed money for equipment you can request it. This would lead to more crazy ideas being explored and less derivative, p-hacked slop carried out by graduate student slave labor.
I think that might be an implicit goal here. With antics around H1B, birthright citizenship, general worsening sentiment against "people who dont look white" and "experts bad, podcasters good" its probably worth while for researchers, scientists and professors to start looking elsewhere outside of the US.
Not just that but capital is attracted there as well to the point there is a glut of it which is probably where at least some of the political problems arise. They literally have more money than sense while innovators elsewhere can't get funding.
Please, do take the US "talent" away. Most of real world progress and wealth creation comes from engineering style tinkering and copycatting, and not from pure academic style science research. But the latter gets all the hype, media coverage and the Noble prizes. This system of glorified scientific research is a vestige of anti-communist, anti-Soviet era, which is no longer useful, if it ever were.
The smart thing is to outsource pure science research where it's the cheapest, but commercialize it where it's most profitable - that's what China is doing and doing it very well too.
The idea is to destroy every part of the American federal government so that techno fiefdoms can be ruled by oligarchs. It's pretty obvious. Not sure if we can stop it!
In this particular case, the goal is to privatize science entirely.
https://www.vcinfodocs.com/venture-capital-extremism
I'm convinced that these people and in particular Jarvin read Snow Crash and want to make it reality.
Video with similar content, shows them actually talking about their ideas and plans: https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no
So many brilliant researchers in the US are funded by NSF grants. Even beyond public research, just the private sector benefits just from the training (and associated freedom from not having to chase money and TA) that NSF fellows get is immense.
Injecting dumb politics and refusing grants just because people put the words "biases" in their application is a great way to appeal to Republicans's undereducated voters (see https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/4BD2D522-2092... for an example of their idiotic rhetoric) but also a crazy gamble on the US's ability to be a superpower in two decades.
Just look at what happened in France when right-wing governments started defunding research: a slow but massive brain drain of the best minds. What does the current administration think will happen to our economy when they start burning future brains when they're at the seed stage?
It's very clear once you realize the people perpetrating this don't care one whit for the "economy" writ large, only their personal wealth and that of their cronies. The dumber, meaner and more desperate the population is, the easier the time they think they'll have ruling over them, as unto kings in this new gilded age.
Of course, they forget what came after the gilded age. It's raining stockbrokers - err, oligarchs!
that's bad strategic thinking (obviously) because it places at a huge disadvantage to our main competitors.
What makes you think they care?
It's hard to be a feudal lord with bows and arrows when the civilization next door has cannons and covets your resources.
I thought they'd care because if they are working so hard to sieze control, you'd think they'd want to hold on to it.
To a large degree their wealth is transnational and will move on to the next trough after emptying this one.
No matter what happens in the next few years, the damage is done. It is now known that the next administration could kill your apolitical career with the stroke of the pen if your ideas vaguely support the wrong team.
If you have talent, why deal with the (frequently) middling pay and the existential risk that could follow every election?
So you don't think being forced to include a statement on diversity in every single grant request reviewed by the NIH was "injecting dumb politics" but you do think that being forced to NOT include a statement on diversity in every single grant request is?
== "not being allowed to include"
i.e. a restriction on free speech with more worrying implications than "injecting dumb politics"
Really? You see a narrow contextual restriction for irrelevant information in a grant/hiring packet to be worse than compelled speech?
Diversity statements were used to facilitate race-based grant approvals. They should never have been legal.
Never were legal.
This is false. The grants were not approved based on race. The grants were approved based on merit toward the goals of the field of science to which they were submitted. Showing how your work had broader impacts toward a more diverse, equitable and inclusive society was one part of a list of many criteria, recently updated here:
https://new.nsf.gov/funding/merit-review#our-merit-review-cr...
I think a link to archive.org might be better here, the criteria changed and so must have the website as well no?
Compelled speech is far, far, far worse than constricting speech by every conceivable dimension.
Even in day to day interaction, forcing someone to be silent, is far more of a gentler 'social action' than forcing someone to speak.
I don't think I agree. What's your reasoning?
I think people are more concerned about the economic fallout and the illegality of what is being done.
You call it "injecting dumb politics," but I call it "explaining why I shouldn't believe you'll just hire your buddies." It's an attempt to prevent the grift everyone claims is in research, but it's been politicized by bad-faith non-participants.
There’s a very big difference there between “including a statement in diversity” and “your funding gets pulled because you previously included a statement about diversity”. The new administration is essentially pulling funding from everyone who got grants previously based on those criteria.
Who do you think benefits medium term from our best researchers getting less funding? The toll on our economy will only be visible in 15-20 years, and it will be massive.
Destroying the economy IS the goal it seems like.
These money shark guys that have got a hold of our government and economy since 2007 seem to have a long term plan that is specifically designed to destroy the US economy. Its counter intuitive, since their wealth is directly linked, but they have some kind of plan.
Including statements on diversity, and defunding projects because they have diversity are two very different things.
And yeah, as a white male who sees few women, and even fewer people from minorities other than Chinese and Indian, in the hard sciences (especially computer related), I definitely support efforts to try to include them more. It results in more diverse views of a problem, which often leads to better science.
Let's not sugarcoat it. DEI is the new N-word. Only people who are covert racists would be bothered by a mere statement about inclusion.
Watching the tech community waltz into DC and pretend that they know how all the levers of government work is pathetic. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. Are there places to improve? Of course. But pretending that they can understand the intricacies of literally decades of institutional knowledge and deep connections across the globe in the course of a single weekend is asinine.
We need to do better. The US government isn't Twitter. Breaking things simply because you have the power is the opposite of leadership, it's nihilism.
They don't care how it works and they're overt nihilists, oddly disguised as "rationalists". The intent is to break anything that contradicts them.
Stop playing along with this farce. Their goal is not to improve anything or reduce waste, it's to destroy the apparatus of governance entirely, privatize everything, and rule over a destitute, terrified populace as unto gilded age kings lording over fiefdoms.
What came after the gilded age, again?
Small nit, but these folks 100% can not be described as the "tech community". They're owners of big tech monopolies, their VC backers, and our new oligarchs. Tech community, however, they are not.
That feels like a No True Scotsman argument after decades of chasing VC approval, prestigious jobs at those huge companies, and adopting their practices and software. I don’t like the oligarchy either but it’s a huge part of the tech world under any definition I can come up with. We’re having this conversation on a board run by one of the VC firms with partners who are openly supportive of what’s going on, after all - is this not part of the tech community?
I mean, HN doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I would say there's a difference between "big tech" and "tech startups", community-wise.
People who love working at Big Tech love it for everything people who go for the Startup World hate, and vice versa.
Sure, but there’s a lot of shared culture even though they have distinct subgroups. I don’t think the guys in the news wouldn’t be welcomed at most startups.
Honestly fair enough. Pay package over principles does pretty well describe the policy of far too many of the colleagues I've worked with over the years.
You need to get to know your own industry.
"These folks" can absolutely be described as the tech community:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Tunney
DOGE is staffed precisely by the tech elite. Like 20 year old grads who are elite programmers winning competitions, that type.
Are they not part of the tech community now? You highly overestimate the political homogeneity of the tech community, because opposing voices were previously so shut down. You would be surprised by what your co-workers are thinking deep down.
And (as a complete side note) it has all worked out very poorly for Twitter, as a revenue-generating platform.
No reason to think it will be better when applied to the federal government.
Twitter wasn't purchased for it to make money, it was purchased to get Musk in the Whitehouse.
In that respect it is astonishingly successful by every measure. Musk got his global political shift and becoming co-president of the US for a causal $40 billion.
But was the complete annihilation of all safety measures on twitter and chasing away most advertisers necessary to accomplish that? Couldn’t he have bought twitter, truly kept it an open place to discuss topics with less misinformation, kept his advertisers, and still shit post and donate his way into the White House?
He undoubtedly slashed spending, but didn’t he also tank revenue? The question I have is was any of that really necessary for him to get to where he is right now?
Note this isn't representative of the tech industry in general.
When I worked for Google I visited NIH, sat on study groups, and helped advise program managers how to move more compute to the cloud. Like many other techies in SV I have a PhD in a quantitative science and understand how NIH works. My efforts were entirely designed to help update the establishment, not tear it down, and that's true for the wide swath of my coworkers I encountered.
The folks who are doing this are a subset of the tech community, who do not represent the larger community.
Unfortunately, that subset is the tech community leadership.
Not leadership, just the loudest.
I'm not convinced. In the past half decade or so this industry has veered hard toward outright fraud and grift. I see this trend all over--adtech, cryptocoins, "AI", security... These days I assume technologists are frauds until they prove otherwise. It's a blunt instrument, but it often works well.
I'm sorry, but your defense for the "not all techies" argument is that you flew to NIH and told them how to stop investing in their own infrastructure and funnel tax dollars to private hosting rentals instead? I cannot wrap my head around this as a defense of anything. Seems like the current crew is just cutting out the middleman.
Half the computers at twice the price!
Yeah it's a more involved discussion than we could really have in a form like this but I truly believe that the cloud is a better solution than self-investment and infrastructure when it comes to universities. I spent plenty of time working with closet clusters and grad students is admins when I was at the University and I just don't think it's a good investment of time or money.
When I advise the NIH to do was to do a large bulk group buy on behalf of many thousands of scientists that use the scale of the NIH to negotiate in extremely large concession. My experience with Amazon is that you can basically get them down about 50% just by asking.
I work for a well-funded company now and we use the cloud and we have on-prem infrastructure. The on-prem infrastructure is extremely hard to change sometimes just asking for a GPU will take 6 months or more. Storage is always highly limited and slow. Let the cloud hyperscalers do what they're good at and focus on doing the science
There is a real schism in the SV elite community between the "tech right" and Google. You could argue that OpenAI was founded by Sam Altman and Elon Musk to deny Google exclusive access to the GenAI.
"Been thinking a lot about whether it's possible to stop humanity from developing AI. I think the answer is almost definitely not. If it's going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first."
- Altman to Musk, immediately before proposing what became OpenAI ( https://www.techemails.com/p/elon-musk-and-openai )
"OpenAI is on a path of certain failure relative to Google. There obviously needs to be immediate and dramatic action or everyone except for Google will be consigned to irrelevance."
- Musk to Altman, later ( https://www.techemails.com/p/elon-musk-openai-path-of-certai... )
Google has always been the company that looms over whatever next-gen hyped things the VC crowd can invest in (or whatever field Elon can pretend to be far ahead in). I even think it being perceived as so liberal has moved these people to the right instead of "libertarian" as they used to claim so they can hit it politically
What's the name for that principle/rule where someone blithely removes rules or regulations without any context for them being there in the first place? It's on the tip of my tounge. I feel like we're seeing that a lot in the US Federal govt at the moment.
Chesterton’s fence. But I think “ungodly hubris” might be appropriate in this context
Chesterton's Fence
Even that assumes good faith.
neoliberalism
Honestly, this is exactly how Silicon Valley operates. Uber broke the laws until they could fix the laws (in their favor). AirBnB did the exact same thing. Meta knew their platform was causing damage to children and teenagers, and they gave zero fucks.
Move fast and break things...
Turncoat Zuck's Meta had posters on the wall in every building: a picture of a rocking horse with the caption: "Not all motion is progress."
The fourth estates' and the masses' blind faith in and compliance to self-righteous, egotistical billionaires, one of whom may be a Nazi, is what is both disappointing and frightening.
Technologists and engineers can be so damn arrogant. Learn some humility. You probably aren't that smart or valuable and people like you aren't the only people adding value to society.
It may be a bad assumption to think HN comments reflect the broader tech community's opinion on what is happening in the US government right now. That being said, there are far too many commenters that seem to be okay with what's happening, especially when it comes to DoE and Musk taking over the treasury.
There just seems to be an overall lack of respect for how government works, the broader machine and bureaucracy that is supposed to protect from unilateral decisions made by a single entity. Government is not, and should not, be run like a tech startup. Going fast and breaking things isn't a recipe for stability or reliability in both government and software. History has tried kings and dictators and, well, they never turn out great for the general population. Democracy is slow and sucks sometimes, but it also has a ton of perks that we seem all too quick to dismiss and throw away.
The strategy is: Shut down everything, and see who complains.
If the complaints seem well reasoned, then you adjust course.
You can certainly argue that it is crude, but it’s simpler than trying to deeply analyze and understand a very complicated system.
Carl Icahn has a story[0] about firing 12 floors of people that seems relevant
[0]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WSatPoD2W-o
Exactly.
Thank you for posting this.
maybe everything will turn into a startup
whenever any team comes up with anything worthwhile then they get the money
nevermind the fact they need the money to do anything at all, oops
Part Seven: Enter DOGE.
Part Eight: Hostile takeover by Musk & co.
Do you hear that sucking sound? It's biggest brain drain you've ever seen. It already been happening, I know several great scientists who've already left, this BS just kicked it into high gear.
Some ham-fisted troglodytes didn't know what they're doing or the side-effects of their actions (like people dying or intellectual property leaving), but they want credit and approval for "owning the libs" and "efficiency" by smashing things they don't understand and calling it "progress".
This sounds like Hollywood celebs leaving to Canada - no one did. So where will so called top scientists go? Real scientists will continue their work after weeding out. But the DEI, climate, gender studies and other bottom feeders will need to pack for Europe. Or learn a trade.
Back to their home countries. I can think of about a half dozen world leading scientists I work with every day who would pack up their labs if funding dried up. They already did it once to move to the US because that is where the most funding was for these diseases. If you make the US inhospitable to these talented people, they will not think twice about finding a country that doesn't consider them "bottom feeders".
Also. Believe it or not, there are other fields than DEI/Climate/Gender studies, and when you remove the incentive to work in the US, the leaders in these other fields will leave.
Are we burning Beatles records yet.
My how we’ve fallen. Trump could says he’s bigger than Jesus and sell a bible with the quote
There seems to be a lot of negativity from the HN crowd about this. But, the reality is that your fellow Americans voted for this. If you don'y like it, you're going to have to convince people that it's a bad idea. Getting worked up about Trump or Musk or SV bros isn't getting us anywhere.
First, Trump voters didn't exactly vote for this, at least not many. Identify politics and owning the libs, sure, but I'd say that a minority of his voters wanted to totally dismantle the administrative state - or if they thought that sounded good, they may not have been aware the repercussions of that on their lives.
Second, we all have a right to bitch about what seems like a new America being formed. If things go as badly as many of us seem to think, well it doesn't really matter if we convince trump voters they were wrong, because democracy will be have evaporated anyway. Our society has been almost molded for this moment: Americans are more isolated and alienated from each other than ever. The internet today is a fundamentally difficult place to organize any sort of coherent protest when the places people post are algorithmically controlled, manipulated by bots, and moderated.
We are broken as a society. What a waste was all that 20th century plundering and bloodshed and brilliance and effort. I would imagine that even for someone looking at the teetering American Empire with satisfaction, there is a bit of emptiness in just how stupid and pathetic this all is.
Well voters have two-four years to vote this out of office if they don't like the results. History says the Republicans will likely fail to keep power, and it will be the Democrats turn again to set the ship right, or whatever.
That's exactly what they voted for. Most people don't trust the govt. Only Trump can be expected to cannibalize the govt.
You can't convince people whose attention bandwidth is entirely consumed by the social media engagement algorithms controlled by the very people doing this.
I'm afraid this might be a fait accompli for democratic institutions. The chance to stop this was 10 years ago, by breaking up concentrated media ownership and regulating social media. We didn't, and it's too late.
Hard to say what people voted for. Any winning candidate's coalition is going to be not unified on lots of issues, but Trump's especially. Project 2025 and many of its specific policies pulled out separately all polled like total garbage, so Trump simply lied and said he'd never heard of it and wasn't doing it, and the media dutifully reported the denial. So what did the people who voted for him vote for?
His dizzying array of contradictory statements, lies, and flip-flops have always made him someone where people, his supporters in particular, see the Trump they want to see. Isolationist or imperialist, the man who would ban TikTok or its savior, pro/anti vaccine, really pick just about anything.
There was a popular sentiment in his first term that Trump seemed to believe whoever had talked to him last on any issue, but he manages to have that same effect on other people, too.
Going back to the concept of the will of the voters, Trump won Muslim-heavy Dearborn, MI on the back of people voting to protest Biden/Harris's approach to Gaza. He just announced side-by-side with Netanyahu that he wants to totally depopulate Gaza and have the US take it over and rebuild it as a resort, and throw in the West Bank too while you're at it. Is that what those people voted for?
just two days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910829
the problems that led to these frauds are structural--no amount of patching the system will fix this.
maybe we should consider the possibility that we are due for a refactor, which is often painful, but especially painful for people (or code) with an entrenched incentive to continue existing.
i dont mean to defend what the administration is doing but I'm warning that everyone crying doom and gloom and threatening to move abroad, etc. might be eating crow. ironically, the very people most likely to move abroad (in it for the career, not for the principle) are biased to be the types bringing down our system of science. bad science is the science equivalent of a zirp.
People in tech need to stop with those analogies. A government is not a codebase. You can not apply the principles of "refactoring" and "patching" in the same way. It just doesn't work like that. But the problem is we have a bunch of people (some malicious, some clueless) trying to do exactly that.
Government is exactly a codebase. Government bureaucracies is essentially constricting human judgement to more robotic code-like behavior, that's the only way to build large systems.
You say government is not like code, then what exactly is it? Can you describe it in an effective way? Or are you just going to raise your hand up and say there's nothing we can do about it, nothing we can do about the $2 trillion/year titanic deficit?
Historical governments often needed little beyond an army and a tax collection system. And tax collection system was primarily data gathering and analysis, since if you knew how much property someone owned, you can easily tax them for an appropiate amount.
The tech way of thinking has proven extremely successful in many industries already. That's why tech companies (and tech adjacent ones, like say quant trading, or even index fund trading) have been so economically dominant, and utterly kicked out the traditional MBAs from their pedestals.
Stop being a self hating programmer who despises the mentality of tech.
Government is mostly individuals deciding goals and attempting to convince others. Then rules are added to prevent harm to others or using corrupt methods of convincing. That "code" part is more like a moderated forum: necessary for the huge task, but it's just the framework for the actual content.
And historical computers used vacuum tubes. What's your point?
Even in tech companies, the richest people are almost always the smooth talkers. Because the best, and really only, way to get money is convincing somebody else to give it to you. You can do it by offering a better product or charming them.
Most government goals aren't technically difficult and certainly don't require advanced algorithms or fast computers. The real work is aligning people.
i hate to break it to you but it's literally called "the federal code".
For the love of God. How old are you?
If you cannot make the distinction between computer code and law/regulation, that get applied by humans in humans time and humans circles…?
« Refactoring » an org or a government like you project to, like Elon and his boys is doing, it is going to cost actual lives. People killed.
I hate to break it to you, but 2 million people engaged in an endless list of activities that encompasses repairing tanks, making grants, building bridges, supporting citizens abroad, distributing pension checks, performing surgery, making sure airplanes don’t crash and conserving forests is not the same kind of thing as a codebase and requires a different skill set to effect change in.
and yet the structure of the federal code is generally designed to be read as a recipe. judges are instructed to be as objective as possible. disbursers of funds are expected to justify decisions in as mechanical a fashion possible (this maximizes accountability) perfection is impossible, but the idea of running government like code is a quasi-ideal, or else you cant go back to the taxpayer and say "hey we did good by you".
Your discourse screams delusion or next-to-none experience in any mid-sized life and collective/team work.
Maybe try first to spend some time and speak with the actual people (judges, administrators, clerks, etc.) that do this daily, to understand how it works in reality.
- Part of government is the legal system which a Judge's whole thing is being endless nuanced in understanding and applying what the law means; I would not considered this constricted robot like behavior even though the law is literally a bunch of written down rules.
- Part of government is funding research that involves people doing real experiments collecting real data? Are novel experiments those of constricted robots or LLMs?
- Part of government are the dedicated every day folks who are doing the best they can despite being overworked and under resourced who have to make life and death decisions in the moment every day (air traffic controllers), who monitor and coordinate relief and management of disasters big and small in a very interconnected world (we just had a global pandemic, are culling record numbers of chickens, had a bad hurricane season, and large wildfires) these are not people behaving like robots they are just people following laws and regulations primarily passed via efforts of lobbyists, or else are those that are written in blood.
Don't like the way a part of government works? Reform it. Don't try to burn the whole thing to the ground by doing shit like emailing the people responsible for keeping planes from crashing into each other that if they want to they can fuck off for the next 8 months on the tax-payers dime and then find a new low-stress job. Don't like certain regulations or the ways laws are weaponized against everyone but corporations and the wealthy? I get it, me neither I'd like to see affordable housing too. Unfortunately, congress has the responsibility to fix that, not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, nor any of his former SpaceX interns. If they want to make those changes they should get elected to congress or hell maybe for shits and giggles use some of that lobbying money for the common good they claim to care so much about.
at what point does that become disingenuous? how many years have people bern trying to do it incrementally? just tell the reformer: oh try harder, knowing every feature of the bureaucracy is stacked against them and they wont succeed. in the meantime people are hurt, dollars are wasted.
that's not correct. congress has ceded execution of these things to the executive in many cases with broad leeway to do or not do (thats why it's called discretionary spending, any spending that is by law congress' responsibility is statutory spending)
You are mistaken. Discretionary spending is spending that Congress allocates during the annual appropriation process, while mandatory spending is spending that is required by prior law. See https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
This is so naive.
Not all of government is the DMV.
Government has a massive policymaking function, which is not "robotic code-like behavior". It's about solving nuanced, challenging problems. Government has a huge research function.
And tech has created some great things, but it's also created some really terrible things, mostly because of this "move fast and break things" mentality that doesn't consider the consequences of its actions.
yes you most definitely can apply these to government, what an insidious comment.
not only does it NEED to be done, people VOTED for it :)
Precisely. There’s no wisdom in the approach. “I’ll try refactoring - that’s a good trick!” is a poor approach.
You can try it, but the consequences of a poor refactoring? Look to the planned economies and five year plans.
The government is not a codebase; that mistakes its artifacts for its process. And the importance of process - in politics, in government - cannot be overstated.
Refactoring means incrementally changing things in a non-destructive way.
Whatever rational refactor/rewrite you want does not start with `find . -iname 'dei' -delete`.
I'm very pro some systematic auditing/cleaning of out sclerotic waste, but I don't see how anyone can look at the way this is being handled and not be incredibly worried
I think it's the second-order stuff here. Even assuming Musk were to do a fantastic job at just clearing out inefficiency in a smart way (which seems unlikely given the actions he's taken/leaks around cutting funding based on key-word matching etc.), the higher-order point that someone can just buy their way into the President's inner-circle and have complete free-reign to seize government operations and make changes with 0 transparency/accountability seems like it does just stupid amounts of harm to the integrity of the system
pray tell who was accountable for the grant issuance in the first place? was congress approving every disbursal? could the citizenry vote up/down on every RO1 or SBIR that went past the NIH desk?
Hey man, if you wanna make a point just make a point - no need to try the whole snarky rhetorical thing
Ofc not every decision is fully democratic, but the people making them are beholden to rules and systems which are - or at the least, have a clear chain of command back to individuals who Congress has direct authority over. No one ever said you needed 100% democratic oversight on every action, as long as those actions are obeying the system that was democratically established
The problem is doing it in an extra-legal way, where the Executive Office is giving a crony power his branch doesn't/shouldn't be able to bestow, where people telling this crony no when he tries things he shouldn't be able to do all seem to get put on leave etc
the executive has broad leeway to spend as it sees fit. i 100% guarantee you that disbursal of funds to grant recipients involves calling on extralegal outside-the-government "experts" making advisory recommendations without direct consultation of congress or the voter.
point is, live by the sword, die by the sword. it's hypocritical to whine about cutting funding by the exact same mechanism that is used to give it out because you dont like the political party of the cutter.
and you can't say "keep politics out of science". because when you're pulling from the public purse, it is inherently political.
there are ways to fund science that are apolitical. HHMI, ACS, ADA, AHA, etc.
Executive branch has leeway to decide on what to fund within the parameters set for the program by Congress. It can evaluate grants and set processes but not completely change the acceptance criteria or scope, which is under the jurisdiction of Congress - USAID is jointly under the purview of the executive and legislative branches. This isn't a "team" thing - Congress sets the scope of what USAID should be doing, and anyone changing that - or dismantling the program altogether - without their authority is overreaching
And again, my main issue here is that under any reasonably interpretation, Musk would qualify as a Principal officer, which as the Appointments clause of the Constitution clearly lays out requires Senate approval. It is beyond ridiculous that the head of a new "Department" who seems to have unilateral power over other departments now, is not subject to any kind of oversight or accountability to other branches of government - this is exactly the kind of shit the checks and balances were designed for
Refactor. Ha. This is just randomly and mindlessly deleting large chunks of code because you think it's woke.
Not a single personal alive thinks these institutions are perfect. But only morons think haphazardly defunding shit without understanding what you're breaking or what the real-world ramifications might be is a way to fix problems.
The past couple of weeks have historically stupid.
no not because it's woke. because it's broken. this is literally the system that let a person become the President of Stanford a federally granted research professor with years of fabricated data that absolutely fucked some people that i personally know. lets say, negative man-decades of research just among people in my limited circle. i guarantee you this was not an isolated incident
the sooner we cut this shit out, realize consequences, and start over, the better.
What the hell are you talking about? I chose to get into science for the benefit of the masses, rather than, for instance, helping some corporation abuse human psychology to sell more ads. If there is no money to do the science, I have no choice but to emigrate.
edit: And to give you an example of the science being targeted by these early moves: pulse oximeters have a racial bias leading them to overestimate the oxygen saturation of minorities, which led to deaths during the pandemic. All the work toward addressing that issue at the FDA has now been terminated, because it's related to DEI.
why do you suppose most science benefits the masses?
a stunning amount of science is negative. homme hellinga cheating and claiming a triosephosphate isomerase, for example. stripey nanoparticles, as another. Thousands of western blots that were cleverly edited by unscrupulous postdocs. everything by diderik stapel. anil potti.
those are the ones that got caught. so many more got away with it.
and yes, if you can't tell, i know what the fuck I'm talking about.
why dont i give you an example. NIH is responsible for 80% of the budget of an NGO that collaborated with WIV and advocated for GOF research. on the grounds of likely being responsible in part for the deaths of millions worldwide maybe we should suspend funding to the NIH until all of its policies can be reviewed
Luckily those things never happen in the private sector. Theranos?
what does being the private sector have to do with anything? We're talking about use of taxpayer money.
I'd like to make the point that private and public are coupled, in a way that if you dismantle everything public/tax funded, there is effectively nothing left except private by definition (with all it's upsides and downsides where the latter will be amplified in the absence of public oversight bodies funded by public money based on public law).
Now I (as a non US citizen, but one of a country that has it's fair share of needless bureaucracy) wholeheartedly agree that there is waste, a lack of oversight/transparency and probably a need for more say of the common taxpayer on how their money is spent.
But as someone who learnt the meaning of the Terms "Gleichschaltung" and "Ermächtigungsgesetz" in school, I wholeheartedly disagree with the current measures and how they unfold right in front of our eyes.
The small fraction of people perpetrating fraud does not warrant leaving science for private corps to pursue. The end result from that is companies sitting on their IP and suing anyone who comes up with something similar--with the cost passed on to consumers, and the pace of technology development slowing.
You still haven't explained how this is biased toward people "in it for the career, not for the principle."
But the scientific community identified this failure. They published the evidence against it. And shed light here.
And heck, they did a lot of unrelated great science at the same time.
Science is a process that will have failures, mistakes, errors, and these are subject to natural selection. We can work to make that process sharper, more rigorous, but that's obviously not what the administration is doing. They're attacking science with the full intent of replacing it with a system where lies and fraud reign supreme. In the world of RFK and Donald Trump, lies are just what people do every day for breakfast.
RFK Jr. gets a dozen things wrong on science and tells a dozen lies and funds and pals around with major fraudsters and charlatans every week.
they did not. in the case of tessier-levigne, who was responsible for getting him out of there? not the NIH. it was a fucking Stanford undergrad journalism student.
let that sink in. a heroically persistent undergrad had to do the job that the NIH was morally and legally obligated to do.
this "science is self correcting" trope needs to stop being propagated right now. and you can claim eventual self consistency if it resolves a hundred years from now, which would obviously be too little too late. how many people were hurt, how much research dollars were wasted in the meantime. "well, Eventually" is not good enough, and the self correcting slogan is just running cover for entreched interests in the face of their misdeeds.
This.
I'll add that all systems are self-correcting given sufficiently long timescale. (Or they die out and we're none the wiser due to survival bias)
Science isn't any special in this regard. Even the Catholic Church was self correcting (it doesn't do Inquisitions or sell indulgences any more, does it?). As was Nazi Germany (WWII fixed that, hurray for... whatever that was).
To be honest the real "self-correcting" mechanism is some kind of Darwinian survival system where you have to ensure the wrong things don't perpetuate. Government funding really doesn't help with that unless the mechanism deciding which projects/people to fund have a really good model of the real world (i.e. "truth").
Yeah, but that's actually not really true, the undergrad just reported in the campus newspaper what other scientists had found and reported in pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Tessier-Lavigne
Here's his original reporting where he describes this: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/5-tips-for-using-...
Kudos to the kid for breaking the story before other media sources, but the actual scientific investigative work here was done by people with scientific training
You might be on to something here.
Yes there is structural issue.
When researchers see that appealing to DEI and inclusion make is easy to gain finding for, allegedly, research that is wasteful and not meritorious, everyone will attempt to do it.
Conversely, when appealing to "equality of white people" becomes more likely to get you funded, everyone will also attempt that. Which is going to be the case going forward. If you do not believe me, DJT has appointed someone at the helm of EEO commission who explicitly does this in their LinkedIn bio.
So the issue is structural, it is not dei or white power.
scientific fraud is absolutely a problem -- a universal problem, because it's inherently a human problem (it's inextricably tied to academic careers, so it's not really a money problem, it's a career problem--in other words, people aren't doing it to get rich, they're doing it to further their career or prestige; that doesn't make it any better, it just makes the context more complicated)
but what the admin is trying to do has nothing to do with "making science right". it has a very clearly stated goal of 1) rooting out anything remotely related to DEI; 2) rooting out anything related to previous investigations into Trump and the Jan6 attempted coup (see purges at FBI, DOJ); 3) cutting government spending (so there's money to pass a promised tax cut); 4) whatever Elon decides he wants to gut
None of these have anything to do with making science more honest and accurate. If that were the goal, you'd probably need to _increase_ funding because you'd need more reproducibility studies.
Part of me thinks this is just incompetence. People put in charge to "change" things without knowing what the thing is or does and just randomly mashing buttons.
I contend that there existed too much incompetence across what the government has been funding. I’m looking forward to a ‘change’ for more competence, efficiency, innovation, accountability, etc
The process is the problem. There is no oversight and accountability for Musk and his "DOGE". That's pure poison to Democracy and to a functioning society.
Musk is neither competent nor efficient. He looks at line items and makes stuff up. He destroys a hundred useful things to destroy a bad one. Details don't matter to him. Its the same con man mentality that feeds off the works of his workforce. People who think he is a genius are gullible.
Can you give specific examples to back up your comments about Musk? I am quite gullible otherwise.
- He claimed the US funded bio-weapons when they found payments for gain of function research.
- Calling payments to non-profit organizations fraudulent on a whim.
- The sweeping condemnation of what USAID was doing.
- His call for a blanket drop of regulations.
Either he knows better or he is totally lost in his sauce. Hard to say what's worse for where he is right now.
I believe, he does not care. He only cares about his conception of the world and how AI and Mars are more important than those tiny tiny human problems. Society has to serve him and his god complex. He was told to find his subsidies and tax cuts by himself. That's what he is doing.
Evidence is being presented in real-time on X for each of the things you mentioned. Suggest you do some homework instead of gleaning headlines from old media, who btw, was getting money from USAID - the latest series of evidence coming out on X today.
You really need to take a hard look at who is gullible here.
Can you point me to some of the evidence being presented? I know elon's been posting claims of fraud and abuse, but I'm only seen his claims, without any evidence.
way too many to list:
Govt money going to NYTimes, AP, Reuters, Politico: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690 https://x.com/Austen/status/1887179699874304210 https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1887179349440290883 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887184877197410455 https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1887147866688213254
This guy has been providing evidence for a decade: https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber
Long list of questionable funding by USAID: https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553
...
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04...
Bro gets his news from X. hahahahaha. Adorable.
where do you get your "curated" news sir?
This is factual though.
The previous NIH director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss and current deputy director Dr. Lawrence Tabak agree that the definition of "gain of function" as was listed on the NIH website applies to engineering a biological agent to infect something it normally wouldnt be able to.
That coupled with the fact that Dr.Daszak submitted the Year 5 Annual Progress Report Nearly Two Years Late. Said report had the experiment with infected transgenic mice with four different coronaviruses, three of which were chimera or recombinant viruses with different spike proteins.
When confronted in the deposition Daszak said that the reporting system was inaccessible. So they deposed the IT stack of the reporting system, and they showed logs that it was accessible and actually logged into several times during the 2 year period that the report was late.
This is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that they were attempting to hide or delay the experiments from being discovered by the grant review process at the end of the year. The report is pretty damning.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04...
His manage-by-trolling technique is demonstrably effective in industry.
It’s just that government isn’t that.
Or are his companies successful despite that? The impression I get is that his direct reports are exceptionally good managers and shield the companies from his dumbest moves. Except at Twitter--that's lost, what, 75% of its value? (still works as a political platform for him though)
Considering that twitter never profited since he took over, nah
"Twitter" wasn't profitable when he bought it so I'm not sure this is a fair comparison.
That’s exactly what I mean by manage by trolling. He forces his directs to be good by trolling them with idiotic ideas.
I don’t condone manage by trolling; it’s not how I want to manage or be managed. But it seems to have worked out for his industrial complex.
So he fosters competence with his incompetence? Seems like it would work just as well without him except for marketing. I'm impressed with Tesla and SpaceX as a whole, but from what I've heard, he hasn't been heavily involved with day to day decisions for more than a decade. From my perspective, his role is to be a hype man that consistently over promises and under delivers.
Musk specializes at succeeding in fields where nobody else is seriously trying. He's never actually faced good old-fashioned market competition.
He's good at identifying ideas whose time has come, I'll give him that much credit. Ransacking the US Treasury wasn't on the radar, though, as far as I could see.
It's easy to dismiss eccentric people as conmen. But you have to consider, he has been at least partially instrumental in at least 2 impossible companies: electric cars and rockets.
Regardless of what you think of his intellectual capacity, he has a proven track record of organizing people to produce exceptional outcomes !
An inevitable characteristic of his algorithm is chaos: delete as many constraints and parts as possible. When things break, re-add those necessary parts.
This might work sometimes for companies (surprisingly, often it doesn't) - it has far more significant and wide-reaching consequences when you're doing it to an entire country and its institutions, particularly one as influential as America.
And? Getting people whipped up into a frenzy through fear, us vs them mentality, narcissism, to do good work is toxic. Musk is toxic.
We should stop elevating leaders as extra-ordinarily capable. Especially leaders who employ a negative leadership style instead of one founded on empathy, trust, respect, and importance of the group over leader.
ask yourself who is doing the whipping into frenzy
the media + bureaucratic class + democrat leaders who all have a vested interest in these un-audited institutions remaining in the shadows,
or
the people doing exactly what half the country asked them to do: clean up the government in an unprecedented way
There's no media here, just people talking about the jobs they lost and the jobs they're going to lose, everyone can see it.
For better or worse, there is no media, only social media mobs.
Maybe if DEI is in your job title its not a real job.
I would think both sides of the political spectrum agree that the government spends money frivolously; so I am confused on why people are so upset. Maybe they aren't actually upset and all we are hearing in any form of media are government leeches crying about the end to their gravy train.
"You can't be loony and rich. You've got to be eccentric if you're rich.
- Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
Electric cars are a con job though, impressive, but still a con.
Electric cars have nothing to do with the conservation of the environment, but are are a way for rich people virtue signal in an effort to offload the guilt of their "carbon footprint" to another country that mines the Cobalt and Lithium. Pollution for thee not for me.
What "competence"? What "efficiency"? What "innovation"? What "accountability"?
There is no accountability or efficiency in unelected technocrats blowing up what was working without a plan or subject matter expertise.
This is hopelessly naive.
With a focus on the hopeless part.
I feel more and more like a large portion of the American public exists at the weaponized intersection of the subbing Kruger effect and Chesterton fence. They hear so many vague platitudes about waste that it’s just taken as dicta without evidence. That somehow provides a global mandate to break anything.
If we survive this I hope that the government workforce starts to get more respect of the hard work they do on complicated problems to make fair processes and that they stop getting just blanket accused of incompetence for ideological gain.
I've worked for the government before and have personally witnessed a very large amount of waste. It's absolutely there, and it's disgusting.
Waste needs to be cut back - that is morally required to happen, because it's not waste of some private company's money, it's the waste of other peoples' money - the only problem is that you can't take the Office Space "What would you say you do here?" approach of randomly cutting people, but have to address the systemic issues that result in tens of billions of dollars lost yearly.
Some of these include:
- literal incentives to waste money in the form of "if you don't use your whole budget every year, we'll cut it next year" (which applies to large parts of the military and defense, which happen to be some of the biggest spenders)
- massive bureaucracy that takes processes that should take a day and turns them into multi-week-long nightmares
- terrible office cultures that encourage single-points-of-failure...and then gives those people lots of vacation time
- large policy sub-orgs that focus on evaluating requests against hundreds of thousands of pages of policy instead of trying to help the workers actually get things done
- terrible contracting processes that result in the government paying 2-10x more than private industry does for goods and services (which only a small increase in quality or reliability)
...and many, many more problems.
You can simultaneously believe that the average government worker is competent and hard-working, and that the bureaucracy as a whole is extremely inefficient due to systemic issues.
Blanket defense of government (in)efficiency actively makes the problems worse. Focus your energy instead on adding nuance when discussing the problems and solutions.
I think this is part of the problem. There is merit in the stated goal. Most people think there is waste in government, so cleaning things up resonates.
The issue though is with the way it’s being done. Giving it the most charitable take, it’s at best reckless. No oversight, no transparency. We can only take him at his word that things are being improved. But given the various false and misleading statements that’s already come out, of the limited info being released, how can we trust him?
Yes, spot on, I think this is very accurate and truthful.
I'm just trying to differentiate between "the government is wasteful, and here's the careful and prudent way to make it better" and "the government isn't very wasteful and we should avoid even talking about the possibility".
I’m not sure there are many people arguing for the latter. The former yes, but more than that it’s the types of things that are being targeted.
Method aside, musk is trying to save a few million here and there on things that are “wasteful” but provide benefit to a lot of people, including Americans. Meanwhile, a multi trillion dollar tax cut that’s going mostly to the wealthy is fine and not wasteful for some reason. Jacked up prices from a handful of defense contractors is also fine.
I don't think anyone on this forum is against curbing government waste, which exists in any government from any political spectrum.
But that is _not_ what is happening here.
I have no problem with that. I don't even disagree with government waste, we all see it. If what trump and musk did was:
- Audit spending (at USAID or wherever else)
- Come up with details of where there is waste, being transparent about it for the public to see and review
- Use that to recommend change to congress / the president, again in full public view
Then I'd have no issues. The problem is, what's actually happening is:
- Musk and team are in there with no accountability and no transparency. We don't know what he has access to, what was done
- Unilaterally making changes without public review or oversight. It's a "trust me bro" stance.
- From the few things that has been published, many seem to be outright lies (50m on condoms) or extremely biased conclusions (IRS direct filing)
Thank you for making an actually thoughtful comment with very reasonable points about the ways in which Musk et al are failing the taxpayers/citizens. I'd add on another one, from the article:
Retaliation is very bad, especially when it comes to trying to protect national security information. As a semi-technical person running several large technical companies, even if he had zero experience with the DoD before, Musk should at the very least understand how important it is to guard your "IP".
Retaliation seems like the norm from the current administration. Calls to investigate and jail political opponents, agents that investigated the Jan 6 “protestors”, to deport the Bishop for calls for mercy.
Bullying, intimidation, arrogance. Traits that I would’ve hoped most would be against.
I dont need a line item list to know that USAID DEI Scholarships in Burma $45.00M is wasteful spending.
The waste is right there in the name. Funding DEI Scholarships in Burma is not how the American people want their taxes spent.
The public review was the presidential election. Making changes without oversight is what an executive order is.
Where do you see that? What accountability is present?
20% of funding going to study replication is a good start.
He has 4yoe though. This is by design.
We all know years of experience doesn't always mean someone is qualified.
It's a little from column A and a little from column B.
Incompetence. Mixed in with a fair amount of malevolence. Mixed in with that rich guy thing of really hating smart people because why do they always keep telling me I'm wrong and embarrassing me in front of people if they were really so smart why aren't they rich like me huh?
I never thought about it like this and it makes so much sense. I have financial (and maybe social) power therefore I should have intellectual power and if you show to people that you have more than I do, then I feel embarrassed and will use my financial (and social) power to make you feel embarrassed.
As Sir Ian Jacob said, the Allies won World War II because "our German scientists were better than their German scientists." Brain drain is a real problem for fascist countries.
So should we move to Thailand or Canada or ???
Canada, the EU, Australia, ...
Places with solid research institutions and less-dysfunctional governments.
CA, AU, and some EU countries are about to elect conservative governments
Your best option is sometimes your least worse.
There is conservative... then there is Trump.
Conservative there are a lot more closer to US democrat than republican, so that's not a problem
Canadian gag order on climate scientists repealed by Justin Trudeau.
We'll see about Canada, depending on who LPC elect for party leader and how Trudeau continues to handle Trump
The problem is that academic hiring is anemic in those places (as it will be in the US very soon, once Trump is done wrecking the NIH, NSF, etc.).
Canada where we can be debanked for supporting a protest.
So who is fighting the US in WW3?
I guess the only option is everyone.
US loss, Europe's win. Same thing with the trade wars and other Trumpian policies. Short term gains to look strong but long term just degrades US soft power and decades of ally building.
US screws up and Europe gains some points is a best case scenario. I don't mean to sound like a patriot, but the US is a big deal and it's currently administered by unsound forces.
Europe doesn’t have the budget.
The US has the strongest university and research system in the world. Wrecking that will be one of the worst acts of self-harm ever.
It has been wrecked. This is an attempt at fixing it.
Wrecked how? Fixed how? Can you describe either or are you just saying words?
US scientific research funding is largely driven by nepotism and favoritism. Insiders know but don't talk too much about it. They have a few options: a) just quietly stay in the system trying their best to do good work b) join the gravy train through social climbing c) quietly leave and move on with their careers.
lol no
If that's true, and you've offered no evidence to support that it is, canceling funding for anything tangentially associated with "DEI" doesn't seem like it actually solves any of those problems.
I remember being told that the most important thing in a grant application after who you know is to get the margins and formatting right.
Word
This is pretty vague and gestural, I'd love specific examples to support your accusation. I work on NIH funded grants, and while I don't write the grants, I'm reasonably familiar with the process. I disagree with your assessment when it comes to any grant I've been involved with. I've never seen corruption like that. These grant proposals look a lot like private sector bids: here's what we want to do, and how it aligns with your mission, and here's how we plan to do it, and how much we're asking for. The process is competitive, and a committee decides on the outcome. Everything has oversight, and is very procedural. Before working on NIH grants, I worked in the private sector doing large contracts for 13 years, and the downside of the way the NIH does it is not corruption, if anything it's bureaucratic slowness and overcaution. The private sector was much shadier and prone to cronyism, and has nothing to teach the government on that count... believe it or not.
Don’t know about NIH.
I used to work in academia and was involved in NSF and DOE grants. I’ve been in industry (IC then manager) since then.
My sense is that grant funding was less merit based than industry funding. I’m not saying it’s so corrupt that it should be completely torn down, but there’s just less accountability in academia - you can get a grant, fail to deliver on what you promised, and still get another grant after that and that can be your whole career if you know how to play the academic social game and are good at writing proposals.
The whole point of many of these grants is to invest in research on the leading edge where, by definition, nobody knows whether what they're trying to do is going to work, because it's actually new.
Of course that can be gamed, and of course we need good faith oversight, but if none of the research projects we're funding were to ever fail, that would be evidence that we're being massively too conservative in the avenues for new discoveries that we're investing in exploring.
Even taking this as true, and also taking it as true that we need to build a new research funding system from a clean slate to fix it - that can still be done in parallel while leaving the existing system in place! So as usual the effort of trying to discern some higher purposes is unwarranted, and the goal of these people is to just straight up destroy our country.
Please name a specific government grant that was given to a specific researcher based nepotism and favoritism.
The last time I checked when I worked at a Stanford biomedical university department that was substantially NIH-funded, there were 2 full time employee grant writers who had to supply the government grant process with a laundry list of specific data with each carefully-worded proposal because they were regularly competing with other universities to win a specific grant.
Some Stanford guy caused the NIH to deprioritize the infectious etiology theory for Alzheimer’s for decades. It’s not clear why his research was considered better than the others’, but it did receive a lot of attention and became the driving force. Millions have paid the price. His voice was not the only one, it was just the favored one.
Insiders have little say. NSF is probably the most merit based system in all the US government. Literally any other program (defense?) is less merit based.
Also, if nepotism and favoritism are the criteria for removal, let's start with the Executive branch.
Insiders right fucking here are insisting they have not experienced that.
Which insiders are right?
Guess what, it's both! America is 350 million people. Most things have been experienced by someone. That does not allow you to generalize usefully.
Meanwhile the women and non-white insiders are still experiencing straight up racism and sexual harassment and sexism so....
It hasn't and it isn't.
Ah yeah the it’s broke so let’s smash the pieces into smaller pieces strategy.
It's also highly discriminatory and ideological. Decades of discrimination will lead people to want to come back and tear it down, you reap what you sow.
Could you explain more about the "highly discriminatory and ideological" behavior you've seen? Is it across the board, in the sciences? For example, is a neurosurgery lab at UC Davis working on glioma research either discriminatory and ideologically driven?
I can speak to one instance of this (which was before COVID and the events surrounding George Floyd, so apply context as needed), but I took a class on networking implementations in low-budget and rural regions.
As part of the curriculum, there were distinct lessons (in this hard-science course) on feminist design, avoiding white-savior rollouts, and cultural relativism -- with much room to expound on their importance, and little room to critique.
I happened to agree with lots of the mindsets of these lessons a priori, but I was definitely acutely aware the whole course that there was an ideological bent, even in STEM.
The networking stack obviously had no viewpoint, but the course teaching it certainly did.
I don't know if networking implementations in low-budget and rural regions is a purely STEM topic. The mere fact it talks about low-budget and rural regions suggests to me it interacts with geography and sociology and development economics, which to me makes sense that it'd incorporate ideas from those fields as well.
A lot of universities have found that female professors have significantly less lab space than male professors. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2023/02/09/uc-san-diego... https://news.mit.edu/2014/research-reveals-gender-gap-nation...
In neuroscience there have been studies showing that the methods developed may not be effective for all races or sexes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-022-01046-0
Historically studies have had an overrepresentation of white men as subjects. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1761670/
Here's a good account of some of it: https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-wer...
I can't deny that person's experience but mine has not been that at all.
This is one of the core problems that many on the "left" will not understand.
The problem is that the people who have seen and who have experienced this will never tell you. I and many like me I've talked to will simply never tell their actual beliefs to a colleague who believes like this.
Cannot tell you how many countless meetings I've been in where I have a differing opinion and say nothing because of backlash and loss of softpower.
The truth is that there are huge numbers of your coworkers, bosses, and employees who have different thoughts that don't align with the current ideology. These people have learned to say nothing. I myself being one of them.
I have on multiple occasions just straight lied to a liberal coworker about my beliefs because me telling what I actually think would make it very difficult to work with them.
The fuck are you taking about? They can’t even fill the seats with the demographic bomb hitting. Dude, populations change. Therefore they have demand and supply they meet. I don’t care for the system for other reasons but discriminatory? Get fucking real.
Despite all the hyperbole in this thread I will try to speak plainly. It has become tiring to see how DEI has affected all aspects of academia. Hiring people based on race, awarding grants to work exclusively with members of a particular set of minorities, etc. I'm sure most people choose to close their eyes to such things and move on and focus on the actual important work but there must be unimaginable waste going on in addition to unethical race based preferences.
Do you have any verifiable numbers to back up the impact?
"A 2021 American Enterprise Institute survey of academic job postings found that 19% required DEI statements, and elite institutions were more likely to require them."
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-di...
"Speech First, a group advocating for First Amendment rights on US campuses, released an investigation on Thursday that found 165 of 248 selected institutions — from American University to Williams College — mandate DEI-related classes to meet general education requirements."
https://nypost.com/2024/04/11/us-news/two-thirds-of-us-colle...
“DEI exists” isn’t an argument.
That is quite literally what this thread is about.
I don’t think they were asking to quantify the existence of DEI, that would be silly. DEI’s existence is a fact, that’s not under debate.
How much it exists in the hiring process is very much under debate.
Of course it exists in the hiring process. How is that question?
Maybe the real issue is people don’t actually know what DEI is.
DEI is a good idea that has led to a catastrophic backlash.
Imagine a world where us intellectual types hadn’t given the right this kind of talking point on a silver platter. Election might have gone differently.
I like to imagine a world where the institutions that were supposed to protect us had done their jobs, and enforced the gentleman’s agreement we had, that worked so well these past 50 years.
They'd have just invented another issue.
I mean that genuinely. It's unclear reality matters at all. People just make up things to be mad about now.
I largely agree but I doubt other issues would be such massive free wins for Republicans. The Republican base has become rabid over DEI and trans issues and it has been really obvious for a while now that it was going to be a massive problem for Democrats. Sadly these issues have become more divisive than even gun control.
You point to the issue Republicans have with trans people existing, isn't that a counterpoint to your point?
They were able to make a massive issue out of the existence of less than a percent of the population, if the can do that how can you say they wouldn't have made issues of literally anything?
They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads trying to convince people these things were a problem. That is, by definition, not a free win.
You have to realize some of these issues didn't used to be as divisive. They made them divisive. Abortion being the most obvious. If you need an issue to rally around, you create one.
"trans issues" are literally an issue they invented. They've been workshopping attack vectors for years. Bathrooms didn't really work, so they switched to athletes, which did.
They will continue inventing issues until they find one that sticks.
Should one be required to submit a statement proving their past support of DEI as part of the hiring process in academia? What should people who disagree with such efforts put in this statement?
If simply requiring it filters out the kind of people that would abhor minorities coexisting with them, I think it's worth it to them.
And if it also filters out people who think these programs have good intentions but in reality are complete BS?
“BS programs with good intentions” is like 80%* of all jobs. It’s a useful hiring signal.
* YMMV
But it is. DEI indicates ideological capture. Whether it's good or bad doesn't matter, it's not germane to the purported goals of "advancing science/health/military readiness/etc". At best it's tangential.
If we were a robust and wealthy country, then perhaps we could engage in these sorts of boutique social experiments. But we are not. We've got serious problems on multiple fronts. Fixing it before it all goes blooey means serious disruption, and we're now well into 30 years of positive reinforcement on the ideological capture. You're not going to get the results you need from the people who benefitted from the previous mismanagement. Trump learned that lesson quite directly the last time he was in office.
[flagged]
If you could please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42951612 and stop breaking HN's rules, regardless of how wrong anyone else is or you feel they are, we'd appreciate it.
I know it's not easy when times are urgent and feelings understandably run high, but those are the times when the rules need to count the most (as the site guidelines say: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.")
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Oh sorry, just noticed this.
What does this prove?
Look, there are multiple lawsuits against universities regarding their hiring practices going on right now.
Outside of academia you have things like the FAA hiring scandal coming to light: https://substack.com/home/post/p-156166190
The list goes on and on.
What's the "unimaginable waste"? Can you put a comparative number on it?
Do you think that DEI is just some line item in a budget that can easily be produced? Without which we'll just have to shrug our shoulders and endlessly equivocate about how their might be some waste?
All I'm asking for is evidence of the problem you're saying exists.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-dei-conquered-the-university...
What was the impact?
Impact is irrelevant. Racist policy is immoral and indefensible.
What's the "unimaginable waste" OP mentions?
[flagged]
Academics should keep in mind that they rely on the generosity of taxpayers to fund their research.
They don’t have an entitlement to other people’s money, and if they are perceived as wasting it or spending in discriminatorily then you should expect the public to become less willing to give it to you.
That's only true in a very myopic sense. You don't get the US economy (and all of the benefits that come from that) without science and technology and basic research funding.
You are speaking on an intellectual level. The comment you replied to is speaking on a practical, political level. If voters do not like what is going on in universities, they will defund them. This is a political reality.
~82% of all R&D funding in the US is non-Federal, and 75+% is industry. The total investment by companies on R&D is about the same as the US defense budget. Many people still think it is like the 1960s and 1970s, when US government funding of R&D was a large percentage of the total. Federal investment in R&D hasn't declined so much as industry massively increased their investment.
The Federal government found a niche in basic research for a few decades and funded the vast majority of that. Per NSF, today even basic research is <40% funded by the Federal government, again not due to a decline in Federal funding but due to vast increases in industry investment. This shift toward industry investment in basic research was not overnight, it has been a monotonic trend for decades. Over the last century, the areas where Federal research funding is critical have dwindled greatly in scope because industry spends more money and is willing to take more risks.
One of the more interesting stories here is why and how this change happened in the US, to the point where the vast majority of R&D is funded by industry even in areas historically dominated by Federal government funding.
It's worth distinguishing between R&D and science. In my experience in industry, R&D is very focused on product development. Sometimes on a little longer time horizon than engineering, but it's research to solve some problem that the company has. Sometimes that problem is also more broadly useful towards advancing human knowledge and understanding, but often it's not. At my last company, the R&D department focused entirely on 1) building algorithms for a specific product (nothing that advanced the state of the art, just applying well-established techniques to the company's particular hardware); and 2) helping market the company's products by letting them claim that they were clinically-proven. Would they ever publish anything that showed a result that wouldn't serve the company's interests? Of course not. Yes, I know there are some industrial labs that do more basic research, but I've never worked at one.
Also, industry isn't really doing that much to train the next generation of scientists.
We are at the tail end of a 50 year bull run powered by declining interest rates. Maybe ZIRP is the new normal and private industry R&D investment stays high, but I don't think we should gamble our status as an economic, scientific, and technological powerhouse on that and gut our government financed R&D programs.
Further more, my wife works in biotech so I have seen first hand the compromises one has to make to secure private funding. They care about things like market size and revenue potential when making these investments, which means you end up with most of the money flowing towards diseases that largely affect rich people and solutions that are either expensive or recurring. And lets also not forget that almost all of these companies are working off of or spinning out from research programs that were funded by the government. I have yet to meet a single company where that wasn't the case.
Almost 100% of basic scientific research in the world is funded by governments.
The R&D figures you're citing are for engineering the latest iPhone, not for figuring out how basic biology works.
I need to read more details on this because everything I’ve seen in the past 30 years has involved industry shutting down basic research.
Maybe it’s more true in some fields (biotech?)
How is this counted? If it’s based on tax figures, there’s a lot of corporate “R&D” that gets written off that wouldn’t be considered research in an academic setting.
Those numbers come from NSF, so I assume the definition of "basic research" would align with NSF.
The rise in basic research in industry coincides with the rise of technology as a major component of the US economy decades ago. I suspect these are not unrelated. The growth of deep tech investment by the private sector probably has a lot to do with it.
Voters are overwhelmingly in favor of funding US science. They are overwhelmingly in favor funding US international aid. The public thinks we spend way more on these than we do.
The idea that the blatantly illegal actions by the current administration reflect public will simply isn't based in any kind of reality- just calling it out as a lie.
I'm sure voters have more nuanced opinions than just "science" and "foreign aid".
For example, I suspect the public strongly supports taxpayer funding of medical research, but strongly opposes taxpayer funding for social sciences.
Ah, your post helped me realize that a lot of people probably have an anger or resentment towards academics. So maybe part of it is DEI, part of it is the resentment towards the kids in school who always knew the answers.
I'm not saying this is what's coming from you, just reminded me of how many people have had so much animosity towards me over the years because of my intelligence, or maybe more so, my confidence in my intelligence. A jealousy/envy/admiration all mixed together.
Polling tends to show public support for certain disciplines (e.g. medicine, engineering, hard science) and not others (e.g. social sciences)
I don’t think the public resent intelligence per se, but rather dislike when it is combined with judgementalism
Yes, it's a two-sided problem, with the "more intelligent" sometimes looking down on those who seem "less intelligent" and the "less intelligent" sometimes thinking the "more intelligent" are looking down on them.
You say this like we didn't just have massive outrage at hard medical science because the reality was that, yes, you should be made to get the damn vaccine.
The american public, beyond all else, hates being told they are wrong.
They are rarely right. So how do you square that circle?
This... explains a lot. Taxes probably need a new phrasing, framing, and mind set. If the military can get $820b (13% of the pie) and be celebrated, then we need to get there with education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. as well.
I think a lot of the problem is policy bundling.
Defence is a homogenous concept, or close to it, so people can confidently state they support it.
Research is a messy mix of things people like and things they don’t.
It is it significantly easier to obtain public support for, say, cancer research, than say, fat phobia, but both are lumped together from the public’s perspective as NIH funding.
This makes it harder for people to support, because they cannot easily support what they care about without supporting what they perceive as wasteful spending.
Defense is a messy bundle as well, if you follow the political fights over spending bills.
The key is to tie it to national pride, something everyone instinctively appreciates.
Or national fear
Smugness usually turns people off. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. No one likes people who act superior to them. Hilary lost over her “deplorables” comment. It makes me sad that the left is not taking the right lesson from this election.
I hear you, I think it's a balance of people trying to not be so smug (aka not attacking other people's intelligence) and people trying to not see other people as smug (aka not thinking the other person is attacking their intelligence).
I've struggled with the former a lot in my life. I was really good at school and feel very confident in my intelligence. So when I feel attacked, I often punch back at someone's intelligence without even realizing it.
Sometimes me feeling attacked is just confusion or sadness or disappointment that someone doesn't know something and I feel lonely that I'm the only one who does, and often angry when their decisions impact my life. Takes a lot to remind myself they know other things a lot better than me.
I'm not happy with what is going on, to be clear. But I am also not surprised that it is happening, and furthermore I don't believe there was any other alternative to this scorched earth war against DEI. If one had any reservations against DEI before, one would speak only in whispers. Now the backlash is here.
Of course there is an alternative. Through actual leadership.
It's not hard to effect change over time with a few memos (e.g. no more "pregnant people") and reviews. It may not be quick enough for certain items already in motion, but that really doesn't matter if the pipeline quickly empties out as the memos take effect.
The scorched earth policy is intended to sow fear.
Unfortunately I think the problem is much deeper than something that can be fixed with a few memos. I was just Googling for examples and found this "inclusive language guide" from University of Washington [1]:
There are of course endless examples. Such sentiments are so absurd on their face, and yet they abound. The first thing "actual leadership" must do is speak the truth and acknowledge that there is a problem.
[1] https://it.uw.edu/guides/identity-diversity-inclusion/inclus...
Yes. But what is happening now isn't speaking the truth, it's just causing chaos for chaos sake. Forget the DEI topic itself. From a managerial point of view, does this look like good management to you? Is this leadership you would want to work for with all the abrupt decisions that keep flip flopping? Does it instill confidence in you that they actually know how to manage anything?
This does look like good management to me, but that greatly depends on one's values and objectives. If your objective is to maintain peace and order, these actions must seem quite harmful. If your objective is to root out the racism, these actions seem wholly justified. Which one of these you care about most surely determines your perception of current events.
I don't like DEI either but you're drinking the Koolaid, there is nothing "good management" about sending out a vague memo with enormous consequences on Monday and rescinding it on Wednesday.
Trump's undersecretary of state for diplomacy tweeted last fall that "competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work".
These people in power are using any good faith doubt about dei that an everyday citizen may have, and are using it to revert to White-by-default government, and tearing up the entire civil service.
If you don't know if and despise Russell Vought and Stephen Miller and their philosophy of the Constitution, you need to.
But what’s missing is just a fundamental sense of scale. One can rightly think this is a bit ridiculous, while also understanding it’s not that big of a deal. Honestly, there are so many economic and social issues that have real importance on people’s lives, and half the country is wound up in a culture war over which words are considered polite or not.
White men feel abandoned and life expectancy for white men in the US is going down, often due to deaths of despair (suicide, overdose, etc).
Some just shrink away, others lash out with vengeance, but I do think it is a huge societal problem, especially as the demographics of the country shift and white men may no longer have the majority in a democratic society.
Many democratic societies that are ruled by a minority demographic do not tend to survive, and so I think the transition from white majority to non-white majority is actually a fundamental issue for our democracy.
All excellent points that won’t be solved by cutting funding for education!
I think there's a number of issues with this diagnosis, but chiefly: Trump won a second term on the back of a massive surge in non-white support. He's basically where he was in 2016 with white voters.
Seriously.
University of Michigan DEI is 1100+ employees strong (!!) at a cost of over $30M/year (the equivalent of 1,800 students’ worth of tuition), and they are launching an even bigger DEI 2.0.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2025/02/02/kabbany...
I am not a DJT fan at all, but stories like these are exactly what has people stark raving mad. I can’t really blame them.
While the stated goals are noble, the truth in many cases is that it is an excuse to exclude white males. And I expect downvotes, but you don’t have to look too far to see the truth.
I studied electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois before switching to intercultural communication, because partially, I found it a helluva lot more difficult to solve.
I think the challenge with DEI is the framing of it. If we called it intercultural competence, or intercultural teambuilding, or whatever, then it focuses on how we are a highly multicultural society in the US and that there are huge benefits to being able to connect and collaborate with people across a wide variety of cultures.
Have customers who are in a rural area? Well, sometimes it's really hard for people in the city to comprehend what rural life is like, sometimes much easier to have someone on your team from the rural area to provide that tacit knowledge. Sell beauty supplies and looking to get into the African-American market? Can be really hard for white men to know the tacit knowledge involved in managing 4c level curly hair (most white men probably have never knew there was a classification system on the level of curliness of hair).
I worked in innovation consulting for a few years. The ability to empathize and connect with people across cultures may be one of the most important skills in innovation and problem solving. So maybe it's just a framing issue.
And it would be a lie because DEI is not solely about race.
It's interesting that you're willing to accept the anti-DEI crowd's motives on good faith, but not the DEI initiatives'
One might think that the current pushes are an excuse to exclude various minorities. Considering what DEI initiatives were born of just a few decades ago, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion either.
I do think there's some truth to listen to from those so opposed to the initiatives - there's some that go too far and should be reigned in - but, as others have pointed out in this thread, drinking the Kool Aid with this push isn't really going to fix anything. It's just swinging back and forth on the political pendulum. Is that really what people want?
Not just fear. Chaos, uncertainty, and cover for what I expect will be the biggest looting in history.
Even if someone thinks DEI had to go, they ought to be aware that their beliefs are being used as nothing but a smokescreen for unparalleled destruction and plunder.
Because the plundering is to pull the power to the white men, so that even if white men lose the democratic majority, they (we? as i'm a white american man) can still have power.
White men feel abandoned, powerless, ignored, blamed, and all sorts of attacks, and if we don't talk about this, then this country may continue a sort of death spiral, borderline suicidal people taking us all down with them.
You understand that means reinstating segregation, right?
You want all scientific research in the US halted, just because the term "pregnant people" bothers you? Look, I think the term is a bit cringeworthy, but ripping up the entire US scientific system over that is psychotic.
The issue is cultural and they think the cultural issue will change by slashing the government, not realizing the cultural issue doesn't come from government.
I think it was someone on the right, Steve Bannon or even Andrew Breitbarting, that said politics follows culture. So to focus on culture first.
They're trying to change culture at the political level, and I'm not sure that's how it works.
I don't think that's what the OP or many people likely want at all. I think what the OP was saying is this is what Trump rode to power on. The left is great at eating its own. Reasonable people who were traditionally allies of the left, felt attacked and alienated because of using a wrong word. Add in the economic issues and it was a perfect storm for Trump to rise to power.
The OP said there was no other alternative to what Trump is doing.
What is happening now is not at all a rational response to DEI. It's not even motivated by DEI. Trump and his gang simply want to gut the federal government, because they don't want to pay taxes. DEI is just an excuse.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You're welcome, of course, to make your substantive points thoughtfully.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Unethical race-based preferences is what those policies have been trying to fix. Not sure you’re aware of this, but academia used to be basically off-limits to anyone not white and male.
I understand that that is the stated intention. I also believe they are racist and discriminatory.
I also understand this. And now it is not. What is the point here?
My guy you aren't getting it. You were lied to. You bought it. You are just plain wrong and openly propagating a lie as fact and you seem to be doubling down.
Is this also a lie?
From psychology department at University of Washington [1]:
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity...
Nobody is saying it's not happening but the notion that it's systemic -- as the opposite is -- is categorically a lie and, again, as you've been told a few times in this thread, DEI's goal is to prevent even this scenario from happening as its intended goal is to foster merit-only hiring.
My most charitable reading of your comment is that the DEI policies were simply grossly misunderstood by the department in this case. Therefore, it would seem that an unintended consequence of DEI policies has been to foster the scenarios it was designed to prevent.
That was 20 years ago, today merit only hiring is called evil by the same people, there is a reason people started to get really against what they do lately.
(Psst: There's no such thing as purely merit-based hiring. And DEI's mostly just about just making sure perfectly capable individuals aren't passed over or alienated because they're not white men. Because that's what's been going on for most of the past -- checks notes -- 500 years of American history. Pass it on.)
Not the OP, but I believe any distribution of limited resources could be seen as inherently discriminatory or racist or classist or whatever ist one wants.
If there is only 1 job but 10 candidates, the job has to go to someone. If everyone has the same scores on an exam, what's the fair way? Flip a coin? Perhaps. What if there are intangible skills/knowledge that are important for the job? One person has a better score on the exam, another person speaks a language (or dialect) that is important for the job. Maybe 9 of 10 come from one academic background, the 10th comes from a different one...which may actually provide a different perspective and provide new insights and break group think. Maybe one comes from a culture that is more confrontational, which means they may speak out more than others.
So many factors are intangible or at least not explicit and I think that's where "merit" can become so dimensionally reduced, not realizing how multidimensional each individual is.
I think this is well articulated. My response would be: what is the north star? What is the aspirational state? It is perhaps inherently unachievable, but what should we be aiming towards? I suggest that that be the thing which guides all other policies. If we intend to admit students on the basis of ability, an SAT score is just about the fairest way to do that. The waters became very muddy over the last few decades because universities decided that having people of many different skin colours was the goal. They dressed that goal up by pretending it had something to do with diversity, but that fails the sniff test. A poor black and white man have much more in common with each other than they do a rich man. If diversity were the goal, students would have been selected on the basis of place of residence, wealth, religion, voting affiliation, values, and interests. Quite the opposite occurred. In many universities more than 90% of faculty identify as left wing. So the goal had nothing to do with diversity.
I suggest we instead return to the idea that aptitude be our north star. IQ tests were originally created to provide opportunity to underrepresented children who might otherwise have been looked over due to their socioeconomic conditions or race. Let us return to a colour-blind north star.
(Bashes head on table.) Intelligence, aptitude, and potential are incredibly hard to measure and judge in a purely objective way. The SAT is just a thin slice of that picture.
And less than 10% of university astrophysicists think the world is flat. Where's the diversity?!
What is a better test?
I suspect you wouldn't be making this naturalistic fallacy if the ratio were flipped. Either way, you appear to confirm that the purpose was not diversity.
Exactly. A true objective test doesn't exist.
As far as the SAT: You can take prep classes, hire a tutor, and do all sorts of resource-intensive things that will boost your SAT without really contributing to your overall intelligence. You can study for the test. And guess who is more likely to have resources available to access these things? Is a rich kid who spends a year in prep inherently smarter than a poor kid who can't afford a tutor and has to work an evening job to help her family make ends meet?
And why, more broadly, are we completely fine tilting the tables in favor of the wealthy and entrenched but the second something seems like it might give an ounce of advantage to a disadvantaged class people lose their minds?
We get rid of DEI, but I haven't heard a word about getting rid of legacy admissions and rooting out nepotism.
In academia, there are more qualified people than positions, on an extreme level in fact. I agree, we have to distinguish people. We must distinguish on intangible characteristics sometimes. Suppose I am hiring for a position in an department and there are three finalists. They are all extremely qualified. What is an acceptable way to distinguish people? "Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie, I believe she will make a better colleague and mentor to our undergraduates. I suggest we accept her." Compare with the following. "Alice is a black, homosexual, woman unlike Bob and Charlie, who are white, presumably homosexual men. Our university has a stated DEI policy promoting the acceptance of more women and BIPOC faculty. Therefore we should admit Alice." Do you see the difference?
We do not need to enter a deep philosophical debate about what is "merit" and its many dimensions. I agree with you, it's complicated. But the issue is universities are explicitly discriminating and ranking candidates and students on the basis of DEI factors. We know this because, as in the CU case I have linked to already in other comments, their very own notes say so! This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Is a relative statement. Someone who expresses anger in one culture can be considered thoughtful and in another culture can be considered disrespectful.
I agree it's super complex and even believe that it may have been too formulated and structured. I personally want humans of different cultures to befriend each other. But intercultural connection can be uncomfortable and hard and have lots of conflict, and some people don't do that well without some nudging.
Again, I think the nudging has gone too far, yet I don't think the solution is to pendulum swing all the way back.
Um. Racism and sexism have not been eliminated in our country. I mean, just look at who's running the executive branch of the government at the moment. We need initiatives to lift up traditionally underrepresented groups now more than ever.
It did, but how long ago was that the case? I'm not aware that academia was off-limits to anyone non-white and male right before DEI training became the norm.
How long ago was that? In Canada 60% of college grads are women[1]. In the US the story is similar and the gap is widening[2]. Part of the reason that some left wing ideas seem so out of touch is because they are. People are still parroting social problems from the 1960s as justification for policy in 2024.
[1] https://heqco.ca/pub/understanding-the-gender-gap-in-postsec...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/08/07/wome...
How many of these women are graduating from programs that people wanting to eliminate DEI see as "unimportant"?
It's also interesting to see statistics brought up about women and not races, since the percentage that identifies as "Black or African American" is still underrepresented: https://pnpi.org/factsheets/black-students/
I have written a version of this twice and deleted but just can't let this statement stand unopposed. This is, almost inherently at this point, a rant and my last contribution to this thread.
This simply is not the case, I know it is something that you and many others believe is that case but you are being lied to by actual racists. I say that as a white man working in STEM academia. Academia had a long history and tradition of NOT doing meritocracy, but of claiming meritocracy and using bad markers of meritocracy to prove it. The 'DEI work' that people are so concerned about is about trying to make merit based decision making actually merit based. You think that is based on giving some preference, but it isn't - its based on acknowledging and working to eliminate actual prejudice. Its about hiring the best people instead of the person who's advisor is friends with our search chair.
I'll give a concrete example: I ran a hiring search for three faculty members. We did a blind search. The hiring committee did not know the gender, race, ethnicity, or even institutional affiliation of any candidate. The candidates were ranked, the top invited for phone interviews, and then ranked again during the interviews with everyone blind to the first set of rankings. We repeated this for a smalled group of in person interviews The order of the rankings at all three phases matched. More relevant, we interviewed and hired the most diverse crop of faculty we have ever hired. Simply because of the appearance who we hired, two different candidates who were did not received interviews emailed me and my department chair to decry that we had used 'DEI' in our BLIND hiring process. One threatened a lawsuit. We blinded it to race, to gender, to all markers of 'diversity', but the gender and race of who we hired was all the proof that person needed they were less qualified than him.
In other cases, this 'stuff' protects against asshole colleagues and bad science. (1) Diversity statements help us avoid getting sued by students and employees. The statements that wax philosophic about inclusion, that quote MLK, the ones people use to label this as some ideological test, SUCK to read and get applications ignored because they lack serious thought about being a colleague. The good ones, which get noticed, are about how people work effectively with other people, and how they make an effort to understand people as part of working with them. The context, whether its about being Green, Left-handed, or Neurodivergent tell us whether this person has thought about being a mentor to people unlike them, has a capacity to empathize with a student, or is going to be a self-righteous asshole that is going to make us hate faculty meetings even more. They help us know if their grad students are going to be in tears in the chairs office or the parents of an undergrad are calling the dean. (2) They actually tell us a lot about doing good science and getting grants. Theres a long history in medicine of fucking up because of who is in our participant pool. NIH now makes you articulate about how you will not do bad science through lazy recruitment[2]. We've asked questions about this requirement of candidates during interviews. The answers are fun and telling - using coded language to say you won't recruit Black people because they are 'less reliable' is just evidence you don't get it, not that you are some purist doing important work.
That is the DEI you are being propagandized to be against - what it actually is not what you are told it is. It is not hyperbole and you are tired by design - because you are a victim of propaganda. The nonsense narrative that is being pushed is, without concern for the truth, entirely grounded in the assertion that certain groups are unqualified to do intellectual work (c.f.[3]). It is (by design) meant to establish that the mere appearance of a Black Women or a gay person on a faculty is only because they are unqualified. It is meant to exclude people who have always been excluded. It is not about pushing back on (nonexistant) out of control efforts to include them. What is changing is efforts to counteract the actual, long established, clearly evidenced, bias in favor of certain groups of candidates. That is not some ideological project to eliminate people like me because I'm not a minority, that is the thing you want.
[1] https://mbb.yale.edu/news/mbb-radically-changing-how-we-sear... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6053906/ [3] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/darren-b...
I would like to understand your point here. I agree with you that the stated justification for DEI policies is based on "acknowledging and working to eliminate actual prejudice". I also believe that they explicitly give preference to certain groups of people over others. So what is the point here? Because they are based on a noble goal, we should accept them? And if, instead, they were based on another nefarious purpose, they would not be acceptable?
A policy may arise from various motivations, but eventually it must be evaluated on its own merits. Of course, the same policy may be implemented in various ways, toward a nefarious purpose or to a noble purpose. You sound like you genuinely care about this issue and I appreciate that when you hire people you consider they may contribute to the community in your department, how well they will mentor students, and so on. Those are all important things and I am happy you interpret DEI that way, but unfortunately that is not how they are often interpreted.
From the journalism department at UC [1]:
From the geography department at UC [1]:
From ethnic studies at UC [1]:
From psychology dept. at U Washington [2]:
If you believe that the sentiments expressed above are acceptable in a professional, academic setting, then we have totally different ethical values.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-dei-conquered-the-university...
[2] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity...
You ask:
You give the example of the journalism, geography, and ethnic studies departments specifically seeking minority viewpoints.
FWiW I don't think the DEI corporate and other programs in the USofA have been particularly well executed, they appear (from afar) to be more performative than substantive, however ...
The three examples you gave should more or less answer your own question for you.
Journalism, good reporting, brings deep informed insights from the ground. That's not going to happen when reporting on foreign countries and disadvantaged communities if all the reporters are (say) from a WASP background and perspective.
Geography isn't just maps, there are strong elements of people's relations with land that are part of that domain .. again a breadth of viewpoints gives richer coverage.
Ethnic studies. .. I mean does this really need a comment as to why diverse viewpoints deliver broader outcomes?
If the sentiments expressed in those internal deliberations seem perfectly normal to you, we really do have irreconcilable moral and ethical viewpoints.
Breadth of viewpoint has nothing intrinsically to do with the color of one's skin.
Again, the quality of a reporter and their work has nothing to do intrinsically with the color of their skin.
I didn't say that. Perhaps you might like to re-read. We may have different backgrounds in parsing English.
Again, I didn't say that.
The point of these fat fingered US attempts to fix a problem is to ... fix a problem.
The problem is that the starting point in reporting, ethinic studies, and geography was that the fields were dominated by an unrepresentative minority; white faces with vanilla backgrounds being the voices of authority on subjects they had no experience of.
That was the problem. These fixes aren't great.
You mixed up UC with CU. Also, the hiring practices described in these op-eds are illegal, whether DEI exists or not. If the allegations are true, the correct action would be to file a lawsuit, not to do the stupidity we're now seeing.
Also, I would like to say, I agree with you! Such a sentiment is deplorable and must be condemned. However, it does not follow that academic departments should use race or sexuality or gender as a factor when hiring professors.
In fact, when you are hiring professors on the tenure track, I am sure the first ten or even twenty professors (at least!) are all eminently qualified. Of course, there is a degree of randomness in any selection process. But as the sources in my sibling comment suggest, DEI factors are being used explicitly to distinguish and rank people. That I believe is unacceptable.
Thank you for writing this- it aligns perfectly with what my own experience, as a white male in academia, has been with these issues.
When I talk to people outside academia about “DEI”, it’s clear to me that whatever they think that term means, it has no relationship to anything I’ve ever seen in my career (involving faculty searches, recruitment of students and staff, education, involvement in clinical trial design and recruitment, etc.).
I have personally hired less qualified candidates based on race and gender. I have made this choice from direct superior's comments as well as political requirements to climb the ladder of the organization I was in.
The truth is that if you are on the "left" your blind to what many are thinking. In person I will never tell you the bias or problems I see. I've learned doing so would make it nearly impossible to work with you.
Not saying you are "wrong" but the problem I an many like me face is that the softpower pressure to conform to left ideals mean I never do or say anything because I assume everyone around me would push back or push me out.
It's partly paranoia but it's also part of a factual experience I've had in highly liberal environments. They don't want to hear it and if they do you are damaged. Very different from the people we all know who are expounding and preaching liberal ideals in ever conversation they have.
I certainly can't (and wouldn't want to) dispute what your lived experience has been, and I am sorry that you've found yourself in those kinds of situations and interpersonal dynamics. That sucks and is not how things should be. All I can say is that, going on my own experience, that is very much not the norm, at least not as far as I have seen and been aware.
To your point about being blind to what many around me are thinking- by definition, I wouldn't know if I was, right? So I'm not going to try and argue one way or another about that. I will say, however, that I have worked with many colleagues with whom I disagreed about many different things, some of which fall under the general umbrella of what one might call "identity politics", and as a general rule have been able to have open and civilized conversations with them. One thing I have learned is to not make any assumptions about what somebody does or doesn't think about a given topic, as basically every time I've done that I have been surprised.
I too have had these "open" identity politics discussions.
I have blatantly lied.
For someone on the liberal side, these conversations mean nothing and there's literally no risk in discussing.
If you are not on that side it's a risk of career suicide to openly discuss it.
I always just thought I was an outsider but I am starting to think there are many who are just like me. I wonder how many conversations in Sillicon valley I have had where both of us were lying about our political beliefs worried the other may be liberal.
Who gets to decide what "qualified" means? and what counts and what doesn't count as a qualification?
Me, I was hiring someone to be on my engineering team. Found someone with lots of technical experience. Was not so subtly told we cannot hire them and had to hire a female for the team. I could either push back but I was lucky I was even getting a hire. So we found a female engineer to bring on with a lot less experience.
I literally skipped dozens of men in the interview application pipeline just because it had to be a female hire.
It was a very bad feeling for me but I have no doubt HR is doing this constantly, to read a name and specifically pass them over because it didn't sound like a woman's name. For every female applicant there is easily 20+ male for a technical role.
Shortly after this I was no longer allowed to search or filter for my own applicants. It was an odd time where our HR was gone and I had to do it myself. Really giant eye opener to how this bias works in a real sense.
Still remember I told my manager: "I am not used to not hiring the most qualified"
Their response: "Work is not just about work but also about life"
Not sure what that meant (I believe he was pushed from his boss, same as I) but stuff like this is an every day occurrence in SV
Why does anyone need to write a diversity statement ? This is bonkers. When I applied for grad school many years ago as an international student, many applications asked for a diversity statement. My stupid ass didn't even know what that meant at the time. I forced myself to write some crock about how I studied Physics and Computer Science, and how I had some ideas about interdisciplinary work. I thought they meant diversity in technical backgrounds. Not only was what I wrote a load of crap, the stuff that these people expect is an even bigger pile of crap. Can we do away with this ?
Call it an "impact statement" then, "diversity" was just the buzzword of the day. But the requirement to articulate how your research will impact the broader community is necessary.
It's not. And this is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I do research to scratch an itch. GPU goes brrr. It may or may not help the community. I'm doing it to amuse myself. I hope that it also amuses others.
Why do you think you deserve access to public research dollars to scratch you personal research itch? If you can't explain to taxpayers how your research impacts them, I think it's fair that they should deny you their money.
Because every invention has been someone's personal itch. That's how the invention business works. From academia to VC, you fund a bunch of ideas and some of them change the world. Diversity statements don't play any part in this process.
This is simply a delusion detached from reality. I am a white man in STEM academia. I've never been discriminated against once. None of my white male colleagues have either. They are all successful in academia. And my colleagues who aren't white men are in no way inferior. Just let us vote and ask if we feel discriminated against or oppressed because of DEI. We'll vote no.
It's simply a delusion that DEI is some unmeritocratic disaster. The reality is academia has its pick of top talent regardless of race or gender. I don't know any scientists who buy into this delusion irl. Diversity is a small factor in hiring because the field is already predominantly white men and it's no harder to pick top star talent when you diversify.
Simply insane that you are promoting the destruction of US science, US foreign aid, and so much of the good stuff the US government does, all in the name of a deeply delusional witch hunt.
It's an ideological disaster. Viewing this through a white v/s black lens is itself too simplistic. Look at the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit. Asians are in fact and provably being discriminated against. This is also the case in immigration policy. DEI/affirmative action policies were created by the executive and are being undone by the executive.
A majority of the electorate did vote for ending this.
Shocker, a majority white country voted to end programs that identified biases which benefitted them...
I have a feeling someone fed you some false information about this case.
The judges ruled that Harvard's admission program violated the equal protections act, but never said once that Asian Americans were ever discriminated against.
The programs that these decisions got rid of impacted minorities other than Asians a lot more, but for some reason you don't want to talk about that?
Even if it's a delusion, people believe it and I think we should take it seriously and help them see through that delusion.
I'm not advocating for shutting down these departments at all, or slashing and burning research.
I'm hoping that we can help people realize that people love them and care about them and support them more than they could ever imagine, even if they're a white man.
I say this as a white man who has dated black women and had them say some really harsh things about me as a white man, only to realize that often it was an internal conflict that they had about being black but also liking some things from white culture. Some of them had been called white by their own black communities, and so feeling stuck between those worlds.
I think the vast majority of us just need to learn how to deal with emotional attacks, to realize life is combat and everyone is trying to deal with innumerable conflicts at the same time, all the time.
This is demonstrably false. Harvard and many other universities recently lost a Supreme Court case due to persistent racial discrimination over decades (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/us-supreme-court...). Whites and especially Asians were methodically discriminated against on the basis of their race. Just because you don't personally see the racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why are so many people saying "Asians and whites were discriminated against" and pointing to this case?
The judges ruled that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed, not that Harvard had been illegally discriminatory in their admission practices(as was attempted years prior by the same conservative funded activism group)
Just because you personally see racism, doesn't mean it's actually happening(aka, "facts don't care about your feelings")
What on Earth are you talking about? Here are the 237 pages of the Supreme Justices exploring centuries of American law and hundreds of relevant cases regarding racial discrimination: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Specifically, the Justices found Harvard's race-based admissions practices violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that these practices resulted in racial discrimination against Asian American applicants.
Did you just make that up and hope no one would call you out?
No, but it looks like a lot of people are misunderstanding the court's ruling...
`The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment`
"This admission system is not lawful" is not the same as "your institution has been illegally discriminatory towards a certain race". One is pointing out mismatches between law and reality, the other needs to be backed up by data.
Is it quite possible that the program was unconstitutional and had to be changed because they were being illegally discriminatory in their admission practices?
Yes it is, but the court case only answered the first question and previous court cases failed to get a satisfactory(for the conservative groups behind them) ruling on the "illegal discrimination" parts.
It's also possible that the "unconstitutional" program lead to satisfactory results for minority groups(both asian and non-asian), but we are just guessing either way based off of a ruling that's only tangentially related.
1. So if the supreme court ended 'racial discrimination' at universities in 2023, why is the administration destroying scientific organizations now in the name of doing so?
2. That court case is for undergraduate admissions - what does it have to do with hiring practices in the academic sciences?
1. It ended one specific form of racial discrimination, not all forms.
2. The user I replied to stated they have not been discriminated against. I corrected them.
That is because none of your colleagues who think so would ever tell you. The problem with this is that the ideology has led to a point where I and many like me will simply never tell someone like yourself what they think of.
Even now that it's "better" I would only write something like this anonymously in fear of a future person seeing and judging my beliefs. I have personally watched in corporate and academia the effects. I am small fish but have personally wanted to hire someone who I thought was the most qualified for the position and was rather non obviously told to not because the team already had to many white men. We instead had to go with my 3rd choice a female who while great did not have the technical skills I valued in the first.
The main problem is people who say things like you do is that you don't realize you have a very incomplete picture. Those who disagree with the ideas will literally never say them. In many career paths saying your beliefs that don't align is basically career suicide.
"It has become tiring to see how DEI has affected all aspects of academia. Hiring people based on race, awarding grants to work exclusively with members of a particular set of minorities, etc."
You mention in another comment diversity in admissions but that is not hiring or grants. Do you have any examples of hiring people based on race in academia?
This is one: https://x.com/JohnDSailer/status/1883648993974169641
I have friends in faculty positions at well-known universities who were very unhappy about these practices, but could not publicly discuss it fearing repercussion, prior to these events.
TBC, I am not supporting any of the things happening. I do think the DEI thing went too far, but what the new admin. is doing can be much worse.
There are not countless examples. Instead of "hiring of people on the basis of race" I may more accurately say "using race as a decisive factor in the consideration of an application resulting in its acceptance or rejection" which also happens to be illegal.
From the journalism department at CU [1]:
From the geography department at CU [1]:
From ethnic studies at UC [1]:
From psychology dept. at U Washington [2]:
[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-dei-conquered-the-university...
[2] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity...
Hiring people based on race (white) and gender (male) is what happened _before_ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.
Do you know what is the original and ultimate identity politics? Enslaving people because you deem them inferior to your own race. The civil war, the civil rights movement, and modern social justice movements are a response to this, not the root of the conflict.
I'm a white guy in academia - not tenured yet - and I cannot fathom the ignorance necessary to believe that white males are at an disadvantage because of university administrators being "woke". Give me a break!
How does it require ignorance to believe something that’s spelled out in black and white policies? It’s not even belief it’s just reading comprehension at that point.
This is irrelevant to the discussion of hiring in 2025, unless you believe your fellow “white” population harbors literal beliefs of a.) racial identity and b.) racial superiority, that c.) the “white” people making hiring decisions are actively excluding candidates based on these beliefs, and that d.) application of a nonwhite bias is just and measured in the face of a-c. I think all are incredible claims, and they’ve only lasted a decade because they have become rabidly-defended shibboleths for people who want to fix racism (and sexism and…).
If 1000 group A individuals and 10 group B individuals apply for a team, and both groups are accepted at ~50% due to a group B preference, then group B is ~100x as likely to be selected for the role due to that preference. Such observations are where my own perception of “disadvantage” comes from. Unless you’re claiming that no such preference exists, or that some prejudice you might have about group A justifies its individual members’ relatively unlikely chances of being selected, I can’t see how this preference doesn’t qualify as a disadvantage for such individuals.
I proclaim that no such preference exists in the US in 2025!
Hah definitely now, tho we’ll see how things play out.
I really hate how poisoned the well has become on this topic, there’s definitely elitism and exclusion that should be systematically addressed in hiring. I’d support programs promoting cheaper and universally-accessible paths to getting skilled jobs (e.g. accepting projects/certs/etc or offering literal job training) as long as they were open to anyone regardless of protected characteristics. You shouldn’t need to mainline an ivy-league path your entire childhood to have a chance at being hired at Google. I think such programs would be far less controversial and produce real value for real people.
I believe many of my fellow "whites" believe this, but more importantly it's pretty obvious that many of the most powerful "whites," including the current President and his boot-licking minion Donald Trump, absolutely believe this.
DEI is nominally good but its just racism. Not like reverse racism or indirect racism - just racism. There’s really no other way to slice intentionally discriminating based on race.
Whats probably most egregious is the idea that its good because its racist against the right people.
I support scientific research of course but to play devils advocate, how can the USA afford this? They run a deficit and have an enormous debt. I dont understand how this can continously be ignored. Of course nobody wants cuts but how can it go on? Same with the foreign aid, isnt that something a country running a surplus should be worried about?
How can they afford not to? Subtract public research funding from the economy. Go ahead - see what's left.
I'll shortcut it real quick - we're all dead from lung cancer and leaded gasoline, so there's no one to do the calculation.
?? healthy people stay alive, sick people will die. Of course this is terrible but "we will all die without publically funded research" doesnt hold water. Again Im not in favour of the cuts I just cant understand how the USA continues to borrow/print money and it doesnt all come crashing down. I dont think even Trump is anti-medicine, just pro fiscal responsibility.
I can't tell if you're intentionally misunderstanding, or not. So I'll spell it out: public non-biased research is a public good.
Oil companies weren't going to publish research saying leaded gas was bad. Tobacco companies weren't going to publish research saying cigarettes were bad. Have fun being healthy when you inhale leaded gasoline every day.
Forget about things like, you know, the internet. Or any medicine.
BTW, private companies are not paying for basic biological research. Good luck making a drug when no one knows what target to drug. VC firms will park their money in the bank instead. The value from biotechs is already marginal - investment basically vanished when interest rates went above 4.
I feel the same way back haha, are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Nobody is claiming research is bad! I dont want to see it cut either. I want the government to be running a surplus though. You can argue we should cut other places like military or whatever, I agree thats probably wiser, but what Im asking is, surely we can only prioritise what to spend once we are back to surplus
Ive also been told in the past that its somehow ok that the government never breaks even, I can handle that maybe Im too stupid/uneducated to get it... but nobody ever even tries. Use little words, Im sure we will make progress. How can the government continue to exist and not go broke if it continually spends more than it brings in?
I'm trying to say that having a society of people breathing in leaded gas would be insanely expensive. Both in terms of lost productivity from stunted brain development, and actual acute symptoms. Public money was crucial to unbiased understanding of that, and lead to prevention. How much money do you think that saved/grew the economy? For like 0.5% of the Federal budget.
That's just one (big and easy to recall) example. There are countless.
Spending public money on public research grows the economy. Cutting it is penny wise and pound foolish.
I work at a biotech. We have $150 million in private funding. My biotech wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for decades of public research doing the foundational work that allows us to target a protein to make a drug to help people. None of that would exist if not for NIH, NSF etc
This was a good reply, thanks for taking the time. I could be convinced that this is a money making investment and therefore foolish to cut. If you have no money though, you cant afford to make any kind of investment, and from the outside looking in (to govt I mean, I live in the USA) it seems the US is going broke. Like I said though, I hve come around and maybe it really is super dumb to cut this - if you want to see it continue for the next 50 years, I would urge you consider how thats possible if the USA continues to lose money though.
While the Unabomber, Luigi Mangione, and Communism may have correctly diagnosed socioeconomic pathologies their prescriptions were largely counterproductive. It is magical or superficial thinking to believe that aggressive chaos is somehow curative or better than following a more consultative and cooperative process like first assessing and auditing an organization thoroughly by eliciting input from all parties at all levels and gathering data before proposing recommendations, implementing those recommendations, and following up to adjust them.
Sorry do you really think Musk and Trump are eliciting input from all parties and carefully gathering data before giving recommendations? Because given how frequently they talk about the “radical left” and “marxists” I really don’t think they are considering dissenting opinions in good faith. They invariably insult people who have the slightest disagreements with them, even when those people have facts and data on their side.
And Musk has stumbled into several known right-wing conspiracy theories based on knee-jerk reactions, so I find it far more likely that he’s just fishing to validate his pre-held knee-jerk opinions rather than doing a careful investigation.
You're preaching to the converted. Please read what I wrote again more carefully because you are mistaken.
"healthy people stay alive, sick people will die" that's a tautology. I do not know you, but I am willing to bet that there are some people who you know who'd have a far worse life if it was not for modern publicly funded research
I dont dispute this at all - I want the research, I would pay higher taxes to support it, but it baffles me how the government can continually lose money and people handwave away the entire issue
Approximately what proportion of the US federal budget is spent on scientific research? What proportion is spent on foreign aid? Looking up these values is a useful exercise.
A billion here, a billion there, before you know it you're talking about some real money.
If I were president I would probably cut from military spending - but at some point that becomes painful to cut aswell.
A lot of people have misunderstood me in this thread, at no point do I want to see public research cut. Its just that the same people who are worried about what climate change will bring over next 50 years (and I am too!) dont seen to feel any sense of alarm at the federal government living outside its means for the next 50 years, and I can not understand why
Because the federal government is not in any sense living outside its means.
I’m not sure how to explain this to you, really - you’re fundamentally stuck, I think, on the idea that the gov is like a business or a household, and needs to budget the same way. It really doesn’t.
Maybe think of it this way, to start to get your head around it: current debt is just over 100% of GDP - so in some sense the US has borrowed about a years worth of production. 100% sounds scary, but does 12 months sound so scary? Would you consider yourself in catastrophic debt if you owed a year of your salary?
Personally I wish my mortgage was only a year of my salary!
You can call it stuck if you want, I guess I am - how can this not be a bad thing? It feels like its not a bad thing until suddenly it is. Countries can & do go broke. You can sell your house and break even, thr govt cant sell the NIH
Consider the idea that without decades of money printing, your house might only cost 1 year of salary in the first place
Or maybe let me ask it a other way - if the govt really doesnt need to balance the budget, why dont we have 50 aircraft carriers and free healthcare for all? Such huge sums of money go beyond merely number balancing, at some piint theyre forcefully managing the real resources of the nation
Debt can’t increase to infinity, true - but that does not mean it can’t be a finite number indefinitely.
And the current finite number is nowhere close to causing a crisis for the US (Japan had two and a half times GDP in debt and did not collapse into hyperinflation or some other catastrophic fate, for example).
Go read the article. All of this is a few drops in the bucket. There are some absolutely enormous line items that, by themselves, put us well into deficit territory.
On top of that, these things make the US money. We have, by far, the strongest pharmaceutical and medical technology industry anywhere. Those companies pay taxes.
(Those companies also screw us and the government over in myriad ways, and that should be addressed, but cutting off the research system that supports the entire industry in like throwing out the baby without even draining the bathwater.)
the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends and we've not had any serious politicians to address the issue. the interest on our debt is going to bankrupt us and there will be nothing left afterwards if these things aren't reeled in and examined.
political opponents of the newly elected administration are obviously going to go fully hysterical over any change, they already did last time. the science industries in the US aren't going anywhere, neither is research at the universities.
the ideological discrimination and money laundering coming out of these departments are going to end. and did we all forget about COVID? The fact that the NIH funded the research that happened in china ILLEGALLY, because this was a really stupid idea and we found that out the hard way, and it was covered up, and we were lied to, it killed millions, destroyed economies on a global scale.... do we really not want to see this agency dissected under a microscope? They need to be investigated.
I feel like were on the same side but youre gonna need a (credible!) source that US govt money was funding virus research in China, that doesnt seem to pass the sniff test
is this sarcasm? it's been known for years and we got some more "official" info recently
this is the grant, but this was public info for years https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Year-...
No its not sarcasm, thanks for the reference. However since you were rude Im gonna ignore this evidence (this attitude can work for or against Republicans I guess)
I'll be less rude: the US funded virus research in China. Some people argue this was wise because it gave us insight into China's bioweapons plans, or be prepared for world disasters, or whatever. It's still not entirely clear why NIH leadership thought this was a good idea, given our understanding of China's relative immaturity in working with dangerous viruses, as well as preventing that funding from going to US researchers.
I had sorta thought this was a right wing conspiracy, as it seemed so unlikely to be true. I can very clearly understand why the new administration is being ruthless with them now, especially given Trumps experience with Covid (a more enlightened leader might say the buck stopped with him instead of blaming underlings, but I digress). Thanks for replying.
The federal government almost certainly does absurdly overspend, but you’re missing the point: all of these drops in the bucket add up to far less than the deficit.
Also, for better or for worse, operating departments efficiently may well be the executive branch’s job, but setting all these budgets is Congress’s job, not the executive branch’s. In fact, Congress tried, not all that long ago, to allow the President to veto specific line items, and the Supreme Court struck it down:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York
The US could pay its debt tomorrow, in full. We'd like to avoid that shock, if possible, but there's nothing uncreditworthy about running a fiscal deficit.
USG revenue/spending should be reasoned about in terms of the resources it directs, and the resulting effects on US and world GDP. Everything else is just accounting.
Interest on debt is the second biggest line item in the budget (said someone else in this thread)
It is #4.
Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and defense are larger.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
it could if it borrowed money from china /s
Treasury bonds are non-callable, so a substantial portion of US debt can not be paid back early.
How can we afford it? because scientific discovery turbocharges our economy. Why do we have such a huge biotech industry? Why was the internet mostly built in the US? Why are we the only country that has placed somebody on the moon, and have huge launch capacities?
Because we invested in those technologies and they paid off handsomely. What you are seeing is the result of "profit externalization"- laws like Bayh Dole allow universities to profit from the research they carry out under contract with the government.
Everything we did, we did because the alternatives were worse.
A drop compared to military spending, thing that no one of that people cares about
If they don't start reviewing grants again soon I'll be able to say I was fired by Donald Trump.
Reviewing? They’ve paused payments and award letters.
I'm interested to see what they find out. It is rare to have such insights into these.
I’m in leadership at a place everyone here has heard of. We are in absolute panic behind the scenes.
Hang in there. Hope for the best. Don’t give up.
Yup. 2 weeks down, 190 to go!
1% done
Progress will stop at 99%.
Remember that that is the goal. Acknowledge the data and deal with it as another obstacle.
Also, I'm wondering if multiple universities could band together to file a TRO and/or a class-action lawsuit against the government for something like estoppel.
Why do you think your workplace will be affected?
FWIW this comment would work on almost any HN post.
The big thing is this isn't really about any real monetary savings. What we get out of these budgets is a bargain:
Social security and Medicare are inexpugnable liabilities.
Social security yes, but it seems to me that reducing the cost of Medicare and Medicaid should be very much possible. We need to provide healthcare but it should be possible to make that less expensive
Medicare would become cheaper tomorrow if the government would negotiate drug prices down. Trump isn't going to do that.
Or manufacture drugs themselves, and distribute "at cost".
Something like this?
[1] https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/med...
What leverage does the US government actually have?
Is "we just won't fund your drug, even though people will die and you're the only option on the market" actually something that could happen? Would that be politically palatable to anybody?
I guess there's patent invalidation and forced genericization, but that would kill innovation real quick.
I think a far better idea would be to impose very strict caps on admin / non-medical costs, potentially at the expense of paying a bit more to fraudsters, changing FDA regulations to minimize (death from side effects + death from no available drugs) instead of just the former, as well as becoming a lot more aggressive about expensive and unnecessary procedures that doctors perform to get rich quick.
The US pays much more for drugs than any other country. I guess one possibility is that no one has any leverage and big pharma is able to charge Americans more because they're richer. But the more popular theory is that countries can negotiate better prices than individuals can (yes, technically insurance companies can negotiate prices, but they seem unmotivated to drive any costs down). It seems the previous administration thought the government can negotiate lower prices: https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/med....
They are negotiating with drug manufacturers. In the case there is only one, the negotiation just wouldn't go well.
Trump MO would be implement a 100% tax on pharma profits and unrealized capital gains next Monday, then reverse it once they agree. But only if Trump cares to die on that hill.
How can Trump change tax law?
As WW2 was ramping up there was only 1 aluminum manufacturer - Alcoa (Aluminum Co of America). When they hemmed and hawed that they could not increase production to meet the US war demands, the FDR administration made an investment to start Reynolds, who would go on to supply all of the aluminum needed to create thousands of ships and airplanes. Today they make foil and plastic bags. Alcoa still exists too as a much smaller fish in a much larger pond.
The government has all the cards, negotiation is really just a matter of will.
Sure, but that's not the law being discussed. It's literally a negotiation process.
I don't think it's the case that there are many conditions with only single treatment option. "Lower the price or we let our people die" probably isn't right, but "Our cost benefit analysis shows, at this price point, therapy X is preferable. If you want us to use your drug your prices need to be lower."
Presumably the government also has the option to permit purchase of pharmaceuticals from other countries. "Oh, you've raised the cost of X? That's okay, we'll buy it from licensed suppliers in the EU for a tenth of the price."
Actually is that possible? Are the EU suppliers allowed to resell at the gov negotiated price? Or are the gov negotiated price only for internal market?
(I've been wondering since I don't understand why swiss drug price are so much higher given that EU suppliers are next door)
How do other countries do it? Why is Ozempic $100/m in EU and $1000/m in the US. Cost to manufacture Ozempic is $10.
Yup. Was working for a major European blood product distributor as my first real job and the prices US customers would pay were just obscene.
Most EU countrys payed $40-$60 (per unit, shipped by 3rd party courier, who do their own billing), SE Asia and Australia $60-$80 and the US $1500-$2000. Before I left we started also shipping to Canada, dunno about the prices anymore, but substantially less.
The head of our institute was apparently involved in the negotiations and although I didn't get a chance to talk to him directly, the popular story was that our guys showed up, were presented with a pretty much done deal and told that the price and payment terms were nonnegotiable. Also, during meetings, he would refer to the Amis often as "Die, die nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank haben", which roughly translates to "The crazy ones."
Also, the product they wanted specified a significantly less complex and cheaper pooling procedure than we were able to offer...
A single-payer system is literally designed for this.
Literally all the leverage.
Im gonna start a downvote party on myself haha but here we go - if you want cheaper healthcare, get rid of the medical licence!! Let the free market work. Of course it wont be better but rich people will pay theough the nose for the top level of care, middle class will get the best care the market can provide for what they can afford and lower class will get someone regurgitating chatGPT - but it _will_ be cheaper.
I continue to post this, not even fully convinced - Im scared I wouldnt be able to afford good care without govt subsidies, but I am open to the idea at least. I dont think care in the USA would be worse overall
Are medical licenses actually the cause of expensive healthcare?
I wanna say yes but to be fair, I cant prove it. I think without licencing we would get reduced length degrees & more people like nurses transitioning into primary care physicians - and I think that would be fine for a lot of conditions
I don't think licensure is really that much of a barrier, though. One of the huge trends going on is that nurses are increasingly replacing doctors in primary care. In my market it's unusual to have an actual doctor as a primary care provider. These nurses just go through some additional training for a PA or NP license and it's still a great deal cheaper than medical school.
This happens to me (my PCM is a nurse) but funnily enough my costs haven't gone down. Those nurses still work under a qualified doc, who will never look at your file until youre nearly dead, but theyre still getting a cut believe you me.
The US only allows a specific number of people to enter medical training each year to be doctors. This is the reason we pay so much.
The financial incentives a specialist headache doc has whos spent the time and money to get to where they are would never tell a patient to eat less and radically adjust your diet for your ailment to go away, they wouldn't have patients coming back to them and they would go broke (that education was super long and expensive). I like the uncanny idea of getting rid of training requirements and let the free market handle it.
That kind of change though would leave someone with the bag and tends to never get voted or happen so we stay stuck in the over priced pharma, insurance, beating around the bush health game were in. Everyone is incentivezed to keep the bandaids rolling. Don't tell people their drug habits (I mean eating habits) are killing them.
Ohh wait, we got a new pgp blocker for you!
How about just skip breakfast.....
Letting the free market handle it equals letting quacks handle it. I really doubt quacks will be any more incentivized (or qualified) to do right by their patients.
Also doctors can be compelled to sign enforceable, legally binding noncompetes. Unlike most of us, they have to move far away to change employers, thereby making competition in the health care space very difficult.
i.m.o. a different, significant factor is excessive testing for protection against malpractice lawsuits
I’d probably ask this question on a website for nurses, doctors, or maybe healthcare public policy folks. Instead of a website for programmers.
No it's largely just the magical "a market will fix this" thinking that's been ruining policy for decades. It's silly and doesn't work because the assumptions that go into the underpinnings of the economics theory about the functioning of free markets don't exist in many potential markets they want to apply the logic to. Health care isn't the same as shopping for a pair of shoes and it's mind numbingly stupid to me to try to treat them the same.
Look, the plausible version of this is spelled: "force the AMA to allow and the USG to fund more residency slots, so the supply of MDs can meaningfully grow, and the premium they demand be reduced. Also maybe let NPs and CRNAs and the like practice more independent".
But throwing medicine to the whims of the market is absurd. We're going to pick surgeons by reading reviews on Google?
This is an uninformed take. A relatively small fraction of our healthcare dollars (~7%) are going to ‘providers’ i.e. doctors and nurse practitioners. I don’t have a source handy but this is easily searchable.
Most of the spiraling healthcare costs are attributable to administrative bloat, hospital profits, insurance companies and pharmaceutical profits. What you’re suggesting would just result in lower quality care in general and has effectively already been implemented with the rise of ‘supervised’ and unsupervised mid-level providers. I.e. NPs, PAs, CRNAs etc. It hasn’t resulted in any decrease in healthcare costs for the patient.
Let me give you some context for insight. If I see a patient in clinic for an intravitreal injection my fee will be $150-250 before overhead, the pharmaceutical company will be paid by medicare or private insurance around ~ $2000 for the drug that I inject. Double that for a bilateral injection.
If I operate at a hospital, my fee is $5-600. The hospital bills medicare a $4000 facilities fee plus additional fees for anesthesia, consumables etc. to the tune of over $10000 per eye.
If you want to lower healthcare costs a good start would be negotiating drug prices, repealing the clause in the ACA that bans physicians from owning hospitals, banning non-competes for healthcare professionals and getting rid of certificates of need that make it unnecessarily difficult to build outpatient surgery centers. In short, ideas that require a more nuanced understanding of our healthcare system.
Thank you for the reply. As in all things, I'm prepared to be wrong, if that 7% is indeed even ballpark accurate.
btw I appreciate being called uninformed (which I dont dispute and find no offence in) rather than stupid or pigheaded or whatever. The point of talking about things is to share and increase our understanding.
Hey, good attitude to have. I've been seeing this type of exchange less and less on HN, but agree completely that it's (reassessing their positions) something more people should be doing / willing to do.
For what its worth I did check this today and it seems to be more like 20% of healthcare is going to providers, not 7%.
However in the grand scheme of things this still isnt that bad, and I do think doctors/nurses deserve a good compensation, so given the problems associated, maybe we dont go with removing medical licences as a solution to healthcare costs
And it comes to about $120 per tax payer in total. I’ve had dinners that cost more. Give me my science and medicine please.
What needs to be overcome? They're directly paid for through payroll taxes.
Everything is expungable if no one says no.
Everything is expendable if you kick in the door and fire everyone, like USAID. I think they're politically smart enough to not cut off the elderly voters, but who knows.
Unless you don't need any kind of voter anymore
Well I mean this is it isn't it? Any election that does not go their way will be called "stolen" and decertified and there is no one left to challenge that. I'd love to be shown how it could be otherwise, someone convince me, please.
He has to do it, he's already a felon, jail time probably awaits him if a dem is elected.
According to the Supreme Court, he can do whatever he wants in the Oval Office and be immune from prosecution
I’m not a lawyer, but I think he was sentenced already to serve no time. Unless prosecuted for something else, I think he’s in no danger of prison even if Dems come into power soon.
What I find ridiculous is that USA spends more on the interest on the national debt than either on Medicare or on the Department of Defense.
Gee, I'm still waiting for these proclaimed anti-socialists & anti-marxist to kill the most obviously socialist programs in the country.
Even quoting the NIH/NSF budgets (or their line items) misses the point of the current actions. Yes, they're smaller fractions of the USG budget, but they not immaterial.
This is not an attempt to 'save money' at the NSF and NIH (and USAID). A serious, rational effort to reduce their costs / increase their efficiency does not start with grep-ing manuscripts for 'underrepresented'. Part Five of TFA is on the money. This is an ideological attack on acronyms, and what they symbolize to the attackers. The actual agencies, their relative importance to the budget, etc. do not matter. The iconoclasts are here to smash the icons.
[flagged]
Killing mawmaw to own the libs.
*meemaw
Is that what they are saying?
Note: pg appears to be "generally sympathetic" to what Musk is doing here.
https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1886741943050211408
Thanks for sharing, worth having the full quote I think:
PG sounds nervous. I have to imagine there are a lot of nervous conservatives who didn't think it would go this far and are now too scared to stand in the way.
Of course it’s not about saving money. It’s about extinguishing facts. This is Orwell 101.
So you still believe government-funded research is equivalent to facts in 2025? What about the replication crisis? The political control of research finance e.g. in Alzheimer’s research?
It takes either an extreme amount of naïveté or motivated reasoning to maintain that perspective, IMO.
Of course not. The big gain is for Trump and Musk to say they did something. Regardless of how someone voted, I can’t believe they are still falling for this shtick.
Then why are drug prices in the USA higher than anywhere else?
We're being robbed by these people.
What i've learned in the last week is that if an unelected bureaucrat thinks it will hurt the Trump administration to follow their order through a manner of malicious compliance, then they will. But if they don't, then they'll ignore the order and pretend they're defending the constitution.
a serious audit of the endless money printing of the federal government is well overdue
You don't need some genius brain auditing to know that 99% of the money goes to social security, defense spending, medicare, medicaid, and interest on debt.
The stuff DOGE is playing with is such a tiny percentage it won't move the needle.
But imagine all that grant money going to, say, grants for SpaceX and EV-subsidies for Tesla..
Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? Allowance for emergency payments to keep the lights on?
This is taxpayers money and these agencies report to the President under the executive power. A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.
And I’m sorry “its not a lot of money” doesn’t fly when all the “its not a lot of money” is $8 trillion dollars. The federal deficit will never get smaller if nobody looks at the “its not a lot of money” line items.
This stuff is a rounding error against SS, Medicare, and the military.
It’s all a rounding error until it isn’t.
Doesn’t make tossing $50B out the window “ok”.
It’s like the people making a $100k who don’t know where all the money goes. It’s all just a rounding error, but rounding errors add up fast.
Federal money is allocated by Congress, and the President is required to spend the money as allocated by Congress. The President does not have authority to cut spending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
Reviewed for what?
Reviewed for whether the spending was authorized by Congress? If Musk finds that money is being spent in ways that are not authorized by Congress, and cuts that spending, great.
Reviewed for whether the money is being used efficiently to accomplish the goals set by Congress? Again, if Musk finds ways to stretch the same amount of money to accomplish more, that's great. For example, if Musk makes USAID more efficient so it delivers more aid for the same amount of money, that would be wonderful.
Or "reviewed" for whether Trump/Musk agree with them? It's illegal for the President to unilaterally cut programs just because he doesn't like them.
The idea that the President, the head of the Executive branch, has zero power over Executive branch spending down to the agency level, because Congress said X must be spent and dammit they must spend it, makes no sense.
By that logic and taken to an extreme, Congress could pass a budget law (overriding the executive’s veto) to set executive spending for specific agencies to only be spent on computers, say the FBI, and the executive is powerless to Congresses control over the executive function to carry out the laws that the Congress has passed?
So clearly the intention is one of checks and balances, for example the President can’t spend money Congress does appropriate but also has some power over how that money is spent as such to exercise the power of the Executive.
So let’s see what the Constituion says as per Congress.gov!
“The constitutional dimensions of impoundment disputes have been confined to the political branches. The Supreme Court has not directly considered the extent of the President’s constitutional authority, if any, to impound funds.16 However, a case decided in 1838, United States v. Kendall,17 has been cited as standing for the proposition that the President may not direct the withholding of certain appropriations that, by their terms, mandate spending.18”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-7/...
Very interesting! Sounds like something he may want the Supreme Court to rule on!
I for one look forward to getting some clarity on this issue.
Congress quite literally has the power to pass laws. According to the Constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; the President's oath of office requires that he execute the laws set by Congress. So for example, if Congress were to pass a silly law saying "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent", then the President would be required to make sure the FBI spent exactly $X on computers, down to the cent. The President has many powers, but "deciding not to execute the laws passed by Congress" is not one of them.
Quoting from the page you linked:
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, then Congress didn't necessarily mean "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent". It could be interpreted to mean "the FBI may spend up to $X on computers". But Congress has clarified this ambiguity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, but the President thinks $X is excessive, then the President may ask Congress for permission to spend less than $X. If Congress doesn't grant the permission within 45 days, then the President must go ahead and spend the full $X. Again, Congress literally has the power to set the laws, and the President is required by his oath of office to execute those laws.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court already ruled on this exact question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York
That case seems directly analogous to what Musk is currently trying to do. Nixon lost that case in the Supreme Court.
Even if the Supreme Court did rule that the President had impoundment powers, it would probably be on the condition that "[the purpose of the law] could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount" (quoting from the page you linked). For example, the President would still be required to buy sufficient computers for the FBI, even if he spent less than $X on them. The President still wouldn't be able to just unilaterally decide "no, the FBI doesn't need computers, this is a waste of money".
So, I think it's already quite clear that Trump/Musk do not have the constitutional authority to just start cutting government programs. Do you agree? If not, which part do you want further clarity on?
No, it’s not “quite clear” as the link provided described.
Any impoundment authority and how it has been curtailed is purely a political solution, not a constitutional one.
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
And while the President is mandated to execute the law you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law. USAID “to further the mission of the US in foreign countries” would give the President a lot of latitude in how that money is spent. A lot.
Then layer on the immense agency structure written all through “interpretation” of the law that the agencies no longer can rely on Chevron to defend and things get really interesting.
And while the Supreme Court did rule on Empoundment law curtailing Nixon, it did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of it and a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon.
So please don’t respond with “doesnt have the constitutional authority” when that is most definitely not the case.
They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".
It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...
Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.
Hence the confusing email (only if you don’t know how the government works) that rescinded the original mechanism and replaced it with another.
It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
But unlike last time where he got there day 1 with “ok, what’s next”, he went in this time with a laundry list and an actual strategy.
Which is just smart. I’ve worked for big corps and it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...
Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.
Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.
Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)
Both legislation and Supreme Court precedent say that the President cannot impound funds. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for him to impound funds because the Supreme Court decision was fifty years ago and they might rule differently today.
Couldn't that argument be used to justify breaking any law? I think Trump must follow the law. Do you agree that Trump must follow the law even if the Supreme Court hasn't specifically reaffirmed that particular law recently?
(I'd feel differently if Trump illegally impounded some trivial amount of money just to get a case before the Supreme Court; but that's not what he's doing here.)
8 trillion is the amount the debt rose while Trump was in office last time: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/us-debt-by-president...
How much do you think he will raise it by during this term?
Looking like it will go down this time! Isn’t that what everyone seems to be complaining about in this comment section?
This article notes that some federally-funded nonprofits "couldn’t access funds to make payroll": https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5115026-white-house-fund...
People rely on their paycheck to pay bills! If anyone stops getting their paycheck, that's not "keeping the lights on". Do you agree that any "review" mustn't prevent anyone from receiving their paycheck?
Isn't the elephant in the room here the massive overspending on the US military which Trump and Elon and Satya and Bezos and Altman don't seem to care about?
His voters would be very upset if a single dollar was cut from the military budget. It's the same crowd and mindset that was all in on the Iraq War. The second amendment is the only amendment and anything seen as weakening the country in terms of actual strength would result in windows being smashed again.
But cutting money from weak nerds? Destroying education? That's fine. Nobody needs it.
The financial position of the US is precarious, at best. I seriously doubt there is any painless way to correct course, as Congress seems to have lost the ability to compromise. Looking into the future, the US will go the way of the former Soviet Union if it does not take corrective action.
Is the current situation the only way, the best way, or even a good way to address the country's economic position? That is a matter of perspective. As is always the case, people will take sides. The unreasonable people (on any side) will refuse to compromise and spew inflammatory rhetoric, most often in defense of their own self interests and at the expense of others' interests.
I believe that the most sensible approach is for all parties to adhere to a metered diligence, always being mindful that the country is a collective of disparate interests. The whole point of a democracy is that through all the ups and downs, things work themselves out eventually. Sometimes there are setbacks and other times there is progress.
Things may seem chaotic, but this too shall pass.
How do you reconcile these deeply basic facts with your point of view?
1. The US economy was the best in the world in 2024.
2. The NIH, USAID, and NSF budgets make up just a percentage point or two of US spending.
3. These programs consistently generate ROI >>1.
In light of these painfully obvious facts, isn't it clear that the priorities of this administration have nothing to do with government finances? And that even trying to frame the discussion that way is blatantly irresponsible?
Although there are minor fluctuations in the US debt load, the mean is clearly going up without bounds. Interest creates an exponentially worsening problem with increasing competition for resources. Competition for resources breeds conflict.
Congress' lack of will to compromise leads to winner-take-all scenarios with wild swings in policy.
Language such as "deeply basic facts" and "blatantly irresponsible" is part of the problem. I am as guilty as the next person for experiencing heightened emotions and using adverbs carrying negative connotations that lack denotational substance. However, my experience has been that the storms are best weathered by calm, consistent, and persistent actions or behaviors.
I don't think there's anything about that wording that implies heightened emotions - I think both are factually accurate adjectives in context. I don't think they imply anything about emotional state, and I don't think that emotional state implies anything about accuracy.
In that sense, you've committed three errors in your response, but the primary fourth error is in avoiding the actual subject at hand, which is still the fact that these governmental actions will not reduce spending, so your original claim was incorrect.
I have been around quite a while. I remember rotary phones and party lines. I have seen a lot and done a lot. I have lived through many “the sky is falling” events. I offer my unvarnished insight, take it or leave it.
This is not me “thinking about” or “supposing” — I speak from experience working with many federal agencies (including NIH) and U.S. universities.
- I have watched formerly objective journals slide down the slippery slope of editorializing, to the point of questioning the reliability of the studies they publish.
- I have talked with prestigious professors who were quite distressed about their universities (yes, plural) being bought out wholly by foreign interests.
- I have had frank discussions with researchers saying it’s not about the science or the mission - it’s about the money.
- I have had frank discussions with senior government leaders explicitly explaining how they (often unlawfully) manipulate the system to line their pockets.
- I have seen so much government funding denied because the lead was not the right sex or did not have the right color skin. (Having been on the inside of many source selection events, it most frequently boils down to favoritism and kickbacks, with ideology being the excuse for the outcome.)
- And pharmaceutical companies, like Novartis? I have watched their drug pushing in person, calling on doctors offices, borderline bribes, and strategies such as a pharmaceutical sales team wining and dining a doctor, using fine food and pretty women to push their wares. (It takes quite a bit of self control to avoid going on a long diatribe about how positively evil the pharmaceutical companies are.)
The whole damned system is corrupt to the core. The root of the corruption is not ideology — it is money. Ideology is the veneer applied to make change palatable to the public. Congress discreetly turned a blind eye until the problem got out of hand. Gerrymandering and winner-take-all politics distorted the proper functioning of Congress. Runaway inflation was the first time the structural problems significantly leaked into the public eye.
Taxes are levied on the American people and collected under threat of violence. That money should first and foremost go toward our collective safety and common defense. Instead, there is a long line of people, hands out, asking "How much will you pay me to not riot in the streets?" The whole system has gone off the rails. Competition for resources, which are no longer so abundant, breeds conflict. Congress has had decades to correct course. They did not. Why? Because nobody is willing to compromise. The incessant argument of “I am right and you are wrong” has lead to a significant cultural shift, which is what we are experiencing now.
What is happening at NIH and NSF has nothing to do with line items or ROI. It is about being swept up in a large cultural revolution precipitated by economic mismanagement and inflamed by a strategy of gradual Orwellian newspeak that has been spreading since the 1990s.
I got to hand it to Elon Musk, I was in the “nothing ever happens” camp and he completely, absolutely proved me wrong. The Great men theory of history posits that a lot of History happens due to the action of a few great men. Great has a baggage of positive connotation, I prefer calling it the “Important People of History” theory (to also be gender neutral). It posits that if Hitler didn’t exist, Germany wouldn’t go down the path it did, if Gandhi didn’t exist, India wouldn’t go down the path it did. It is an alternative to the more modern view, that tries to find sociological, economic and environmental reasons for Historic Change. I leaned towards the Great Men View but was not fully convinced by it. Looking at Elon Musk, leads me to believe that this theory is true.
If Elon did not exist/ tie himself to Trump, I don’t think Trump could have done even 10% of the dismantling of the Administrative State that Elon has done. Elon has a certain will to power, flagrantly breaks all norms but advertises it on Twitter for his Twitter supporters, an insane sense of urgency to move fast, an ability to attract talented 20 yr olds to join him for “low pay”, and “100 hr weeks” that gets stuff done. The Trump ecosystem was mostly professional grifter (and crypto scammers), polemicists who only talked the talk, and a small set of true believers who never had a private sector job in their life. If it was just them, I might have been right in the “Nothing Ever Happens” camp. Elon and his ecosystem has given them fangs. They still probably can direct Elon, to a limit, at some things like H1b immigration they will probably concede to Elon but in return they will actually remake the government in their image. Elon is turning out to be one of the “Important People in History”.
Me too.
It seems like some new doctors have arrived and diagnosed the patient with terminal cancer. Being new, they have no experience of surgery so are hacking out the tumor with a blunt instrument, excising good tissue and bad. Some hope the surgeons will improve their skill over time. Some say the patient won’t survive. Some say the patient wouldn’t have survived if they did nothing. Some say the patient never had cancer in the first place.
If you spice up the language and name the doctor Benway you basically wrote a summary of a Burroughs short story :)
Not really.
It’s more like this: Imagine a china shop where you don’t like some of the items or how they’re priced. So, you send an elephant into the shop. The result? The elephant doesn’t just break the pieces you dislike—it smashes everything.
How will high-intelligence AI change things in the next 5 years of science?
This is trending on HN at the same time of another related citation, which makes a lot of sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973
This is a coup and we are calmly debating budgets. Debating the % of budget and how useful organization x is and if y will still get grant money, and, and, and... All of this is ignoring the big elephant in the room that there is one single person deciding everything that happens in government as if they were a king. The right thing to be debating is how we can stop this from continuing and how we can hold those responsible accountable.
Yes let's call a spade a spade, it's a coup.
Trump is passing as much stuff as quickly as he can to bypass the separation of powers while they catch up.
The left need to accept that they lost the election, that Trump won the presidency and the Republicans won control of congress.
As much as you personally disagree with these decisions, they are in line with the broad policy positions Trump et al communicated prior to the election, and can be considered the will of the people.
Challenging the mandate the public gave them, by hyperventilating over minor procedural hiccups that will inevitably be resolved by congress in favour of Trump, comes across to voters as undemocratic.
So first the US isn't a monarchy last time I checked, Trump doesn't have the mandate to do what he's doing now, no matter how much you agree with his decisions or not.
And secondly no, Trump also publicly lied about his positions by saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025.
But it doesn't matter if he did say the truth anyways, saying that you'll make a coup doesn't make the coup okay.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
As a bystander in another country your line of argument is mind-boggling. You don't just throw out the constitution and way the government works because one guy won an election one time. But that seems to be what a lot of people are suggesting, that because Trump won the election whatever he does is democratic and therefore okay.
The same people typically argue that whatever Trump is right anyway. For example when he lost the last election people rallied behind is made-up election fraud claims.
Shouldn't they then use Congress as intended rather than what they're doing now which bypasses it?
They can’t because of the filibuster [1]. They cannot bypass the filibuster without a 3/5 majority which they do not have. Thus any bill which the Democrats oppose will be blocked by filibuster in the Senate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
They could easily remove the filibuster if they so choosed.
Yes, they could remove the filibuster. But then if the Democrats retake the Senate in the midterm elections they will benefit from the removed filibuster and be able to undo everything the Republicans did in the first place.
The filibuster remaining in place is a good thing because it encourages negotiations and compromise instead of a seesaw battle.
I agree the filibuster is a good thing. But you can't decide to keep it and then use it as a reason to bypass congress.
That's called democracy.
The existence of the filibuster seems to be a current part of things working as intended. That they might hypothetically get filibustered and have trouble passing legislation doesn't provide carte blanche to do whatever. Rather it should suggest that the rules around the filibuster should be amended beforehand or perhaps after it actually appears as a material issue.
Your reply also runs counter to the parent comment I was replying to where they state that Congress would repair any irregularities after the fact. Frankly it feels like people are making things up to support their guy doing things counter to the established mechanisms of government and your own constitution.
By mandate do you mean the 3 vote majority in the house?
not really a coup, its a default. US government is already using pension fund money to pay its bills since early January (aka special measures), the interest on their national debt is already more than they collect in taxes.
That has very little if anything to do with the executive branch brazenly disregarding laws.
This is what i never understand. Okay, not enough money, soooo _tax more_. Or at least stop giving tax cuts to the richest people in the history of the planet? Like, implement a 5% tax on their wealth, and just fix all the problems. We could have services _and_ rich people, we just have to make insanely rich people contribute to our world like we all do to theirs
My understanding is that's nowhere near enough.
The USA deficit is $1.8 Trillion a year with $30T total. The net worth of all USA billionaires is around $4.5T. So 5% would reduce the deficit by 10% until the billionaires wise up and move their wealth out of the country.
Even confiscating it all in a one-off pile reduces the national debt by about 15%.
It's a strategy, called Starve the Beast. The idea is to collect taxes, which then forces the current government to cut expenditures. The current Trump administration is no difference, this is what all the talk about government bloat is about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
It's pretty clever in its cruelty: Once you have cut taxes, it essentially doesn't matter which party wins the next election: The have to gut expenditures anyway.
See the current Labour government in the UK, who would very much like to spend money on government initiatives but can't because the Tories made sure there was nothing left.
The worst part about it is we already have a playbook to actually reduce the US debt, which we did very well in the 90s.
Elect US senators and Representatives to go to the floor and debate about individual programs on CSPAN so people can actually hear arguments about it.
This is why, for example, the ISS didn't get cut, but the SSC did. Both were huge science programs that cost tens of billions of dollars and Clinton's administration explicitly wanted to keep both programs but the voting public, through senators and house reps, including democrat members of both forced them to pick only one.
Uh, we didn't. Even in the “balanced budget” years 1998-2001, the debt increased.
Unless you mean reducing the debt to GDP ratio, which we did in parts of the 1990s, and some periods since, but that's not much explained by the spending control methods you discuss, but by growing the economy.
I thought we actually ran a surplus for a year or two? My impression is the "how", though, was "take in more revenue than expected because of the tech bubble", which isn't exactly a "how" we could or should replicate.
People want the US debt number to at the very least, stop going up. I'm not in any hurry to see the debt go to zero this decade, but some people insist it's necessary (I don't agree) and they got enough sway to own our country this political cycle.
I said we have a playbook to reduce the US debt. A more correct statement would have been "We already have a playbook to audit and reduce US government spending".
It is NOT done by giving one of the least competent ketamine junkies in front of a computer with a list of budget item names and tweeting the ones he finds most offensive.
Air that shit in congress where it can face PUBLIC scrutiny and debate, not in a forum literally controlled by the guy doing it. That's how we got rid of the unfortunate boondoggle SSC and kept the better ISS.
The fed reports a doubling of tax receipts from 1990 to 2000. There has been at least another doubling since then. Because Trump is a corrupt grifter and a shill for certain corps, he has already floated a plan to cut more taxes. Trump supporters do not want to bring taxes back up on companies apparently. They'd rather keep seeing their own taxes go up.
So they're going to cut stuff. Probably good stuff, probably important stuff. I'm saying there is a demonstrated productive way to cut stuff in the US system while limiting the pain and cutting of actually important stuff and that's what they would be doing if they actually wanted to fix any problem
Also I'm pretty sure the GAO has a standing list of things to do. That would also be better than this.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. That’s not why MElon elected a president using twitter to brainwash people. They are there to get rich, not to share their wealth.
In case anyone was curious, the interest being paid on the national debt is of the order of $1 trillion per year, while the amount collected in taxes (federally only) is of the order of $5.5 trillion per year.
federally only is about $1.6Trillion, the rest is state taxes and never goes near the federal government to cover the interest on their debt. ($1.8Trillion at a poultry 5% interest)
I don’t know where either of you are getting your numbers. The total federal revenue is a bit under $5 trillion and about half of that is income tax.
Neither of those numbers include any state revenue or tax.
dont know where you are getting your numbers. sounds like are confusing revenue and spending. relying on some AI maybe?
US collects about $12Trillion in taxes total (30% ish of GDP), under $2trillion of that is given to the federal government for medicare, medicade and the military, they spend more than $5trillion, which is what they spend on medicare, medicade the military and the interest on the $37Trillion debt they have accumulated spending more than they were given by the states for medicare medicade and the military - mostly bank and insurance fund bailouts to prop up the failed US financial system, adding about $3trillion to the federal debt each year, which is why it has gone from $30trillion at the end of 2022, to $37trillion now.
Getting downvoted because I do my own research instead of believing the latest gormless chatbot, that's new.
Receipts: $4.9 trillion: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60843/html
Of that, individual income tax was about $2.4 trillion, payroll tax was $1.7 trillion, corporate income tax was $530 billion, and there's about $253 billion of "other."
You cited nothing, and you are wrong on every number you quote.
Fortunately Trump hasn't destroyed revenue reporting yet. This contains info for FY2024:
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover...
I don't think you can call a democratically elected president doing what he promised to do a coup.
So first he lied about Project 2025 and then, "whatever the president does is democratic" is just an obvious sophism, no democracy works like that.
Democraties work with checks and balances, which are being broken right now.
On a final note, historically a lot of coup came from elected presidents
I don't think he lied about Project 2025. It is a collection of more than 700 policy proposals. Some completely normal, milquetoast Republican policies. Some more extreme. No matter what Trump implemented, it would have covered some of those policies, leading to accusations that he's "doing Project 2025". I don't think he would ever have read 900 pages, so I don't think he read it, and I don't think he lied.
I didn't claim everything he does is democratic. I claimed that what he is doing is as promised to voters. Don't take my word for it. He is now at the highest approval rating he has ever had in office (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...). People obviously feel he is delivering what he promised.
I don't think any checks and balances are being broken. Trump and the Republicans won the popular vote (which is kind of insane in an of itself), the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate. They have an unprecedented mandate to carry out unprecedented change by voters who were obviously VERY unhappy with the Democrat Party.
I can't fathom what you're trying to argue with this. That we should stop elections because the people might elect an authoritarian?
That doesn't look a very convincing argument. So Trump is coincidentally close to the Project 2025 members and both executing their playbook on day one but somehow that's not a connection?
Well but right now why isn't he using any of those then? Musk operates outside any legal framework.
Maybe Trump isn't as confident as you seem on the loyalty of his fellow non-MAGA Republicans.
I'm just disproving the nonsensical argument "he's been elected, therefore it'll remain a democracy". Well no, that isn't a sufficient guarantee.
And I don't find the argument convincing that because some of his policies are similar to Project 2025's, he must subscribe to ALL of them.
Donald Trump gave Elon Musk the power of Special Government Employee (SGE), which is defined under U.S. federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202. Further laws which cover this title are 5 CFR § 2641.104 and 17 CFR § 200.735-12. Musk is performing legal duties, entitled to him under democratically instituted and operationalised laws.
I'm not making any claims about the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I am clearly arguing that you should accept the will of the people in a democracy.
Otherwise why he would be personally so close to this project then? That doesn't make sense.
That's not enough to make what Musk is doing legal, this status is mostly for an advisor and Musk is an active executive member. The real way of making it legal is going through congress.
Not to mention the other DOGE workers which as far I know have no status at all.
Well there's two things which are not true here in this sentence. First he lied about his actions (unless you can find me a statement where he says that he'll put Musk in charge of dismantling the government), so it's not the will of the people, it's the will of Trump.
Secondly, he's not using the executive and legislative right now so it's hardly democratic, it's something you see in authoritarian regimes. In the EU, only Hungary works like that.
When did he change the story about Project 2025?
When he started carrying it out.
He couldn’t possibly actually have liked some of the ideas himself, without being associated with the project (or whatever)?
Hell of a coincidence. When an influential think tank puts out a guidebook for what their party’s nominee should do after winning the presidency, and then that person puts a bunch of the people involved in his administration and starts carrying it out, I’m not inclined to think this is all by chance.
We don't have a monarchy (yet). The Constitution does not say "anything in here is void at the whim of the President". An electoral win does not allow him to unleash a gang of thugs through all of the agencies, to shut down Congressionally mandated agencies, to violate civil service protections, etc. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Not to mention, he ran on the opposite of what he's doing. He claimed he was going to end wars and immediately threatened war on multiple allies, with the latest being a threat of mass ethnic cleansing in Gaza. And on and on.
Which branch of government are those agencies a part of?
Created and appropriated by Congress.
Those agencies are part of the executive branch as they are administrative in nature.
That's not how any of this works. Read up on separation of powers. Just to take one example...
https://www.vox.com/politics/398618/elon-musk-doge-illegal-l...
We’ll see in a year or two how this really works. My view is that there was a coup against the Constitution about 90 years ago and as a result we have decades of judicial Calvinball that need to be sorted through. Just to start with, can you find the part of the Constitution that authorizes NIH and NSF to exist in the first place?
In terms of following the strictures of the Constitution, nothing the administration has done has made things any worse in that regard and in fact, has the potential to make things much better. The bureaucracy has grown into an extraconstitutional (which is to say, unconstitutional) fourth branch of government with separated powers of its own. Destroying that independence and returning executive power to the elected executive is a massive step in the right direction.
You could make arguments of overreach but they don't come even close to "coup."
Voters appear to disagree with you. [His approval rating has never been higher while in office.](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/dona...)
Trump is doing an otherthrow of an existing government by a small group. That fits perfectly.
Trump and the Republicans control all three branches of government: the office of the President, the House, and the Senate. Who exactly are you contending they are overthrowing?
Evidently not, otherwise he would pass all there reforms to congress plus judiciary control.
That doesn't pass even the simplest examination. What if the thing that the democratically elected president promised to do was a coup?
It still wouldn't make sense. A democratically elected president conducting a coup is a tautology. He can't suddenly seize power by force because he already has it. You could be worried about him refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and should that occur, with the use of the military, you could describe that as a coup. We are many years away from that word making sense.
So if a presidential promises to execute all of his opposition in the legislature and execute the judges that disagree with him and execute anyone in the bureaucracy that fails to obey his orders, and then he gets elected, and then he does those things, while blatantly breaking any and all previously passed laws that he cares to, is it a coup?
Historically, a lot of coups were made by democratically elected head of states. It's easier to seize full power when you have some of it.
See Napoleon 3, Hitler himself...
Your opinion is revealing, if you already think he has full power, then you agree it's a coup.
Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were ever elected as heads of state. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor, but that is the head of government. The head of state is the President. Hitler was able to manoeuvre into that position using his personal army to murder opposition. Napoleon had an old fashioned military coup in 1799, then attempted to legitimise it with a falsified plebiscite in the following year.
In both cases, the issue was the murder, not the democracy. It is important that we not blame democracy for the actions of evil men.
Napoleon 3 was elected president in 1848 and became emperor in 1852, you are mixing up with the first Napoleon.
And then the head of state in the Weimar republic really was the chancellor, that's why Hitler could dismantle the republic.
As an expat in the EU, I have a surreal sense of being a bystander at an ongoing emergency scene. I don’t want to be yet another gawker as this situation is unfolding but am struggling to come up with actions that are within my power to take as a form of protest, resistance, or solidarity.
What are some practical actions that we can take to resist these sweeping changes?
Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route?
Honestly though, I'm in the same situation and I don't know.
I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge). I unsubscribed to the Washington Post after they pulled their Harris endorsement (which was appalling), but their coverage since feels relatively thorough and they are well placed to report on all this so far, so I resubscribed. I already support PBS. I'll probably donate to Pro Publica next.
I expect media outlets will be under rapidly increasing pressure, so supporting them financially feels important and positive.
I've also have a standing donation to the NAACP legal defense fund from his first administration that I've just kept running.
So... money I guess?
That makes sense. Time and money are our most effective (and scarce) resources.
Time, money and labour.
The parties turn on people who show up to do the work. There is a remarkable amount people can achieve if they show up as people who are willing to learn, do the work, and have their own eyes and ears open.
Hope the US gets bad enough that people in the EU notice and decide they don't want to go down the same route?
Yeah, same. Since the Brexit a lot of populist parties in the EU don't want to leave the EU anymore (only reform it). Let's hope that this is another warning that the destructive populist path doesn't lead anywhere good.
(And I hope that the UK will join the EU again, they are close friends.)
I did just start paid subscriptions to several media outlets that have been doing good reporting on the situation (Guardian, Verge).
Yeah, independent, non-clickbait news is very important in these times. We recently renewed our newspaper subscription for three years.
When you are in the EU (or really anywhere non-US anyway), it's probably a good moment to start moving your data out of the US and away from US companies. So far Trump has done exactly what he promised, so a large trade war or, even worse, a war over Greenland is possible. Since pretty much anything is fair game now, blackmailing the EU using its dependency on US tech companies is not far-fetched anymore.
Get your data out and reduce your dependency on US tech.
As a Brit, so do I. However, despite all of the evidence showing it will be massively beneficial, we won't. Not fully, imho, for a good while. Best I'm hoping for is closer ties in a customs union, but that requires compromise I don't think will happen.
Genuinely curious if you think a WaPo endorsement could have swayed the election, and if not, why it mattered at all.
From my perspective, Trump voters distrust and dislike the old media so much, a newspaper telling them they shouldn't vote for Trump would only strengthen their resolve.
Not the poster, but I don't think a newspaper pulling an endorsement out of fear of reprisal is a great sign of a free press (or, to the poster's point, a press you care to pay for.)
I don't think Bezos fears anybody. He's too rich for that. And the WaPo management fears Bezos, not Trump.
No one's too rich to get shot by the world's largest superpower.
Zuckerberg didn't do a giant public 180 for funsies.
It is far more likely that Bezos and Zuckerberg support Trump than fear being shot. Zuckerberg particularly, what makes you think this was a 180? The man has been doing machismo stuff like throwing spears at goats and challenging people to boxing matches for years. And have you seen the way Facebook is moderated, even years ago relative to the way Twitter was moderated under their old owners? Supporting Trump is in-character for Zuckerberg, even more so than Bezos.
I must say though, this "billionaires as terrified victims" narrative is hilarious. I hope the Democratic party rescues these poor billionaires from the man they're publicly supporting!
Both can be true. I also consider it a failure of regulation and humanity that a billionaire can just own a newspaper and nix stories for clout.
Should ownership of newspapers be limited to mere millionaires? Or do you mean that private ownership of newspapers should be abolished?
This country was built on privately owned newspapers wielded as weapons by their owners; I'm sure you've heard of Benjamin Franklin. The First Ammendment protects this more than anything else for this reason.
Yup, this. I think it had zero impact on the election, but it was an absurd and gutless decision.
I'd rather not pay for that sort of thinking. However, I'd rather have the WaPo in its current form as opposed to severely diminished (or none at all).
I really hope so too. My pessimist side fears that the powerful are observing the US, seeing that it works there and will do the same thing here.
No Tesla, no Starlink, no Twitter. Easy, and very effective.
I deleted my Twitter account after a period of ghost-quitting that platform. However, this action doesn't seem all that significant, so I'm hopeful I can use my energy more effectively.
Meanwhile, increasing my focus on my immediate community and sharing my creativity are fulfilling activities within my power.
Similar (moved to the EU 12 years ago)
The best thing I can think of is to make the EU a strong, powerful, wealthy democracy that can defend itself from invasion and try to encourage other democracies around the world.
Which means we have a lot of work ahead, to put it mildly.
For that to work, the individual governments need to give more of their responsibilities up to the EU level, which is unfortunately somewhat unpopular.
It may be unpopular but Volt is increasing its presence on all levels from local councils to European Parliament, so there’s a desire among some voters for more EU federalism. In Germany they may come close to the results of FDP on the upcoming elections.
Fortunately in my country of Austria the liberal party (NEOS from the EU Renew Europe faction) already supports a "United States of Europe", but it "only" has around ~10% at the moment (though it is growing).
But the new government of pro-russian neonazis (FPÖ) and conservatives (ÖVP) will probably be very anti-EU.
Democratic and EU unfortunately doesn't mesh that well.
In the current form federal EU would be someting like having an unelected powerful executive branch, and a semi-elected weak legistlative branch. Furthermore the populace has very little idea about what is happening in the EU and who to hold accountable, partly because the media doesn't cover it, and partly because the processes are extremely convoluted and quite opaque.
Such "democratic centralism" bureaucracy probably would have benefits like more stability for long term strategy, swift execution of policies and coordinated action, but it's also very prone to corruption and elite capture.
semi-elected weak legistlative branch
What do you mean? The European Parliament is directly elected.
be someting like having an unelected powerful executive branch
They (the EC) need to be approved by the European Parliament and the Parliament can dissolve the EC.
If you consider the structure of the EU undemocratic, the same would apply to most countries that are considered democratic.
Yes, a more accurate characterization would be someting like partially elected legislative branch.
The parliament is directly elected, but it doesn't have full legislative powers. It can't propose new laws and the Council of the EU has veto over the parliament. Dissolving the EC also needs a supermajority.
The structure is at least way less directly democratic than any EU country.
Most of the EC already proved themselves unworthy of leadership when they pushed to pass Chat Control repeatedly.
That's far closer to a dystopia than anything the US has proferred recently.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
Unpopular because it is undemocratic. The EU is a bureaucracy that works against democracy. Its goal is to steal more and more power from national governments that are run by elected representatives towards a bureaucracy that decides their next actions in Davos.
The European Parliament is directly elected by the citizens of the European Union. The European Council consists of government leaders of the EU countries, which are also chosen in most countries based on the results of elections. The only exception is the European Commission, which is chosen by indirect democracy (nominated by member countries, approved by the parliament, and they can dissolve the EC).
Yes, it is the European Commission that's the central problem.
Why is the EC a problem? In many democracies the executive branch is instated and kept in check by a parliament. The EC are not always my picks and there is definitely a lot of politics involved, but I think it's an asset that people with some level of expertise are selected and that the executive branch is somewhat protected against making very short-term decisions because they have to think about their next election.
People should stop bashing the EU. Like any democracy it has its issues, but it is hugely successful in avoiding war between countries that have been in war for centuries, plus the EU actually has a spine and has generally (with exceptions) protected people's privacy, protected people against large companies, etc.
The primary weakness of the EU is that it cannot do enough yet (but every crisis makes leaders realize that working together at the EU-level is more successful than trying to operate as a single country).
I've heard this often and I don't understand it at all.
Every government in the world has a permanent set of employees which enact policy and turn political intentions into legislation. Usually these are split into departments, each headed by temporary political appointee.
So exactly like the European Commission, then. Why is it only "undemocratic" when the European Union does it?
Are you suggesting that all 32000 people working for it should be elected? I'm quite certain there is no government in the world which does that and it seems quite impractical.
Or should every political appointment be directly elected, instead of appointed by a head of state? You could do that, but I am not aware of any major government which does so, so if that's the sole reason to call it "undemocratic" then it's a double standard.
Still, so far every recent crisis has made the EU stronger. When it comes to democracy, I would place my bets on the EU, even if it has its faults.
Unfortunate indeed :-(
It's 2025. You can drive across most European countries in a day (a long day, in some cases, but still).
If Europe wants to stick to the borders a bunch of kings and princes hashed out in blood a hundred+ years ago it can, for the moment, but if we do, there's a decent chance it will just be crushed by the next global superpower (US, China, or weirdly enough maybe Russia considering how much influence they have over many US politicians now).
I love Europe. I was proud to become an EU citizen and my favourite scarf is an EU flag. I think it's an amazing place full of amazing countries and people. And it still can be! But for it to continue to exist, we MUST work together. Militarily, economically, and even practically (why is it so hard to book train tickets across 3 countries again?)
I know it stings, but the reality is the wolves are at the gates. Democracy has its back against the wall and we need a force that can fight back. Or government of the people, by the people, for the people, will soon perish from the Earth.
If the EU wants to stick to a technocratic structure pushing unpopular laws over the democratic institutions won in blood, it'll be probably be democratically a hard sell to give it more powers.
I agree that Europe should have more unification and coordinated action. But I don't love the EU. I quite liked social democracy, but then it was outlawed by the EU.
It was nice to have public control over the infrastructure, possibility to have industry for public benefit, possibility to nationalize out of control private sectors, possibility to retain assets and capital domestically, to control fiscal and monetary policy etc.
The EU suddenly feels flimsy and badly defended. I hope that negative motivation puts the fear into people and motivates action faster than this reality can be exploited by bad actors, who seem to be ready and waiting.
Agreed, but I don't think I'd say sudden. Some have been pointing out that weak militaries and pacifism were a luxury afforded only through naivete and wishful thinking. Hell, Ireland's whole defense strategy is "but everyone likes us!" and "well I'm sure Britain will help in a pinch".
I was always receptive to those arguments, but I think even the people making them only felt them conceptually. The thick layer of civilization and “end of history” vibes just felt impenetrable. Then around brexit times it started to feel a little shaky, and more so with the Ukraine war.
I think Trump decisively stripped the last of the illusions away, most people feel the vulnerability in their bones now.
If you're in Germany or know some Germans, talk as much as you can about how this is what Musk wants to do via the AfD to us here. The election is a little over two weeks away. Right now, the CDU/CSU ("normal" conservatives) look to be getting the largest number of votes, but nowhere near enough to govern on their own. They've been a little too flirty with the AfD (currently in second place), and the worst thing that could happen is that they forget what they learned in school about what happened to the centrist and conservative parties in the early 1930s, and take the AfD as their coalition partner instead of trying to work something out with the SPD and Greens.
There's a reason that Germany's current main center-right parties were both born after the war.
Germany can be saved only by a major political reset. The mainstream parties are so flawed that it may be easier to replace them, than to fix.
Greens just went through a stupid political scandal in Berlin where the leftist radical wing tried to frame a realo candidate for sexual harassment. SPD goes to this election with the worst chancellor in history. CDU lost its mind and voted together with AFD. FDP is serving a few special interests groups. Die Linke are borderline irrelevant.
We are in a strange situation where we have strong presence on populist left and right, but no decent political force in the center to contain them.
Germany can be saved only by a major political reset. The mainstream parties are so flawed that it may be easier to replace them, than to fix.
Be careful what you wish for. If AfD would grab the power (unlikely at this point), it'll weaken Germany nationally and internationally like the US is being weakened now.
At this point the biggest weakening factor is our political mainstream. In 100 years, if nothing changes, Germany will be Argentina of today. I’m not afraid of AfD, they lack practically everything to become new NSDAP. I’m afraid that whatever next coalition is, they will miss every opportunity to make a difference.
Ironically enough, this very much sounds like the "let's re-write and everything will be better" fallacy encountered in software engineering.
That aside, what you are wishing for is a war and/or revolution where the pillars of society have been shattered to pieces, the old incumbents removed/killed/retired, and where a new political landscape is built upon the ruins and ashes of what has been.
Be careful what you wish for..
They just mean to change the parties, this happened once in the US (whigs are no more).
I have a suggestion - at least one of several, which is to understand why we got here. The fact that this is escalating since cable TV, Murdoch, and the internet is not a coincidences.
Democracies globally are facing a similar problem, which is an abuse of a core democractic principle: Free speech.
Free speech is often valued in and of itself. However, free speech in itself is only a tool that serves a greater purpose, which is to enable the search for truth. Free speech is the goal of exchanging ideas between peoples, to foster competition in thought so that collectively we can understand our shared reality.
If such a market place were to become inefficient, or if such a market place were to resolve itself to serve the most attention grabbing takes, we would see much of what the media carries.
THIS ISNT the problem you face! This is the problem we discuss!
The problem is when someone combines the media with a political party. The media itself has no recourse but to play the game of advertizing to survive.
But once it is in service of an entity, then you can create your own justifications for war, and then declare victory yourselves.
This makes the most mercenary of politics the most succesful. It is the natural recourse of people who want to win at all costs. It is far more efficient than doing economic research to understand the pros and cons of a decision.
We can solve the problems we all mutuall face. There is more to life than our polarization.
However, if we are pulled between two magnets, and our goal is to not be pulled apart - then the magnets need to be addresed.
The problem is, in America, both magnets pull to the right. We have a far right republican party and a center right democratic party. There is no leftwing party to provide balance. There’s not a single democrat who would be considered a leftist outside America.
One magnet is the media, the other magnet is an orwellian party/media firm.
Also - this used to be hacker news. As in who gives a shit about what is, its about what needs to change.
Think of it this way - this is just a puzzle that needs to be cracked. Take it as a job application problem, and see how it can be dissected over the weekend.
Come up with some theories, then go see if you can disprove them.
Fixing anything, comes from defining the right problem anyway.
Outside of Europe, in the rest of the world where 85% of the people live, what are examples of successful or meaningful leftist parties?
The Worker's Party is a center-left party that is currently the ruling party in Brazil.
Also, China is nominally a communist country. Vietnam is a communist country.
In Vietnam, slave labor makes t-shirts sold in American walmarts. Is this successful or meaningful leftism?
The parent was asking about political parties. In Vietnam, the leftist party runs the country. If "in charge of a politically stable, economically growing country for decades" doesn't meet the definitions of "successful or meaningful" in the context of a political party you're going to have to be more specific.
PT stopped being a left-wing party decades ago. The current vice president was once a presidential candidate and leader of a neoliberal party.
People who express this sentiment seem to consider "the world" to be composed of North America and Europe. Why do you ignore the conservatives of Africa, the Middle East, India, and Asia in your assessment of what "average" is?
They're not even including all of Europe. They're basically writing off everything east of the Oder.
Who exactly holds the magnets here? Is it even knowable or is it even necessary to know to address the problem? I agree regarding media but how do you get your information at national scale then? The world seems way more complex than what it once was, the interdependence feels more like grappling moves as we approach a malthusian crunch.
Seems there is a market place for truth . Truth has become ware and has price (which is not same as cost). All else follows..
Correct.
One of my other conclusions is that, with gen AI, the old assumptions of truth are gone.
Instead we're at the dawn of something like the fiat money revolution, in analogy terms. Like the value of a idea isnt about how its based on fact, but on the relation between the person sharing it, and the person paying attention to it.
Im hoping someone makes a blog post about this.
I generally agree, but I also think this was a natural and probably unavoidable result of having many different sources of “news”.
Prior to the internet, pretty much all news in the US came from ~5 TV networks and 1 or 2 newspapers (per city). It wasn’t practical for any of those sources to align exclusively with either political party because then they would be alienating ~half of their potential customers.
Today, there are far, far more sources to choose from. People self select those sources that they agree with. In the “old days” the news was more middle of the road politically, but that’s largely gone now. This is a major source of polarization IMO.
Well, if you think so, then dont get me wrong about this - do something about it! Read up, diagnose, deconstruct, break this theory.
Unless you know someone else is going to be doing this, or you know this doesnt interest you - then see how far this makes sense to you.
I did my soul searching the day Trump won. I had a 0% chance for that occurence, and my prediction was wrong.
I relooked at everything I believed, because I had made a high confidence prediction on how the world worked, and I had made the wrong call. If this was a massive stock play, I would have been broke.
My revised position made me stop asking why Harris lost, but instead focused on how Trump ran in 2016 in the first place.
I felt it forced me to take my thinking seriously, and my assumptions seriously. Perhaps it matters and will help you too.
Public trust in the media is at an all time low along with other institutions. People are turning to social media because the press is unreliable. Reform that institution and fix many of our problems.
Maybe AI agents will be able to help identity bad reporting in the press and hold them more accountable. A sort of epistemic anti-virus.
There are a lot of arsonists complaining about fires on this particular point. The mainstream press is mostly decent.
American right-wing propaganda personalities and media outlets drive the negative sentiment to a large degree. They radicalize their audiences against traditional media institutions, and they do it very, very well. Sometimes there are kernels of truth to their criticisms. Mostly they are wildly exaggerated, or even totally fabricated. It sucks we can't have nice things, but it is what it is. Free speech is free speech.
But it won't really get better unless all that propaganda is successfully countered, even if you magically figured out how to build a perfect mainstream media.
Where things get really dangerous is when demagogues come along and join in, like Trump.
On the list of things to look for to tell if you're dealing with a rising authoritarian movement, near the top are sustained attacks on the press. Enemy of the people, Trump calls them. Zuckerberg gets threatened with life in prison. He encourages supporters to menace and attack reporters at rallies. The list goes on.
These all become the pretext for drastic anti-constitutional attacks on the free press, and we're seeing that take shape already in Trump 2.0.
We really have no way of knowing that. It's not like there is any organization that analyzes and critiques the mainstream press in any regular fashion. For instance, the press clearly knew that Biden had major cognitive impairments but they misreported it to the public. There was no accountability at all when the truth was discovered. Same with the story of Trump colluding with Russia, or the many, many different racial hate crime hoaxes. There is ZERO accountability for misleading the public.
I'm skeptical of all the talk about "authoritarianism." All those ideas seem be based on shoddy social science theorizing after WW2 - e.g. "The Authoritarian Personality." I don't think you can accurately predict the rise of a totalitarian leader based on what happened in Germany.
the press brought this up! Dont mistake the no true scotsman fallacy here.
It was openly discussed that Biden was not looking sharp (even though Trump couldn't hold a debate with a mirror).
Biden Stepped down, mid cycle - this was something unthinkable to election strategists and pundits.
It remains one of the most amazing things I've seen, because I understand what it takes to do that, and what many others did in a similar position.
If you want to talk about how perceptions are made - consider that less is made of Biden's actions here, and more is made of the fact that he ran at all.
Did you know that the Russia case resulted in 8 guilty please and 1 conviction? Trump didn't get touched because they knew of the Russian interference, but didnt expect it to harm them.
A sitting president cant be indicted on federal crimes, so the obstruction of justice case was dropped.
This is unfortunate, since it gives ammunition to everyone, at which point it just becomes a team sport.
However, having seen authoritarian states, this is 100% from that play book. And yes, it feels insane and high strung to write that, but what can one do?
It looks like a wolf, it bites like a wolf, but maybe its just a massive dog.
The "mainstream press" is actually hundreds or thousands of individual institutions, some big, small, and each have their own flaws, strengths, biases, audiences, cultures and incentives. They compete with and often criticize/check one another. It's not even all that unusual for an editorial columnists to lambast their own publications.
I don't want to idealize it too much, but feedback loops for self-correction are baked into the pie, and they do actually work from time to time.
There's a completely different physics in the right-wing media world though, best illustrated by the aftermath of the 2020 election. Fox had to pivot hard to election denialism because they were getting killed in the ratings by upstarts like Newsmax and OANN who went all in on the election lies. The right-wing media feedback loops don't self-correct, they incentivize extremism, grievance and conspiracy theory.
This is mostly right-wing media fiction. Stories and commentary on Biden's age were quite frequent in my experience.
(There's basically a whole genre of faux right-wing media criticism in the style of: "The mainstream media won't talk about X...", even while headlines about X all over the place in on "mainstream" media outlets)
It's not quite that simple. That's not a single story, it's was an ongoing series of stories and investigations that developed over time.
There was plenty of measured, careful reporting around all of that stuff. There was plenty of irresponsible reporting too. There was also plenty of self-flagellation afterwards over a lot of it.
(The Trump campaign, along with folks in it's orbit, did collude with Russia. People went to jail. Paul Manafort literally met a Russian spy on a park bench, kind of like you see in the spy movies, to covertly hand over proprietary voter data. Roger Stone was coordinating with Russian hackers and wikileaks to leak hacked DNC data, etc.)
If you can't recognize it as a sign of authoritarianism when a sitting president nearly murdered an entire building full of cops, legislators, staff and his own vice president in a mad, desperate bid to nullify an election and seize power, I'm not sure what can break through.
But we are backsliding, there's no doubt about that. How far we fallback will depend on how effectively we oppose... well.. the current ruling party as it currently exists.
I like how you analyzed that, one addition: I also think some form of the anthropic principle is at play.
The societies that exist have something that allows them to continue to exist. Free speech can allow a society to seek truth and being aligned with reality can be important in the survival of a society. But so can cohesion while being "wrong".
There's a lot of information floating around and there's a lot of play between truth seeking free speech and cohesion signaling going on. Esp. as noise has been added to all signals including the scientific channels both via corporations and via well meaning ideologues.
I'm sure this is naive but I assume most of us would just love to be able to filter the signal from the noise in places that are relevant to us and be able to ensure low malfeasance in the places that aren't.
Read a commentary on the Abram's dissent, where Holmes made the first step toward articulating a "marketplace of ideas".
Holmes was suprisingly nihilistic, and I feel his formation of the search and competition for truth held now idealized beliefs of human behavior.
He accepted that people woudl be driven by their passions and biases, including things like a desire to create cohesion. That this was also something traded as a value and motivating force.
People in the EU need to pay attention and think hard before voting for similar candidates and parties.
This is a global phenomenon. It’s part grassroots, driven by discontent with sclerotic establishment parties that are not solving problems, but also being driven by propaganda from authoritarian countries like Russia and China. The latter is opportunistic.
Americans voted for this and I find it very hard to believe they didn't know what they were voting for. So that's on them.
Personally, I am working on replacing any American made products or services I use myself or through my job. Both as an act of protest and in preparation for the upcoming economic war they plan to wage.
As far as I can tell, Trump is doing things he openly announced he would do for at least a year. So all of this is either a result of robust public support for his policies, or, (my preferred explanation) an even more robust public repudiation of the only alternative that was put forward by the other party, a candidate famous for dropping out before Iowa in 2020 but somehow was coronated the nominee without any voter input.
The thing about democracy is, every person is going to sometimes wildly disagree with what the elected officials do. Declaring it a 'coup' is as silly as when Trump lost in 2020 and declared it a 'rigged election.'
Now, you can make limited inroads to block executive actions with the courts, but even when SCOTUS was friendly to the anti-Trump cause, when that's done to advance an unpopular (majority-disapproved-of) agenda, it is usually a hollow and temporary victory. To get the policies you want, you need to win over voters. That's the part the DNC seems to be completely unaware of. You don't win by insulting, by dunking on the other guys on ~Twitter~ bluesky, or by protesting. You win in a democracy only by convincing the very reasonable middle that you share their values. The DNC has taken a position of "Everyone not already in our tent is evil, fascist, dastardly white supremacists," but to their chagrin, their current tent is under 50% of the voting public and it isn't growing.
Trump said so many things, so many outlandish things that I think a sizeable percentage of the people who voted for him didn't quite believe he would do. I don't have hard data on that but I did speak with several repubblican voters who dismissed the worries saying that he was just joking to provoke the libs.
He did. I only hope next time that the people who voted for him because of the truthiness of what he said (vs the actual truth) will think twice the next time they vote.
Purity spiral.
The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.
In other words, the left needs to learn how to love the right (and many people within the left). But I don't know if that's the case. I think there are a lot of people on the right who want the left to love them but believe that the people on the left do not love them.
I believe the problem is that people need to learn how to feel loved. To realize that even our enemies are trying their best and most likely care about us a lot more than they would ever admit. Both sides struggle with this. People on the current left tend to just resign and give up on the relationships. People on the right tend to seek vengeance.
I am exactly who you are talking about, I live in a very purple city in the midwest. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, my family was Amish 4 generations ago. I'm also a 90s kid and grew up on south park. Turned into a redneck hippy.
It's a complete social poison pill in the city to have voted a certain way. Have had the same look of "how could you be that dumb" from people ranging from strippers to lawyers.
All I want is love and belonging, not sure how to feel love when I've heard the word "barbarian" to describe certain types of people. Not sure how to feel love when men's loneliness and suicide problems aren't being prioritized
Yeah, the hurt turns into anger sometimes, but yes, I need them too. For me to exist, my opposite has to exist, and I should love us both.
I appreciate you sharing this story. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit and while I voted for Kamala, I have a lot of friends and family who either openly voted for Trump or who I imagine secretly did. And while it can be so hard for me to not call them stupid (I tend to default to insulting people's intelligence sometimes because I feel so confident in mine), I try really hard to see how they're really just struggling/suffering.
And it can hurt me so much when I see people in my life attack people very hard for voting for Trump. The ones in my life who voted for him sometimes seem to be the ones who are craving the most social connection, the most interaction, and don't get it. They seem to want to engage with people and sometimes the best way to engage is to say something controversial. Like the kid who can't get the mom's attention and so starts hitting her in the leg.
People on the right are not a basket of deplorables, they're human beings who want love and attention, often from those who they fear think they're better than them. Often from those they admire the most, who keep ignoring them and running away from them.
So thank you for sharing this and helping me see this even more deeply and lovingly.
You see the same desperation when a religion starts faltering/drying up. Loads of good folks start to break away. Those that remain tend to be beneficiaries from the system, or are sociopaths who don't know how to adapt, or are gullible folks who don't know how to discern lying, or are andbusy folks for whom inertia is less painful than change.
I see that in politics in a lot of ways. I'm still figuring out my concept model for it, but the experience of religious exit is showing similarities.
but does this approach gain votes?
People have despaired of making common cause, because bipartisanship IS punished within the republican party, and by FOX.
I can apprecaite my fellow man, but I must also answer the question posed by the success of their tactics. I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him. Someone who openly doubted McCain?? Good gravy, that would have been something to see.
But reality has drifted, and political success has dependend more and more on extremism and animosity. They can dispute the existence of evolution, and succeed in making it an issue!
Today, all that seems to matter is poltical efficiency. People have voted for Trump even KNOWING that he is going to be terrible, but because he is better for their goals.
I can feel for everyone, but as the right likes to say - who gives a frig about your feelings?
What matters is winning.
Make emapthy win. Make bipartisanship work again, then you have a chance. But why should the republicans ever do that? Their approach has given them everything they have ever desired.
Gaining voters from the right shouldn't be the Democrats primary focus.
Their primary focus should be retaining voters, by broadening the range of opinions which are acceptable within the party.
They are a decade down a purity spiral, which has resulted in the range of acceptable opinions within the party shrinking considerably, and the shunning of many individuals unnecessarily, who either stop voting altogether or find company on the right.
I gave the example above of how the republican party is able to accomodate a significant number of both pro-life and pro-choice members. The Democrats will similarly need to learn to expand their umbrella as well. Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.
If they can fix this, they will grow, because their biggest source of new members is young adults becoming eligible to vote, not people they pull away from the right. The Democrats just need to stop churning so many people away.
The Bush era has been the worst disaster for the right wing this century in both the US and potentially globally. He was a warmonger, an economic vandal and an unprincipled man at the helm of a state that flubbed any chance at setting up for meaningful long term success in favour of the patriot act and slaughtering goat herders in the middle east. Under his eye the Republicans exiled the right from cultural relevance for around a decade. The party around him were cut from the same cloth.
There is a reason the modern Republican party went with Trump rather than another person who looked like Bush. The entire Trump story has been the Republicans - without too much recrimination - attempting to purge the remains of the Bush era because they were a gross embarrassment whos legacy has been little short of a disaster. If the US Democrats had undertaken the same purge instead of embracing the leadership of the same era then they wouldn't have tried to run Biden then Kamala.
Purity spirals are a social dynamic where members of a group compete to demonstrate ever-increasing levels of ideological purity. Moderate perspectives are seen as dissenters and are shunned as the group becomes more radicalised.
It's a big problem for the left because numerically they are now the minority of voters, but are still trending away from the center, and shedding their more moderate members.
It's true, but so has the right in recent years. The center is increasingly alienated and homeless.
We know it's not as much of a problem on the right, because the rate of party switching is still far lower on the right than the left, by a factor of about 1:4.
On the right, you can be shunned by MAGA or shunned by the religious right, but still be welcome within the republican party.
On the left, you cannot challenge with any of the tent pole policies without being shunned entirely.
I think YMMV here based on who you're around. If you're right-leaning in an urban setting or a coastal city, you'll find a lot of heterodox views. If you live in the Rural South or Rural Midwest and do not almost literally worship Donald Trump, you are shunned.
The opposite is true for the left and the Democratic Party. Those circles tend to be very orthodox if you live in a lefty urban area. Disagree with one major platform issue and you're immediately suspected. If you're in the suburbs or a rural area you'll find that left-leaning people are much more heterodox.
Purity spirals are most intense in enclaves, which are echo chambers.
You'll find the same phenomenon online with regard to echo chambers. If you're in a left or right wing echo chamber, the purity spiral phenomenon is intense.
One could argue the right with its views on abortion and religion suffers the same problem, one they've largely tackled by voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
Gun rights would be another example.
The difference I think, is that the purity spiral on the left encompasses the entire party. If your perspectives are too moderate you are shunned from the entire hemisphere of politics and often suffer a barage of name calling (e.g. bigot) from your own 'side'.
On the right, this is far less often the case. The right is significantly more tolerant of people who fall outside of purity definitions. For example, the majority of republicans are pro-life, but co-exist with roughly a third of republicans who are pro-choice.
In contrast, most Democrats will not tolerate a pro-life member under any circumstance.
The party that chose Biden and Harris is in a purity spiral? They’re not exactly marxists…
And on the right it’s not the case? As soon as anyone disagrees with Trump they get steamrolled and labeled a traitor
I do think purity spirals exist on the right, but they are not as all emcompasssing as on the left.
You can be shunned from MAGA, while remaining republican. You can be shunned from the religious right, while remaining republican.
There is significantly more ideological diversity within the republican party than within the democratic party, and the result is democrats switching to republican at a rate 4 times higher than the republicans switch to democrats.
Can you really? Who is that?
Bro I'm a gun owner and a big time first amendment proponent and all that. I've been called a socialist, communist, American hater, a racist and more by those on the right as soon as I contradict dear leader slightly.
The right is every bit as bad at this as the left because at the end of the day people are going to people.
Democrats for life of America disagrees with your assessment. The organization has existed since 1999. Henry Cuellar is a member of the democratic party and is very "pro-life".
The issue is that "pro-life" has morphed into anti-choice. What is happening in Texas and other states is not pro-life. Forcing women to die is not a pro-life stance.
Free and fair elections are likely a thing of the past in the United States after this administration has completed its term, so it doesn't really matter if the left is competitive. They'll be a placeholder opposition party without any change of taking power for the foreseeable future. Trump and Johnson were already colluding to refuse certification of the 2024 election if Trump lost. They'll have a far more robust plan prepared next time.
The Yud series on this is actually pretty good (I believe it also predates the term purity spiral): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
You could have just condensed this down to: democrats bad and only their fault.
Because if people in the middle can be so damn gullible to vote for a criminal who said:
"I don't care about you, I only want your votes",
like Trump because he promised good economy I don't know how anyone can conclude that the issue here is with democrats and not the people's lack of critical thinking.
It's a bit late to correctly point out that focusing on demographics as you voter base is stupid and that it's interest groups you should focus on (as this should've been done in 2008 after Obama's victory), because this isn't a race between two sane candidates.
Name calling typically results in people viewing you as immature.
If the left ever want to reclaim the respect of voters, they need to lose this bad habit.
Those are descriptions not names.
The left don't have to any soul searching to do when again the so called middle literally voted for a man who to their face told them that he doesn't care about them he just wants their votes, who yes is a criminal that has swindled, lied and now rug pulled.
Well if the left wants to lead, it should never stop doing soul searching. Why not ask ourselves, "What have we done that may have contributed to people in our lives wanting to support such vengeful behaviors? How might have we and other people like us hurt these people over the years?"
But name calling works goddamit! Why shouldnt everyone do that??
Trump is 100% about names, holy shit.
I think the left needs to get better at name calling, and match the winning strategy. Maybe it needs to keep coming up with new funny names.
TO be serious - nthing the left does will likely work, because they have to somehow appeal to everyone. Be polite and strong, firm and flexible, forgiving and retributive.
Basically a unicorn.
Maybe won't work in the short term but can work in the long teem
When the left called the right "weird" that had more effect at driving liberal enthusiasm than any PDF of a policy ever has. Because it worked pretty well.
One problem is that the "left" has NO media at all. Republicans opt in to a completely controlled media platform, on Truth Social which is owned by Trump, on Fox News which multiple times has had to argue in court that nobody would take anything they say seriously, and also was knowingly lying to their audience, on AM radio which is used to yell at you 24/7 about how the dems are going to destroy you ANY DAY NOW, on Joe Rogan the podcast viewed by a hundred million people as it talks about how oppressed and cancelled it is and also if Biden said that it's evidence of brain damage but if Trump said that he didn't mean it, on our local news which is bought and paid for by a conglomerate that contractually obligates it's stations to pretend they came up with a story on their own and run identical pieces all across the country about how "damaging to our democracy" democrats are".
What do liberals have to push whatever message they want pushed?
Reddit? Nah, it's half dead, most activity is literally bots reposting year old threads comment for comment to build up karma, it has the cultural pull of HN if HN didn't have YC behind it.
Facebook? You can call people mentally disabled on there now for the crime of being born with genitals that don't match your brain.
CNN? Give me a break. Nobody has trusted CNN since at least the original gulf wars. After that Malaysian airlines plane vanished they asked a aviation expert if it could have been a black hole that swallowed up the plane. They were bought recently by new people, who want to be more pro Trump, mostly because it's just outright more profitable. People watched more CNN during Trump's first term because shit was always being broken, while nobody watched during Biden's term, because nobody expected biden to do anything.
MSNBC? Weirdly popular with "liberal" celebrities and hollywood, but nobody on the east coast cares about it. Even on a good day it has HALF the viewership of Fox News. It's also more like "Laugh at republicans doing stupid things" than actually about liberal policy. MSNBC will tell you that what Trump is doing is illegal, but they wont comprehensively explain why
Liberals and progressives don't seem to be even remotely as willing to opt in to a purposely ideological media stream. I guess AOC does well when she goes on twitch, but even on that platform, the big """leftist""" streamer is a bad person and Noam Chomksy style "america bad" concern troll, and there are multiple much more popular streamers who teach literal children that if video games don't have hyper exaggerated overly sexualized anime women in them, they're "woke". The "I'm a child who likes video games, I'm going to watch video game content" to "I hate women" pipeline is truly insane. Even the people who are part of it don't seem to understand the part they are playing. A group of 12 year old boys met one of their favorite streamers from the Fresh and Fit podcast, and after getting a selfie with him, chanted "I hate women, kill all women", as the podcaster went "what, no no don't hate women!"
90% of the Fresh and Fit podcast is the hosts, men, complaining about how women are inherently less rational than men, complaining that women overreact, complaining that women are shallow on a podcast ostensibly about "gains", bringing very very drunk women on to argue with them about, anything, and shouting them down if the women try to make a point, and threatening them with legal action if they argue too much by claiming the women (who have been invited onto the show) are "trespassing", complaining that women are less accepting of outright facts than men like the fact "women are inherently less rational than men", complaining that women are whores and use sex as a weapon...
But he had a shocked pikachu face when his 12 year old fan said he hates women.
You're more than welcome citing where I stated the left should never do any soul searching, I specifically said that when it comes to people being so gullible to vote for Trump despite his character is no argument for democrats having to do any soul searching because there is nothing to be reflecting about that.
Yes and im saying if we have people we love in our lives who were gullible to that, should we give up on them or fight harder to love them? I choose the latter and that requires me to do soul searching, of mine and theirs.
If this was true, Trump wouldn’t be president. Either that, or America doesn’t see an issue with immaturity.
This is going to sound partisan, but I genuinely think it’s because Trump connects with people on more levels than the Democrats do.
The name calling is part of his blustery comedic Hollywood side, which people understand is different to his policy making side. Watch the all-in podcast episode with him if you genuinely want to see a different side to him.
In contrast, Democrats often come across as only having a singular serious facet to their personality, and so immaturity undermines their entire character.
I have the same perspective. On top of it, society has gotten use to seeing reality TV shows. DC looks like a reality TV show for ugly people to them. It's not even done well.
Whatever different side you are seeing is the act, the name calling is part of his normal behavior. I don't want to say too much, but I have a family member who had to deal with Trump briefly in the 00s. From the things I heard back then, I know for sure that he tries to bully people to get what he wants and will end up shouting threats if things don't go his way.
Hey look its the goal posts whizzing by...
Right!!
It goes from "its the lefts fault, and maybe you shouldnt call people Nazi."
To "It works for Trump!"
to "trump connects to people. the left doesnt"
Lol. This is like when you are in an abusive relationship, and you are always wrong, and theres no real way to explain why you are always wrong - until you accept that one side is meant to be the loser in an abusive realtion.
What about the right? Trump is a champion name caller and garnered sufficient respect to win his election after he pushed our country to the closest it ever has been to an actual coup.
Continuing the immaturity is also usually seen as immature
Certainly. But the argument that the name calling has to stop to win the respect of voters is fatally flawed based on the last election.
I agree. Both sides need to stop calling names, but more deeply, need to see the goodness in the other side (and in ourselves).
The problem can be, someone can feel attacked even if the other person is treating them in a very kind and loving way, because they think it's fake.
On the contrary, someone could receive verbal and physical abuse and still not feel attacked because they maintain faith in their and the other person's good intentions.
So I think it's more about changing the behaviors of the person on the receiving end than on the giving end.
I agree with you in spirit. Everyone is equally responsible on "how" they communicate. When the giving side is coming from a place of contempt and disgust, the work for improvement shouldn't be trivialized.
But the receiving side can also get better at receiving contempt and disgust and realizing the pain the other person is going through. Honestly, working on how to receive punches has helped me so much in my life. An ex-girlfriend of mine lied to me about being pregnant (I think). And at first, I was furious. Then I realized that if she were to lie about that, she must have been going through so much pain, and I probably did something to contribute to that pain. I apologized to her and felt a lot better and it also allowed me to regain trust in women again, maybe even deepening my trust.
But you didn't marry her.
I agree in principle but how could you work together when republicans they follow the newt gingerich doctrine which to literally demonize the democrats for political brownie points?
Love them so hard and so persistently that they start to trust the love.
Right mr lex, i highly doubt that "loving" someone abusing you is a valid strategy.
So first he did lie about that on record saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025.
Then he certainly didn't say that he was going to dismantle the US government with Elon Musk outside of any legal framework (or I missed that). And even if he did, that wouldn't make it okay either.
I feel like you haven't paid enough attention, this isn't a democracy anymore but a mixed regime, convincing opponents is still necessary but isn't enough to influence power anymore.
Look at Hungary if you want some indication of how it's going.
Call it whatever you want, the fact of the matter is that you have an unelected private person, who happens to be the richest person on earth, taking control of federal agencies. I don't think anyone should consider this silly, as nobody thought it was silly when MAGA tried to actually stage a literal coup by force 4 years ago.
The last years have made it very clear that's exactly how you win. You seem to be under the impression that the democrats, not MAGAs, are unhinged in their rhetoric.
The only elected members of the executive branch are the President and VP. The president is employing Musk. Your claims of him being unelected is irrelevant.
Valerie Jarret was UNELECTED. OMG OMG /s
See how dumb it sounds?
A simple mental exercise using analogies, might help explain why the current branch of the simulation should be backtracked asap...
- Imagine if the president allowed Jeff Bezos to reprogram the Treasury’s payment system as if it were an online shopping cart.
- Picture the president authorizing Sam Altman to treat the federal payment system maybe as a live AI experiment.
- Envision the president allowing Larry Page to run the Treasury system.
- Imagine Mark Zuckerberg not only with the power to update federal payment rules, with access to all U.S. taxpayer data. Incredible coincidence Musk runs, privately, a social networking site...
I dont include an example with Palantir...Because some of the 19 years old bros working with the Musk team, were interns at Palantir. So I am just going to assume Thiel has all the info on all US citizens now...
No concerns with conflicts of interest, no vetting, no official role because...People voted for the current president? When did voting become a blank check?
Exactly. Voting for someone, even if they say they will break the law, doesn't mean they're allowed to break the law. AFAIK, that's not how representative, constitutional democracies work.
The reason people are calling this a coup is not (only) because they disagree with what Trump/Musk are doing, but because their actions are illegal. A president is still expected to follow the rule of law and respect separation of powers. If there are no more checks and balances, then it's a coup. If Congress decided to allocate budget to something, the president should not ignore this. The legislature is losing its power.
Who says they are illegal? Can you cite some sources please? Like actual legal experts, not the guardian.
As far as I know, the chevron deference ruling makes it easily arguable that these agencies don't necessarily have any legal standing anyway.
The 8 month buyout was completely legal, Clinton did the same.
I actually find it highly unlikely any of this is illegal, it's just completely unbearable to anyone who is part of the bureaucracy. But prove me wrong. Show me the legal opinions.
Boy howdy there's a lot to pull apart here but ;et's start with your core statement regarding chevron deference. The recent (and wildly stupid, I think but besides the point) Chevron deference ruling says, in summary, that federal agencies have very little latitude in deciding their internal policies where not explicitly defined by congress.
The current administration replaced the head of an agency and had that agency shut itself down. Shutting yourself down is clearly not a power given to any federal agency, so by the very policy you're citing either the judicial or executive branch must act to allow such a move.
Instead, our cheeto in chief decided that those other branches don't actually need to do any of that pesky work and it's a lot easier if everyone just does what he wants.
There's a word for that style of governance.
I think you meant legislative, not executive?
Yes, thank you. I mistyped. Will fix.
Overturning the 14th amendment of the constitution by executive order is illegal.
Shutting down an agency like USAID require congressional approval, but was done by executive order.
Withholding congressionally approved funding for government agencies is illegal.
Sharing sensitive documents from the fiscal service with (Doge) team members who do not have the appropriate security clearances is illegal.
Giving Elon Musk an unofficial seat and allowing him unfettered access to the entire federal government without any congressional confirmation is illegal and basically amounts to setting up a shadow government.
The list goes on...
Maybe someone could try to prosecute Trump?
I guess this is sarcasm.
Congress mandates that weed is illegal, funds the DEA to go after it, yet no one complains when Obama, Trump, and Biden decided not to enforce that law. Executives clearly have discretion.
Cognitive dissonance is running wild in this place. Even when numbers and evidence are eventually published, they will still say it’s bad.
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-legal-challenges...
Seven restraining orders. Seems like lots is not legal.
The 1995 buyout offer was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.
https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1995/04/1995-04-04-p...
https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/103/226.pdf
Here is a good explainer from a legal expert as to why some of the stuff is flagrantly illegal: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/121-spending-coercion-and-com...
I agree with some of your points but
The guy who won did exactly all that
And what on earth did Trump do to convince the “reasonable middle” that he shares their values?
Who are these reasonable people who decide that Kamala spends too much time insulting people, so they’re better off voting for Donald Trump?
This is flatly false. He is running the Project 2025 playbook which he expressly disavowed. It is also reasonable to assume he meant to propose a smaller budget, not supercede Congress.
He's a conservative, and Project 2025 was from other conservatives.
You would expect there to be some overlap in policy perspectives because of the ideological overlap. It doesn't necessarily mean he's taking orders from the heritage foundation.
Before he got inaugurated the narrative is that the democrats are crazy for thinking that he would enact such unhinged policies, he himself said he knows nothing about it. Now the narrative is "that was expected".
At this point any discussion on HN about Trump delivering his campaign promises (which got him a resounding electoral victory) seems to be filled with elitist rage ("Every single IT board I'm on") and thus is just proving his point.
This is the blowback for the medical overreach of the covid years, for the 1984-esque re-labeling of open gender- and race-based discrimination as DEI, for basically shaming every opposing view as
and many more transgressions.
I'm saying this as a non us citizen working in a sector in Europe that is very likely to get absolutely clobbered by Trump. The blame is simply to put at the losing side.
Them denying the merit of their loss, the lack of any introspection and instead just one-upping their everybody-i-disagree-with-is-hitler mantra is at least comforting in the sense that I know they shouldn't be in charge.
Sources requested for this statement, made unilateral with no evidence.
A single person, who somehow owns multiple major companies with, clear conflict of interest, is not a coup? What? He & his "engineers" reportedly have access to American citizen information. Where's the required oversight by Congress? I get trimming the government, but let's talk about it in the open rather than relying on his word and his word alone.
Would you say that to Tea Party folks who widely protested Obama? What? This makes no sense. Didn't they also insult Obama and his birth? Or anyone who voted for Obama? Whataboutism.
Frankly, I feel you are delusional and have bought into the ruse of the current news cycle.
Trumps share of the vote was <50% via https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...
Funny how democracy works, I recall an election recently not a coup.
Government is not a monolith, this isn’t the action of one single person, but the result of tens of millions people voting for change (that you disagree with).
People voting for an elected official is different than that elected official breaking the law. People can't vote to break the law. They can vote to rewrite the law, sometimes, depending on how the law is written. Often in the US we vote for elected officials who write law and then the elected president who enforces the law.
So whether tens of millions of people voted for Trump doesn't mean Trump can just disregard law because people liked him and maybe even liked that he said he would disregard the law. As far as I know, that's not how the rule of law works in representative democracies.
Not if the elected official pledged to break the law before being elected.
That's exactly what they did.
I fear that's also not what the US has become now.
Nobody voted for Elon.
People don't vote for the millions of public employees. They vote for the president. Everything Trump has said so far indicates Musk is doing all of this at the discretion of Trump.
who voted for Fauci?
List of dictators that achieved power via what were at the time, free and fair elections:
Adolf Hitler - 1933
Ferdinand Marcos - 1965
Alberto Fujimori - 1990
Robert Mugabe - 1980
Alexander Lukashenko - 1994
Hugo Chávez - 1998
Which of these was elected, lost power, and were elected again?
Normally dictators don’t let go of power
I do recall Trump not wanting to let go of that power, in it? It wasn't out of his own magnanimity that he stepped down. Checks and balances still worked, appallingly sure, but they still worked.
Not anymore.
But a dictator in charge of the most powerful government in the world would not let go of the power and would do anything to maintain the power.
But that’s not what happened.
He was unprepared last time, and made the strategic mistake of having a few non-sycophants around in positions of power who could tell him that he had to surrender.
This time looks very different.
Please read the Jack Smith final report. He broke laws to stay in power, he did not give up any power willingly. And if the Supreme Court hadn't delayed things so much, he would have gone to trial and been found guilty before he could be reelected.
Just because he's an absolute dumbass who had no idea how to effectively overturn the election doesn't mean he didn't try and doesn't mean the attempt wasn't violent.
He tried pretty hard to not go, there was a riot if you recall. Also some calls to Georgia governor to find non-existent votes.
And yet he still left peacefully and Biden became the president.
Reality check.
A riot including violence and attempts to murder opposition or perceived opposition officials is hardly "peaceful", so yeah, "rEaLiTy ChEcK"...
A riot where he specifically told them in the speech before "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." ?
People died because he refused to leave peacefully.
You mean he failed to remain in office violently, then left.
Trump tried not to let go of power the first time, but he wasn't able to overturn the election.
I like how your literal argument is that Trump failed at becoming a dictator so he's obviously not one. Despite you know, demanding people find votes and organizing a riot.
A failed dictator is still a dictator. What's next, the events in South Korea weren't the result of a failed attempt at a coup?
This was attempt number one: https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w
All including the ones using violence against policeman were just freed less than a week ago.
"Republican Senator Graham calls Trump's Jan. 6 pardons a 'mistake'" - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-senator-graham-c...
"Mitch McConnell calls Donald Trump pardons a 'mistake,' Jan. 6 'an insurrection'" - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5122585-trump-mcconnell-...
Really, that attempt was several steps down the line. First it was many attempts to overturn the election by convincing states to change their reported votes or just sending different electors. January 6th was the last-ditch attempt after those efforts failed.
That's the really sad part, that Americans saw what he did and decided they actually don't care about the Republic or their democracy.
When an elected official goes far beyond their legal powers to take control of the country, that's called a coup. Yes, even if they were perfectly legally elected.
I had an idea in my head about what the word "coup" means and why it is bad and I'm struggling to figure out how it applies to this situation (possibly because being no-American I don't get their news).
My understanding is the USA executive is an obscenely powerful position by the standard of the rest of the Western world and they can also delegate that power to accomplish specific objectives.
Is this a coup of Musk against Trump or the executive doing things its not allowed to do or a coup of the executive against the legislature?
(Maybe tabooing (in the rationalist sense) the word "coup" might help...)
Aside: the article paints a very concerning picture about the consequences of contemptuous ignorant imposition of abrupt blanket rules on valuable complex systems. I thank the OP for posting it.
It’s not a coup in any literal sense of the word, not even in the autocratic sense.
The reason it’s being used is a combination of the US having never experienced a real coup, and thus it’s citizens not really knowing what the word means, plus one side of politics being sore losers after having lost an election and using whatever insult they can think of in order to deflect rather than self reflect on why they lost.
it's an auto coup where the legally elected leader takes more control than they were given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
We have better words for that than "coup", esp. because is is not clear at all if Trump will uphold the constitution, law and traditions of the USA by just abdicating at the end of his 2nd and final term.
How about "Gleichschaltung", or "synchronization" for the English speaking folks, instead?
Also, "Staatsstreich". It seems we [German speaking countries] have experience with that kind of coup.
Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean?
Trump does exactly how he promised he would do if you elected him, and you guys elected him overwhelmingly to do exactly that.
In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself.
It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore.
I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens."
Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens.
By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated.
The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
From someone who has seen banana republics - you are not speaking up with the self awareness required.
The way things are going, speaking up can EASILY mean going to jail within a few months.
You should STILL speak up. Acknowledge that potetnial risk, respect people, and ask of it all the same.
Probably should tell people to clean their HN accounts if they elect not to risk themselves.
Yep. As stated elsewhere in this thread, I understand that I am taking on risk by speaking up.
It's the right thing to do. Every one of us that does creates opportunities for others to do the same.
We're running towards fascism. We must fight back.
In which case I take back what I said. My bad.
NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
Congress controls the budget.
Budgets are a maximum permitted expenditure, not a minimum.
Trump is free to spend less than budgeted.
Sounds like a legal theory that needs to be tested by the courts. The executive branch is not free to interpret the law in a vacuum.
Agencies spend under budget all the time.
Budgets are an approval to spend up to a certain amount, not a requirement to spend a certain amount.
Exactly how else are you supposed to get this tested by the courts?
Not without approval from Congress:
"The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
The executive cannot refuse to even try to execute duly authorized programs.
Well, it wasn't overwhelming, he got less than 50% of the vote (but still more than Harris).
And the head of the branch should still be subject to checks and balances.
Most certainly not overwhelmingly:
Trump: 49.80% Harris: 48.32%
This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the United States. Not even 1.5% more and the result is "near total evisceration of the federal government" compared to "largely the same".
The result is even worse with the Senate. 55.9m votes for Democratic Senators, 54.4m for Republican Senators, and yet Republicans ended up with 53 seats.
And this doesn't even get into gerrymandering for House seats, which is predominantly Republican-driven.
This is by a good margin not a representative government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...
Don't forget roughly a third didn't vote at all.
Both the President and the Senate are representatives of and voted on by the States, not the people. The only representative of the people in the US Federal government is aptly named House of Representatives.
When people vote for President, it is only to inform the State of how they want the State to vote, and the State has significant freedom to allocate its votes for President how it wishes e.g. some States use a proportional allocation instead of winner-takes-all.
Popular vote for Federal office was largely a 20th century invention.
And? That doesn't change the fact that he was not "overwhelmingly" elected. He won by a slim margin. People acting like he has a massive mandate from the people are at best ignoring the facts, and are mostly trying to delegitimize the opposition.
My point is that the popular vote is misdirection no matter who uses it, people weren't voting to get the most votes nationally and strategy reflects that. It focuses people on a thing that doesn't matter to push a narrative.
The only votes that matter are the votes of the State. It may still not be "overwhelming" at 58% (312 out of 538) but pretending that wasn't the result only serves to muddy the water.
I think you’re making an academic rather than practical point. Sure, he won a much larger share of the electoral college than the popular vote and the existence of the electoral college likely influences some voting patterns. Even then though, in PA he won with barely 1.5% more of the vote yet got all 19 electoral votes. Given the how close the election was forecast and how important PA was, I don’t think the electoral college drove much of the voting patterns. So my point still stands: he barely has a mandate and most certainly did not win an overwhelming victory. And yet, he gets to implement a radically destructive gutting of the federal government.
The framers designed a system of government to be allergic to kings, having just fought off a king a couple years earlier.
The system appears to have developed a tolerance.
Americans' blind faith that their peculiar system of government makes tyranny impossible will only lead them to deny reality even when it hits them in the face with a truncheon.
Even those who crafted the American system knew that it was not perfect. Benjamin Franklin said:
"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government."
Source: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-se...
Uh maybe read the declaration of independence and some of the writings of the founders? They most certainly did NOT want the executive branch to be a king...
ALso a slim majority of the 60% who voted is not an overwhelming majority. Biden's win against Trump was bigger.
Not since the Magna Carta. Issue is that he is bypassing Congress on issues that are explicitly their purview per Article 1 of the Constitution.
This is not a coup, because Trump is still in his lawful 2nd and final term. Until then let's call it Gleichschaltung [1], because that's what it is: bringing all aspects of society under totalitarian control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Him assuming the office of the president is legal. But him trying to replace the law which has gone through due process using executive orders is unlawful.
It is not a coup because he became president by force. It is a coup because he is consolidating power. (The president is not supposed to be all powerful.)
The Wikipedia-article explains why "consolidating power" as part of the government is Gleichschaltung and not a coup. A coup is the sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government [1] which is not the case here.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup
No one is going to start calling this Gleichshaltung, so stop trying to make it happen. Words can be flexible. The current situation approximates a coup, and so people will call it a coup. Honestly, splitting hairs over definitions while our government is being stripped for parts? This is part of the problem!
Relax. To be fair to them, Gleichshaltung has a nice ring to it
I mean, to be fair to them, Gleichshaltung is a good word for what's happening. I'm not opposed to discussing the analogues between current events in the US and Hitler's consolidation of power in Germany. But I find the insistence on "proper" terminology tiresome. I don't think it's the other commenter's fault in this case, so maybe I shouldn't be so snippy, but it's a really common tactic among bad-faith actors to "well, actually..." a discussion into a debate about semantics rather than a debate about the actual matters of real import. It's a learned defensive behavior on my part, but not right in this situation. What matters is that we see what is happening and can describe it in a way that we all understand, not that we use specific technical terminology.
Fair enough, I yield. I'm on your side, it is dire times, and we have more urgent things to do than discussing proper distinctions on an internet forum. Any action now is better than the perfect action later, so let's get out on the streets and protest, instead.
From the link you posted: "a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army"
The violent part and the army part seems to be optional
It’s true, Vladimir Putin never did a coup either. He became a dictator through ostensibly democratic steps (without any actual democracy of course).
I wonder if Trump and Vance in 2029 can somehow pull the Putin/Medvedev switch, where the real leader takes a nominal secondary position until they can fix the constitutional issue.
Butterfly revolution.
It's an administrative coup, and it goes like this:
1) Remove all opposition for DOJ (already done)
2) Pass executive orders that should require congressional approval (doing)
3) Illegally seize control of the treasury (doing)
4) Broadly dismantle key government services (doing)
5) Watch politicians say, "you can't do that!" with no recourse (doing)
Continually take control more and more broadly until you have absolute power.
Also, ignore judges affirming you can't do that due to point 1. No one will enforce their judgements.
Next step is attacking enemies. They will start prosecuting political rivals.
Yeah, and late night TV hosts.
The Wikipedia-article is pretty explicit about Gleichschaltung (what you describe) as is the definition of coup: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup
I'm not going to stop you calling it a coup, but your opponents will just smile and say "not true" and they would be right.
Definition 2: a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, often by the army
Musk is committing illegal acts, over a weekend, in taking government power by, at minimum, not being appointed and confirmed. This is a coup by the definition YOU provided.
This is nowhere close to the first time illegal acts were committed by the executive branch.
whatshisface uses whataboutism! it was not very effective.
Illegal acts TO CONSOLIDATE POWER. You're missing/ignoring a key phrase in your defense of fascist takeovers. This, right now, is still a coup. What about another time? I don't care. This time is happening now. We have a coup now.
I thought we were talking about Trump?
The 6th January capitol attack was an attempted coup, what's happening now is Gleichschaltung. Please read up on "Gleichschaltung" [1] if you think that's in any way or form less of an condemnation as "coup".
[1] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gleichscha...
"Gleichschaltung" is literally just how the administrative coup was implemented in Nazi Germany. Just because you'd rather talk about the logistics of how to coup once you are already in power doesn't make it not a coup.
I disagree, but I promised @brendoelfrendo to cease this line of argument for all our sakes. Get out there and protest instead of arguing against me!
Large organizations suffer from rot.
They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation.
Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.
A “coup” implies an overthrow of the legal structure of power. Who is being overthrown?
the Congress. the president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally shut down entire departments
I thin you want to be a little more precise in your definition. A president doing things they dont have the authority for would probably mean every president conducted a coup.
This is the closest to constitutional crisis we have gotten in decades. There are different degrees of presidential overreach
Then your definition shouldn't be so broad that includes every president.
Precedent holds that Congress has the power to establish executive branch agencies and lay out their jurisdiction and functions. It also holds that, once so established, the president has the power to decide how they’re operated. There’s a constitutional distinction between this power to create/define (legislative) and the power to run (executive).
The article doesn’t seem to be about abolishing the NIH and NSF. Instead it seems to be about NIH and NSF grants to third parties. That seems to fall squarely on the executive side of the line.
USAid has been abolished
So it's not shutting down, it's just telling it to operate by doing nothing?
It would seem to follow that the executive’s power to run has limits itself. If the legislative has the power to create an entity and the executive runs that entity at such minimal function that the entity effectively doesn’t exist, that usurps the legislative of their creation powers. You could tarpit any agency they establish. The power to run still means you must run the agency in good faith.
I don't disagree with that. But what's discussed in the article--exercising control over grants--is squarely within the domain of running, rather than abolishing.
This is the third time I've seen someone pushing this line of thinking on HN in as many days and I'd like to know more about where it's coming from. Can you cite any source that supports it and justifies it?
FWIW, the conventional wisdom is that the independent agencies really are independent, and the president's control over them is exactly what is stipulated in the legislation that created them. If the statute of the Dept of XYZ and says the president can fire its governing board but only on weekends, then he has to wait til Saturday, period end of story. The idea that the president can interfere with the independent agencies because they're part of the executive branch was, AFAICT, invented out of whole cloth in the last couple of years, and has no constitutional support at all. So I'm curious to hear more about what this new theory is and how far it extends. In particular, if the president can decide to cancel NIH grants because the NIH is under the executive branch, what keeps him from raising and lowering interest rates?
edit to add: to be clear, the president does have a great deal of power over most of the independent agencies; in most cases he hires and fires their leaders. But he has that power because Congress specifically granted it, not because the executive branch is his personal fiefdom. If he wants to, say, get a pharmaceutical drug approved, he has to direct HHS to direct the FDA to do that in the usual way, not just decree it. This has little to do with thwarting his power and lots to do with effective and efficient governance.
You're hearing the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that the president is essentially a king. It's based on a purposeful misreading of the Constitution, of course. To arrive at this philosophy, you have to essentially ignore the entire point of the Revolutionary War, the writings of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, Article I, Article III, Article IV, the Bill of Rights, and the president's oath of office.
There really is no limit to the power, but they say the check is impeachment -- if the people don't like it they can elect a congress that will impeach the president. But in reality it doesn't work that way when the president's party controls congress.
It's not a "theory," it's simply reading Section 1 of Articles I, II, and III at a 6th grade reading level.
Article I says: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." May Congressional staff exercise legislative powers independently of the Congressmen? Nobody thinks that.
Article III says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." May judiciary branch staff exercise judicial powers independently of Supreme Court Justices and lower-court judges? Nobody thinks that.
Article I says: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." May executive branch staff exercise executive powers independently of the President? My sixth grader could understand that the answer is "no."
There is nothing in here about the president being a "king." It's simply that the President controls the executive branch, in the same way the Congressmen control the legislative branch and the Supreme Court justices control the judicial branch.
See, that's what I mean about ignoring all of American history to come to your unitary executive theory.
The Constitution establishes control and checks on that control. "checks and balances". Unitary executive theory is all control, no checks. How does Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch in this scenario?
And you're also trying to do the same thing to me right here. To accept that unitary executive theory isn't about being a king, I'd have to ignore everything the advocates of the theory have said and done. He argued in court that he has absolute immunity to commit crimes, including directing the government to kill his political opponents. You can't argue that in court and then tell me it's not about being a king. That's dictator logic.
Look at the executive right now, he's essentially got the power of a king. He can't be arrested, charged, or investigated. Can commit crimes and hide them. Can direct others to commit crimes and pardon them. Can direct his DOJ to investigate and prosecute anyone he wants. Can control and direct his military without review. Congress can't conduct oversight. Can you explain how the president is now functionally different from a king, and square that with the point of the Revolutionary War?
It's Civics 101. You should have learned it in 8th grade. Congress makes the laws. The President executes the laws. It's also right there in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.").
If an independent agency is exercising "The executive Power," then it does so derivatively of the President. Article II doesn't say that "the executive branch" shall execute the law. It says: "he"--the President--"shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Note also the parallel structure with Article I ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States") and Article III ("The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish").
The President is the executive branch, in the same way Congress is the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court and the lower courts are the judicial branch. All of these branches have various offices and subdivisions, but they are within the control of one of those three constitutional actors.
Congress cannot create an entity that exercises executive powers but does not answer to the President any more than the President can create an entity that exercises legislative powers but does not answer to Congress.
That has not been the "conventional wisdom" for anyone who went to law school in several decades. The notion of an "independent agency" exercising executive power independently of the President was an absurd idea cooked up by a racist in the early 20th century who hated democracy and had fantasies of "scientific government" (https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/woodrow-wilson-s-c...). It peaked in the mid 20th century, but the project of whittling it back to constitutionality has been ongoing my entire lifetime.
The Supreme Court held in 1926 that the President's removal power over executive-branch officials is essentially unconstrained (Myers v. United States). The Court then reversed itself in 1935 (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) but that case has since been limited pretty much to its facts (Seila Law LLC v. CFPB).
Thanks for responding at length, though your derisive tone isn't winning you any converts. Is it your position then that the president can legally wield any power described in any legislation? If not, what can't he do? Can he, for example, raise and lower interest rates over the objection of the Fed? Approve an IPO that the SEC rejected? Lend money to his supporters through the SBA and deny loan applications from his adversaries? Refuse to deliver Hunter Biden's mail? If not, why not? I'm not trying to play gotcha here, but it seems like your position is that he can do these things.
I think Myers v. United States was correctly decided: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opin...
"The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters 498, 38 U. S. 513; United States v. Eliason, 16 Peters 291, 302; Williams v. United States, 1 How. 290, 42 U. S. 297; Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 135 U. S. 63; Russell Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 514, 261 U. S. 523. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."
The Constitution, of course, imposes limits on executive power, and statutes create private rights and obligations and provide procedures and substantive standards. But if the executive power otherwise may be exercised, Congress cannot constitutionally insulate the exercise of that power from the President's influence. Put differently, the procedural framework of a law can't merely be there to insulate the exercise of executive power from the President's influence.
To address your examples:
Probably.
It depends. The securities laws regulate private conduct--that's important--and impose various standards and procedures. So the president can't alter private rights without following those procedures and standards. But can the president supervise and direct how the SEC does it's job? Yes. The Arthrex case is relevant here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf.
No to both, because nobody at SBA or USPS could permissibly do those things.
Musk's operations likely are using illegal means and are an overextension of power, while legislative and judicial branches, as well as internal executive branch watchdogs, have abdicated their roles in oversight and control. This is effectively an overthrow.
When I read your comment I am sympathetic to your characterization that its illegal. I expect it will be litigated.
But then you conflate illegal with "an overthrow" (of what?) to show its a "coup". This is incredibly hand-wavy and makes the "coup" language look like hyperbole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
Trump is essentially ruling by decree and taking actions far outside his authority. If successful, this will de facto strip Congress of much of its power and transfer it to the President. If you want to see what the outcome of that looks like, read about events in Germany in January-March 1933.
No, we the people voted for this. This is what democracy looks like.
Democracy is a broken, hackable system and it shows why. Theoretically in democracy you're supposed to be elected by the majority and then ensure the rights of the minority. When you're elected by the majority and then make the life of minorities as hard as possible, that's fascism- which is what real world practice of democracy has become.
Also he got less than 50% of the vote.
JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” - no courageous people are around.
The “coup” happened a long time ago. The US has demonstrated that there’s no rule of law at the federal level for some time now. Once the Chief Justice leaned back and tolerated the open sale of the court, that was basically it.
We don’t have the same system of governance anymore… we’re like Italy 1936 or Argentina in 1948 now. We’ll invade Greenland instead of Ethiopia, and skip the funny hats.
The question is do we continue on this trajectory or is there a real coup with tanks on DC streets at some point.
I don't know about that part... those red ball caps are pretty goofy looking.
The mark of the beast
This piece sums it up pretty well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federa...
The world as we knew it is gone and we're not going back.
I’m pretty sure the coup happened in the 1930s when the government created the modern system of unaccountable executive agencies and a Supreme Court, under duress, approved it.
Yeah it’s hard to reconcile a permanent layer of unelected officials, that can’t be sacked by either the President or Congress, with many parts of the constitution.
And I’ve never seen a clear explanation of how that change was constitutionally justifiable.
Congress has the power to impeach any federal official.
Via what means…?
Most don’t even have sufficient clearances to know the names of random middle managers in many many offices in the CIA/NSA, let alone do anything to them.
They can be fired, there’s a variety of processes to do so.
The obsession with firing people is this weird narrative the right wingers are always obsessed with. The cognitive dissonance between these high and mighty principles and what our principled republican colleagues have and will do is beyond ridiculous.
Functional government is the goal of any mature stakeholder. We have 100+ years of spoils system that aptly demonstrates why that methodology doesn’t make sense in a modern society.
Viable processes don’t suddenly pop into existence just because someone says so…?
Most of Congress can’t acquire sufficient clearances to even learn the names of random middle managers in many offices in the IC, let alone to do anything about them.
They can defund the whole office, subdivision, or function.
Life isn’t an episode of the apprentice… nobody in congress sees their oversight role as firing random post office clerks. That’s idiocy. Congress controls the law and the purse. Conservatives have been wielding this power for years - that’s why single moms are routinely nabbed in audits for earned income fraud, while rich people get away with donating millions to phoney foundations that they control for years. (Congress limits funding for enforcement)
The executive has broad authority to take personnel actions while adhering to the law.
This doesn’t make sense, to suggest they have the opportunity to defund something that they don’t even know exists or what it includes is just not credible.
How could if possibly come to their attention in the first place?
Why this amorphous "the government" wording? The people elected Congress and Presidents, who did this over decades with popular support. Executive agencies are not unaccountable. They have specific charters and there is a huge volume of rules they have to follow. eg:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). Congress writes their budgets every year and the heads of those agencies are reviewed at congressional and presidential levels.
Accountability means democratic accountability. The APA is not meaningful democratic accountability--it just means that lawyers like me end up running the country.
For nearly a hundred years, the people have voted for those reforms. That’s called governance and democracy. Reactionary people have always been upset about any change.
This using an unaccountable fall guy to break the law at will, so that congress can avoid accountability is gross. Folks with your opinion like to wax on about constitutional principles, blah blah blah, as we stand by and watch the shitshow that is happening right now.
Ignoring the constitution isn't a "reform" it's lawlessness. There's no other developed country in the world where the government's actual structure is so divorced from its written constitution.
People voted for the administrative state in the 1930s, and they've been voting to cut back on it since 1980. Since then, the only President who won elections without promising to shrink government were Obama (in response to the disaster of Iraq and the Great Recession) and Biden (in response to COVID).
The constitution doesn’t say there cannot be a civil service or whatever you are mad about. Congress is empowered to enact laws.
I don’t remember an article in the constitution that allows a rich crony to act in contempt of the laws established by congress as an officer of the government without appointment. But I guess our dedication to solemn constitutional principles varies.
The Constitution makes clear that all executive power is invested in the president. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art.... It’s literally the first sentence of Article II.
So you can have a civil service (and the framers assumed there would be one) but Congress can’t insulate the civil service from the president’s direct supervision. That’s obviously true—because the presidential election is the only way people have to politically influence the internal operation of the executive branch itself.
I'm waiting for the unitary-executive crowd to admit that they're monarchists at heart — and not constitutional monarchists.
The other big elephant in the room is that the self-appointed wanna-be ruler, Musk, owns companies which have received very large amounts of both government (taxpayer) grants and contracts.
Back in 2015, the LA Times reported Musk's companies had received nearly $5 billion in grants. That's taxpayer money. Plus there's the SpaceX contracts--not saying those are unwarranted, certainly SpaceX deserves the contracts more than Boeing--but my point is that it's a huge conflict of interest.
A person receiving very large amounts of money from the government is now deciding which parts of the government should be cut in order to "save taxpayers money".
If this sounds like something that would only happen in a place like Russia, or the DRC, it's because it's something that would only happen in those places.
In other democratic countries you go to jail for this sort of thing (i.e., Nicholas Sarkozy in France--not saying the situation is exactly the same, but there's an actual judicial system in place that doesn't exonerate someone just because they're president, like our SCOTUS did).
He also has massive business operations in China, a country which clearly wants a weakened US.
WSJ also reported in October about how Musk has been in regular contact with Putin.
At this point, it looks like Elon went fully rogue.
Luckily, that is unlikely to happen again. Now, the broligarchs are in power and the LA times has been captured and turned into a propaganda tool.
damn those pesky investigative reporters!
Most of that $5 billion in the LA times article was not received by Musk's companies at the time, and I'm not sure if they ever received the full amount as it was contingent on reaching several milestones in the span of 20 years.
A big part of those $5 billion was not having to pay sales taxes on possible future Gigafactory production, for example, but that gigafactory never reached the initally planned size AFAIK.
The big question then is did the incentives then get clawed back. The pattern I'm familiar with says probably not; usually the company building the factory doesn't lose much of anything they were given when they fail to meet the milestones.
First, it's usually structured that you meet X target, you get Y incentive. Second, what doesn't get clawed back is true of all companies though. So it's not unique to Tesla in any way.
Some of it is a loan, I know Tesla had a loan from the govt, they paid it back early if I remember correctly.
Plus all of that is in the past. What would be a huge problem is if the federal govt started throwing grant money at Tesla now, while Musk is running around playing in the govt.
All that said, I think it's a terrible state of affairs we find ourselves in, but I mean we voted Trump into power, what did we expect would happen? Rainbows and kittens?
The big elephant is called conflict of interest.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-its-a-coup-and-yes-its-tar... (https://archive.is/jSt78)
A coup? This was a general election and the person who won the election is allowed to choose his staff to run the executive branch. Pretty much everyone in the executive branch except the president and maybe the vice president is unelected. Was it a coup when the current people at the NSF got their jobs?
Well, here you are, dear Americans, you all have got a chance now to show the rest of the world that you, of all nations, know how to deal right with the chutzpah in your government that has just dropped the mask of democracy, by leveraging the constitution, the law, the right for protest, peaceful or not, and whatever else that is available to a citizen in such cases.
Because you're not akin to those apathetic passive supporters of their criminals-in-power like Russians and Israelis, are you?
Vengeance is in order.
I believe that is what we are witnessing, yes.
This hurts, but it also presents an opportunity for rebuilding.
An outcome could be a greater diversity of voices influencing research, rather than the NSF and NIH continuing to serve as monoliths.
The NIH is the dominant force in medical research. Remember how theories for Alzheimer’s having an infectious etiology were sidelined for decades? And, to this day, for autoimmune conditions?
Do people recognize what rebuilding entails?
I think it means the next administration would have to hire new people to offer grants to researchers. This would bring new perspectives into the process. There is never any shortage of researchers to fund.
And that the ranks of researchers, which are often stagnant due to a shortage of jobs for PhD holders, would experience turnover in the interim, creating openings for fresh voices when the funding resumes.
Ideally, imo, the grant process could be distributed across more organizations rather than being as centralized as it has been. The next administration might be free to do so if the existing orgs are no longer thriving at that time.
why.. where will the money come from? And next administration?
This is 14 DAYS since election. March isnt even here yet. There are 4 tax filings before the next election.
Please take a look at things like demonitization, or many "harsh" medicine programs in other countries.
The fallout is going to be decades. The government is going to pivot to bread and circuses. The sides are going to get more entrenched, and then theres going to be riots and violence.
This will pass, and new crap will come in. This is banana republic territory, not America territory.
The Alzheimer’s debacle was already a generation. Perhaps a timely retirement or two would have cut that short.
When I have the privilege of working with new college graduates, they get me out of my old modes of thinking. And they are quite talented. We will still have college graduates in four years.
Granted, if you believe there is a significant risk that the United States falls into irreversible autocracy within the next four years, the analysis does change. However, I just don’t buy it. There are two branches of government that check the executive branch. Trump has been elected as a lame duck with no possibility for a second term.
I’ve lived in developing nations.
People who have lived in first world countries are prone to miss many crucial signs of banana republics.
And why not - it looks hysterical from the surface.
The crux of the matter is institutions. And your institutions have been under attack since watergate.
In addition, our society is unprepared for a media industry that must be profitable and fast paced.
I would think about what red lines y9u would have had in the 90s. And where your red lines are. Call it being the 90s back again.
Then decide what you think the outcomes are likely to be.
While I still don’t think it’s likely, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. The conversation is shifted to a slightly different topic at this point, but going back to the NIH and the NSF, they aren’t exactly democracy’s bulwarks.
Considering 90s norms for the present is interesting. I see social taboos that I’m grateful we’ve revised, though that social progress is not what you’re talking about, I understand. But I would still say that you can’t step in the same river twice, and that the red lines of yesterday might or might not be important today.
Right! but its a point that we can acknowledge. We've made progress on overcoming some taboos. Hmm, in a way, we've overcome taboos here as well, its ok to be an asshole politically.
So the question becomes one of utility and morals - some taboos were ok to remove, others were not.
You can use that to compare how certain red lines have moved more in accord with your values, and others are being breached.
Either way, this is a tool for you, and others who read this, to look to their own values and judgement, and decide objectively if they should reasses and start responding.
From my experience, the answer is heck yes. For people who are in a constant state of gradual escalation, their red lines get massaged fully out of shape, and you look to your peers to see if you are nuts.
Which is why the idea is for you to judge the red lines for yourself, against your own ideals.
At least thats what I am thinking by brining that comparison up. The 90s werent so far away that they couldnt be used to compare agains today.
Some people here seem to be upset. I don't get it.
More than 40% of US adults are obese. The rates of chronic diseases are through the roof. There's obviously a systemic problem in these institutions who are tasked with the well-being of the country. We know of many fraud in social sciences (ever heard of priming research?), medical science (eg. alzheimer researchs) and nutritional science (eg. saturated fats). In fact I'd argue it has become systemically untrustworthy. Robert Kennedy Jr vowed for: (a) dedicating 20% of science funding to replication studies, (b) systemic publication of peer reviews alongside papers, (c) publication of null results. Which seems like a very good improvement over what we have now. The field is in dire need of a reform.
Am I missing something?
PS: I am not from the USA.
Do you believe that it is the responsibility of the NIH to decide what Americans eat?
Some governments are definitely in the business of advising people what they should eat and shielding them from harmful ads (cf. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10453145/ and https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...).
Yes but do you believe that that is what the NIH specifically does? Because that's what the FDA and USDA are supposed to do
Yes, let's blame scientists for obesity. Not the fact that most of our society has been built around fatty foods and cars to get everywhere.
Where are these scientists arguing for that?!
Hell, science has been wrong on a number of health issues. But diet and exercise has been a staple of good health science for as long as I can remember.
Your blaming the wrong institutions.
RFK believes in things that are provably false and you seemingly believe things without evidence either. Our institutions cause obesity? Who keeps refusing protect the environment? Who refused to directly address the COVID crisis when it was starting and pedalled fake cures. Effective policy is hard to get right but the Trump admin are immeasurably worse than the alternatives.
Assuming all these things are true, RFKjr is not qualified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vac...
Catch your breath before you start writing. There is no reason to read past "although I keep removing curse words", it totally undermines the credibility of the piece.
Side note: the article's author is Derek Lowe, who also wrote this memetic piece on Chlorine Trifluoride: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-yo...
As an european I envy so much this great purge - here entire castes build on feeding from grant money, perpetuating DEI, green transition, gender studies etc. Overnight nothing-scientist/ NGO profesionals carreers are over, like in those "AI stole my job" videos. Sadly EU still holds strong perpetuating this grant bottom feeding, poisoning academia and discrediting NGOs.
I'd like to offer: both can be bad. Any large system is going to have a lot of inefficiencies, and something to dislike for everyone. But its overall function can still be important enough that taking a sledge hammer to the whole thing is still much more harmful than whatever motivated picking up the hammer.
Hence one needs the free market. The govt. typically lack the checks and balance that the free market automatically provides hence it _always_ results in bloat.
Right, understanding that the government itself creates the space for the free market to operate, so any tinkering with it ought to be done carefully. New companies will replace old ones that die- and this is good. Failed states can and do happen, and it would be hubris to think it couldn't happen here.
In the US the gov has become too big so that it cannot support a free market. ( there are some estimates that say 60% of our income goes into taxes of various forms). More over govt are the reason for a no freemarket. For me Govt is synonymous with the mafia, a more polished, legalized version ( yes, we differ here, so we can leave it at that)
Most of the govt can be removed and no one will notice except govt employees.
I suspect you greatly underestimate how much your life has been protected by the government you wish to eviscerate, but I suppose we shall see
No I do not think so- America owes its success to the common Americans, not to the govt. Personal question: Have you lived/worked at length in any third world country?
In fact I have! And that has greatly informed my opinion: the people I encountered in those countries were every bit as capable as common Americans, but they lacked the institutional support which Americans so easily take for granted.
Timothy Snyder's book "On Freedom" might be a good read for you. It's about this common (but quite recent) fallacy that freedom means only freedom of government interference or oppression, rather than true personal freedom being something that needs to be built and maintained by society at large -- which would be the core role of government.
In simple terms: how free do you think you would truly be to lead life the way you want if there were no institutions that produce and distribute electricity, manage communications networks, research and produce medicine, provide emergency services, build transportation infrastructure... something to think about. Few modern westerners would equate the idea of "freedom" with that of fully self-sufficient, isolated hermit life with everything that entails.
A lot of people today probably simply forgot how much of their cushy lifestyle was made possible by government, because they never had to work or fight to build it.
anything that gives pharma shill derek lowe a bad day is a good thing
"There has been a government-wide purge going on of references to any sorts of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) criteria, and indeed, various elected and unelected officials have for some time now been using "DEI" as a scapegoat term and apparently a shorter way of casting suspicion on anything that is not being run by some white guy. As a white guy myself, I find this phenomenally offensive, and I can't even imagine how I'd be feeling about it as a direct target of this garbage"
This is the kind of comment that caused all the public backlash against DEI. Completely out of touch. If you talk this way, don't expect the public to believe your claims about defunding.
This is such a politically charged article and full of political hate. Is this really worthy of HN. Are political editorials now ok for HN? In addition to his obvious political hatred of the current president, the author goes out of his purview to repeat third hand rumors and allegations of illegality at other agencies he has no experience with.
Just a few quotes from the article:
"...This is amply laid out in the Project 2025 documents, and let me say right here that I was volcanically pissed off at the way that topic was handled during ..the campaign.", and
.. That’s a gigantic can of worms that I don’t have the energy to open at the moment, but past that, there is a broader hatred of education and expertise of all kinds. I hate to bring that one up, because it makes me sound like a crank, but there really is a strain of Trumpism that is nothing more than a desire for revenge against snooty over-educated elites who try to tell people what they should do based on their so-called "research." So if by pummelling the NIH and NSF you can simultaneously punch some huge bureaucracies in the face, revenge yourself against your imagined pandemic enemies, and cause distress at a bunch of big universities where they mostly hate you anyway, well. . .what's not to like? ... I strongly urge everyone to make their voices heard with their Senators and Representatives about these issues: the Republican ones need to hear that not everyone agrees with this stuff, and the Democratic ones need to hear that their constituents are not in a handshaking bipartisan mood."
We wouldn't be here if government funding was not overrun by leftist politics. How many grants have been rewritten the past few years to put a facade of DEI or to grab funding from funds specifically targeted for DEI or other leftist goals?
A warning about the "starve the beast" philosophy: the beast will be very hungry when it breaks free.
Not if it's dead.
Another win for China. While the US guts its research capacity, China already dominates scientific research (according to Perplexity, 29% of the most highly cited peer reviewed articles are authored by Chinese scientists). Of course all those people who voted for this regime don't believe that there is any benefit to funding science. After all, what did science ever do for them? (OK, except for the science of pick-up trucks - I'll give you that. Oh yes, and the transistor: I think I may have one in my phone. But otherwise: name one thing, bro). Maybe those hats should replace the "A" with a "C".
The slump began from first DJT presidency. US lost the 5G race to China. If deepseek etc. are any indication, they are losing the AI race too. Looking and the prevalence of cheap Chinese EVs all over the world, US is losing on that front too.
Meanwhile MAGA are patting themselves in the back because they are "tired of winning".
Do you not think DEI is harming US research capacity?
What do you honestly think China thinks of our DEI initiatives?
They're laughing at us in Chinese.
Is there a source for this? I ask because this concern me.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-eliminate-regulation...
It's not a fair paraphrase of what he said.
It's to some extent advocating for the "first, do no harm" default of not treating doctors are supposed to have.
Musk's definition of "missed the mark" likely varies wildly from mine, though.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-regulations-default...
It was on a Twitter space, it seems - picked up by a few outlets at the time but, I think, lost in the general insanity of the last 2 weeks
One source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-eliminate-regulation...
It's past time these institutions were audited. I had an NSF fellowship and was on numerous NIH grants during my PhD work (Chemist). All of them, even in 2013, had DEI language that made it clear if you were a white/chinese/indian male you were not going to be funded. The institutions, already, were self sabotaging, doling out tons of taxpayer money, not to the best ideas, but to labs that had a few women of various colors other than white working in them. It pushed me and almost all of the other chemists (who were generally white/chinese/indian males) in my class to leave the field either after our PhD or post-doc.
Wow so not a single white/chinese/indian male has been funded since 2013? For over a decade? That's an incredible claim. Literally.
you know what they're talking about, don't play dumb
I don't know. Can you elaborate?
I will elaborate, for the intentionally obtuse and for people who have not lived in the world of academia. When writing NIH grants you typically have a section describing prior foundational work in the field or in the lab itself that the grant proposes to fund.
In our lab, at the time I was there, the majority of our publications were from 2 white and a chinese male. When writing grant proposals to continue this work (to be continued by the same 3 chemists) the gender/racial characteristics of other members of the lab who were female and of other racial backgrounds were described in great detail, even though they had not contributed to the prior work and were not going to continue the project in the future. Our backgrounds were left unmentioned. This was the way to secure funding was what the PI in our lab told me when I inquired about the glaring discrepancy.
It is my opinion that backgrounds should be irrelevant and funding should be granted on the strength of the proposal. That's not the case today.
EDIT: I left academia in 2013, maybe things have changed.
I'm not saying that what your PI told you was wrong, but I will say that it would've been useful to get some additional information about why your PI decided that was the right thing to do. It might have been useful at some particular time or in some particular situation.
That's an important piece of information, as when I read your original post, "even in 2013" made me think that you were still in academia.
Might have been how your PI operated, but that's _not_ been my experience in writing grants.
So sex and racial prejudice has to be 100% efficient to be wrong?
I'm not disputing your personal experience, but I've worked on numerous science-related NIH grants over the past decade and the vast majority of performers were white (sometimes asian) males (myself included).
I'm calling this complete BS.
This isn't an auditing. This is a gutting based on senseless and illegal procedures. You want to get rid of DEI, fine. That doesn't mean get rid of the whole agency. This is incredibly alarming.
Here is another perspective, there are many more deserving research proposals than there are grants. Even if they banned all minorities from grant funding there would still be many disgruntled and unfunded scientists languishing without grants.
I think the "many more deserving research proposals" more funding as well. So we should judge the proposals by merit, and not the immutable characteristic of the researcher. By the way, why should tax payers fund grants for foreign countries research and education?
I can only speak for my own experience, but this is 100% not what I have seen (as an NIH-funded white male PI, and one of many at my institution and in my field). I just submitted an R01 last week, and can firmly say that there is no "DEI" language in the grant application forms or in the program announcement; anybody who is interested can easily see the kinds of documents that are required in NIH grants: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/samp...
No "DEI" boogeymen in there.
I am a male of Indian descent, my PI was white male and we collaborated with a number of Asian male PIs and postdocs. I was in PhD research starting in 2015. All of us were funded.
Quit the BS.
This isn't an "audit." It's an extralegal raid.
This is an absolute trash take. I've been through the NIH grant process as a white male and there was absolutely 0 mention of diversity, DEI, or whatever other qualifying characteristic of my grant. It came totally down to the content of my proposal. You don't know what you're talking about
Research labs wholly owned and operated by large corporations were prevalent sources of innovation throughout the 20th century in the United States.
Obvious, probably for Hacker News crowd:
• Bell Labs • Xerox PARC • IBM Watson, Almaden Research • Dow Chemical
I'm missing the big ones from petroleum and agricultural businesses. Aerospace.
I'm willing to believe that a political retreat from 21st century choices looks towards legendary captains of industry, rather than sprawling government bureaucracy, as a source of American greatness.
My attempt to frame this week's gleeful destruction of government institutions as a revitalization of the fountainhead.
But I don't know. It's easier to just call it the same old spiteful hatred of science that is as American as apple pie.
From my basic understanding of Bell labs, the government granted AT&T a monopoly in communications with the condition that they spend a portion of their revenue on public research. The other labs I don’t know much about, but my guess is it was either similar situations or high corporate tax rates incentivizing spending profits on research to decrease their tax burden.