And that's our signal!

by liberal japonicus
When you have Charles making a privatization argument based on some tragedy that, if not caused, certainly exacerbated by the Orange Cretin, it's time for an open thread!

Comments

[bobbyp]

Air traffic control should be privatized. One advantage is that it would cease to be a political football. Or difficult to make it one.

LOL...Mark Zuckerberg on line 2, Charles.

[liberal japonicus]

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/01/page-removed

Whoops! Guess they didn't delete it quickly enough!

[JanieM]

CharlesWT: Air traffic control should be privatized. One advantage is that it would cease to be a political football. Or difficult to make it one.

Unpoliticized private enterprise for the win!"

[GftNC]

FAA hiring program Trump criticised started in his
first presidency. Gift link:

https://wapo.st/3Cy3Pc6

[CharlesWT]

"Trump, a populist president, is flanked by tech billionaires at his inauguration"

Any port in a storm. After repeatedly being dragged before Congress, threatened with regulations, and having their companies broken up, they may have decided they needed to pick a side or change sides.

[JanieM]

Because heaven forbid they shouldn't find a way to continue on their merry sociopathic way.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[wj]

Elsewhere in the world, unnoticed by us (except maybe Donald)....
Rwanda has become a significant exporter of gold. In spite of having no noticable deposits. The way that works:

Rwanda, taking a page from Putin's playbook, has non-uniformed military units in eastern Congo. (Ostensibly for reasons related to the Rwandan genocide a couple of decades ago. Even though anyone involved then, the few that are left, are too old to constitute a real threat.) And there are all those mineral deposits (not just gold) just sitting there begging to be extracted.

The obvious question: Why now? The answer, from the Economist: The new administration. Under Biden, the State Department would call up the Rwandans and say "Knock it off!" when they got too obstreperous. The new administration doesn't care.

[russell]

After repeatedly being dragged before Congress, threatened with regulations, and having their companies broken up, they may have decided they needed to pick a side or change sides.

Really, just fuck this bullshit.

If "free market" means monopolies, anti-competitive business practices, abuse of people's private information, and other forms of tech-bro wonderfulness not to exclude a single private individual spending a quarter of a billion dollars on a presidential campaign, then sign me up for socialism.

I'm not trying to hate on Charles, but this kind of libertarian claptrap is a freaking cult.

I hope I've made my point of view here clear.

Seriously, you want us all to cry a tear for Musk, Zuckerman, and Bezos? Fuck that noise.

Pardon my language.

[liberal japonicus]

On a similar tangent to Russell's, this

https://futurism.com/openai-deepseek-permission-ai-stealing

ha ha, ha ha ha...

[Cheez Whiz]

Dumping on libertarian "arguments" is the lowest of hanging fruit. But those arguments are the ur-text of the world we live in today. Simplistic assertions of human nature contradicted by millenia of lived experience were the signpost pointing to flooding the zone with shit. If you say something, it becomes a valid point of view we must engage with. If you say it loud enough it becomes a fact in the public conciousness. Once it is a fact it is a justification for cruelty and revenge.

[CharlesWT]

Really, just fuck this bullshit.

I wasn't making an argument or judgment. Just suggesting that that might be their rationale for their current allegiances. Several tech bros spent some time testifying to and being grilled by Congress. There were calls for increased regulation. There were calls to repeal Section 230. That would have broken social media websites. There were calls to break up some of the tech companies. It was coming from both the left and the right. They may have thought cozying up to Trump was their best bet.

About 60% of the country's billionaires donated to the Democratic Party.

[wj]

About 60% of the country's billionaires donated to the Democratic Party.

It might be more enlightening to give 3 numbers:

• What fraction donated only to the Democratic Party.
• What fraction donated only to the Republican Party.
• What fraction donated to both parties.

Because donating to both basically constitutes hedging their bets. Not embrace of one party. In this case, you might find that, for example, 40% donated to only one party, while 60% donated to both - although not necessarily in equal amounts. Still, getting all 3 numbers would give a far better view of the views of the we wealthy.

[CharlesWT]

I saw the 60% claim several times but haven't found a reference yet.

Here's a list of the biggest donors and who they donated to.

"Here are the individuals who have dipped deepest into their own pockets for campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees. Only contributions to Democrats and Republicans or liberal and conservative outside groups are included in calculating the percentages the donor has given to either party."
Who are the Biggest Donors?: Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions, 2023-2024

[liberal japonicus]

"I wasn't making an argument or judgment." The whole 'just asking questions' thing, right? Are libertarian genetically pre-disposed to that?

[CharlesWT]

"Interrogating current events, challenging assumptions, uncovering facts, and exposing realities that the government and the media would rather not talk about. Reason’s "Just Asking Questions" is a weekly show for honesty and open inquiry. We're skeptics of unexamined power. We don't want to be told what to think. But we do want to know which questions to start asking. Hosted by Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller. Produced by John Osterhoudt."
Just Asking Questions

:)

[wj]

Nothing like a judicious choice of questions, and especially their wording, to assure the desired result.

[Hartmut]

Something slightly less disgusting:

Fossilized Fish Vomit Declared National Treasure In Denmark
https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandakooser/2025/01/29/fossilized-fish-vomit-declared-national-treasure-in-denmark/

[russell]

Here's a list of the biggest donors and who they donated to.

Mellon and Stephens donated *minus* $2900 to the (D)s?

How does that work? A stick-up at the DNC?

[Mike S]

Is the argument that Democrats asking Zuckerberg tough questions forced him to support the racist orange buffoon who threatened him with life in prison and just successfully shook him down for $25M in protection money?

[hairshirthedonist]

I, for one, welcome the day when the unwashed masses all over the world can shop at the company store after toiling for just enough pay to afford the bare necessities. ElMu and Friends will pay everyone and everyone will pay it all back to ElMu and Friends. Only then can we all revel in the purity of our free-market principles.

[russell]

This is a genuine question, not a further attempt to pile on Charles.

Are libertarians generally supportive of monopolies and near-monopolies and oligopolies? Those seem (pretty consistently) to work against free markets by creating barriers to entry for competitors - how else do you get to be a monopoly? - and I've always understood libertarians to be in favor of free markets.

To me the phenomenon of companies like Google / Facebook / maybe Apple / Microsoft in its heyday are textbook examples of the tension between free markets and capitalism. Which I do not see as synonymous.

And it seems, again to me, like the libertarian position would be more favorable toward free markets.

And it seems, again to me, that there is no actor capable of protecting free and open markets in the face of dominant players like the above other than government.

So I'm curious to know how libertarians square that circle.

A guy like, for example, Bork would say monopolies are fine if they create advantages for consumers, e.g. lower prices via economies of scale. But I'm not sure it works that way in real life. I'd say mostly it doesn't.

But I'm not an economist.

[russell]

Just asking questions, as they say...

[Michael Cain]

A guy like, for example, Bork would say monopolies are fine if they create advantages for consumers, e.g. lower prices via economies of scale. But I'm not sure it works that way in real life. I'd say mostly it doesn't.

As I recall from long ago, among the many assumptions that have to be satisfied to realize the benefit of competitive markets is that both producers and consumers of a good be "price takers". Unregulated monopolists are not price takers -- they can set the price to maximize profits.

I also recall reading a long tedious paper that showed that owners of MLB teams whose stadiums were full were setting prices too low. At the prices that generated the maximum profit for the owner, about one third of the seats should be empty.

[wj]

To me the phenomenon of companies like Google / Facebook / maybe Apple / Microsoft in its heyday are textbook examples of the tension between free markets and capitalism.

A monopoly can be subject to market forces to set prices IF the product is nothing like a necessity. Tickets to sporting events, for example.** In the 1980s, perhaps even the early 1990s, home computer products were a luxury. Today? Pretty much a necessity in an advanced economy. So monopoly rents come into play.

** owners of MLB teams whose stadiums were full were setting prices too low. At the prices that generated the maximum profit for the owner, about one third of the seats should be empty.

That's only true on the assumption that the only relevant income is from ticket sales. But suppose you factor in advertising revenue from broadcast? Advertising being a bigger revenue source that tickets. Advertisers seeing a full stadium figure the broadcast audience is bigger than if they see half the seats sitting empty. And so are willing to pay more.

[CharlesWT]

This is a genuine question, not a further attempt to pile on Charles.

To provide a good and timely answer to your question, I'm relying on an LLM to give an articulate and thorough response.

Libertarians and Monopolies

[wj]

I'm relying on an LLM to give an articulate and thorough response.

Maybe it's just me. But I'd be far more interested in what you, personally, believe. Because I somehow doubt that you adjust your beliefs any time libertarian orthodoxy shifts. Doesn't require recourse to the vagaries of a, less than reliable (and they all are at this point), LLM either.

[nous]

It was inevitable that once the tech bros fed Reason to their LLMs, Charles' output could entirely be outsourced.

[russell]

Charles, thank you for the reply, I do appreciate it.

What I take away from it, more or less, is that:

1. When monopolies or similar exist, it's often (usually?) because of government interference in the market
2. If a monopoly comes into existence absent government interference, it's most likely because that actor is just much better at what it does than any other competitor

What this doesn't seem to account for is the phenomenon of companies achieving monopoly status through means other than government interference and/or simple excellence.

Like, for instance, being first to market, and achieving sufficient dominance thereby to crush competitors, often by simply buying them.

I appreciate the reply, but I'm not sure it really accounts for the real world.

[russell]

To put it another way - the libertarian position doesn't seem to recognize or account for the possibility that an unregulated market can create an undesirable outcome. And therefore has no remedy for that situation, should it arise.

All of which seems, to me, naive, and through it's naivete, harmful. It seems like wishful thinking.

[CharlesWT]

Charles, thank you for the reply, I do appreciate it.

You're welcome.

All of which seems, to me, naive, and through it's naivete, harmful. It seems like wishful thinking.

It will be interesting to see how well Mileia and Argentina work out.

[Priest]

wj, regarding baseball revenue, the other factor you don’t mention is that empty seats spend $0 on parking and concessions.

[Priest]

On the flip side, there has been a trend with recently constructed ballparks to limit the seating capacity to create scarcity which supports higher ticket prices. So working to maximize revenue along multiple axes.

[hairshirthedonist]

Standard Oil. Even if a corporation or whatever entity monopolizes a market sector through excellence, that doesn't mean it will remain a good thing once that monopoly is in place. It's also possible that the "excellence" is in shrewdness and ruthlessness, neither of which are necessarily good for the consumer.

[Donald]

Summary of US policy in Gaza, both Biden and Trump

https://jacobin.com/2025/01/israel-obstacle-gaza-cease-fire

The second one is about all the lying that went on under Biden.

https://jacobin.com/2025/01/genocide-denial-israel-us-gaza

Trump’s record after a couple weeks is mixed in this but very likely to turn awful. His envoy apparently did pressure Netanyahu for a ceasefire,something Biden never really did, but the long term goal seems likely to be ethnic cleansing and beachfront property for Kushner.

The obstacles to this glorious plan would be the Palestinians themselves and the reluctance of various Arab monarchies and autocrats to be seen as a party to this. Also, Trump seems more focused on stealing Greenland at the moment.

[CharlesWT]

The complaints against Standard Oil were from its competitors, not its customers. Due to the economics of scale and innovation, it could sell products cheaper than the competitors, which led to accusations of predatory pricing.

"Standard Oil began in 1870, when kerosene cost 30 cents a gallon. By 1897, Rockefeller's scientists and managers had driven the price to under 6 cents per gallon, and many of his less-efficient competitors were out of business -- including companies whose inferior grades of kerosene were prone to explosion and whose dangerous wares had depressed the demand for the product. Standard Oil did the same for petroleum: In a single decade, from 1880 to 1890, Rockefeller's consolidations helped drive petroleum prices down 61 percent while increasing output 393 percent. He eventually built Standard Oil of New Jersey into a trust composed of 18 companies operating under a single board of directors.

Standard Oil used resources with legendary efficiency, introducing many new labor-saving devices to its factories and locating sophisticated facilities at key points in its distribution system. Yet Rockefeller paid wages well above the market level, believing that high wages and good working conditions would save money in the long run by averting strikes and by encouraging loyalty among employees. Before Standard Oil revolutionized oil derivatives by lowering prices and improving quality, the high prices and limited supplies of whale oil and candles prevented all but the wealthy from being able to work or entertain after dark. Thanks to Standard Oil, families could illuminate their homes for just one cent per hour. And he saved the whales."
Antitrust's Greatest Hits: The foolish precedents behind the Microsoft case

[hairshirthedonist]

How did I know it would be a Reason link?

[wj]

How did I know it would be a Reason link?

Which is more likely to provide nonsense: Reason or AI? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Michael Cain]

Trump ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to open the floodgates at two of the dams they manage in California. The Army complied. Local water managers were not informed. Trump claims the water is going to the LA fires, despite these dams being purely for Central Valley agriculture, with no connection to the LA area.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-01-31/trump-california-dams-opened-up

[Tony P.]

CharlesWT,

Do you (or Reason, or Chat-GPT) accept that John D. Rockefeller amassed a huge personal fortune from his businesses? I have to assume you do, because you're not ignorant.

So I ask you: would that fortune have been smaller had he been selling kerosene for under 5 cents per gallon in 1897 rather than "under 6 cents"?

Maybe he was barely breaking even in 1897; maybe he was altruistically charging the lowest possible prices to a grateful world in 1897. Maybe it was only afterwards that he made enough profit to become the richest man in America. That just shifts the time frame of the basic question.

Maybe Rockefeller never meant to make himself so rich; maybe his fortune was an accidental by-product of his "efficiency". Or maybe he consciously did what a monopolist is supposed to do: maximize profit by charging more and paying less than a less-greedy or less-powerful capitalist would.

The Libertarian(TM) position seems always to be that concentration of wealth is more than acceptable, it is a positive good for the world. People who earn $100K per year are better off when an Elon Musk's wealth amounts to 4 million years of their gross income rather than 3 million years, to hear Reason tell it. And if that concentration of wealth allows an Elon Musk to buy out that pesky government with its oppressive tax laws and stifling regulations, so much the better, eh?

--TP

[CharlesWT]

Do you (or Reason, or Chat-GPT) accept that John D. Rockefeller amassed a huge personal fortune from his businesses?

Okay...

Please respond for me to the arguments and questions in the text that were addressed to me. (Attempting to prevent the LLM from treating the "you"'s in your comment as being addressed to it.)

"Here's a possible response to the arguments and questions raised in the text:'
Rockefeller's Wealth

I gave it a neutral prompt. When I have more points in about four hours I'll instrust it to respond from a libertarian perspective.

[liberal japonicus]

Charles, the prompt that you gave does not exist in a vacuum. You pay for ChatGPT and it has a record of your interactions, so it is going to take into account all your previous questions and tailor its response to you. If someone were asking it questions about Proudhon, Anarcho-syndicalism and the IWW, it would presumably give a much different spin as the response.

Just to put a pin in this, I'm going to write a front page request/open thread about some points on this that I hope people can give their (not chatgpt's) views

[CharlesWT]

You pay for ChatGPT and it has a record of your interactions, so it is going to take into account all your previous questions and tailor its response to you.

It shouldn't be. I do a reset after each prompt and I'm accessing it through a third party portal. It should be encountering each prompt cold.

From a libertarian perspective, please respond for me to the arguments and questions in the text that were addressed to me.

"From a libertarian perspective, the questions and arguments you’ve raised touch on fundamental issues related to wealth, markets, and the role of government. Below, I'll respond systematically to these points:"
Rockefeller's Wealth

[liberal japonicus]

It shouldn't be. I do a reset after each prompt and I'm accessing it through a third party portal. It should be encountering each prompt cold.

I realize that I've made a separate post about this and you have said you are going to stop this kind of comment, but I do want to respond to this. You've said that you are paying for it, so I assume that you haven't made multiple accounts. The assumption that it erases everything and starts with a clean slate is naive. You are a customer and the best way to keep you as a customer is to tell you what you want to hear.

[CharlesWT]

The assumption that it erases everything and starts with a clean slate is naive.

The various LLMs may be keeping all the prompts they get. Storage is cheap.

I'm not paying for or using the free versions of ChatGPT and other LLMs directly. I pay Poe which platforms several dozen LLMs, image creators, and their extensions. Poe accesses the LLM I select through the LLM's API. Unless Poe also passes an identifier with the prompt, the LLM shouldn't know who the prompt belongs to.

[liberal japonicus]

From
https://poe.com/privacy

Our third party AI model LLM providers and third party bot developers may receive details about your interactions with bots on Poe (including the contents of your chats) to provide and generally improve their services, which they may process in their legitimate business interests.

and

Keep in mind, any information and files you provide to the bots on Poe will be shared with third party AI model providers and developers powering the bots...

[Donald]

A Trump appointee to the US Holocaust Memorial Council supports ethnic cleansing in Gaza not for their own good, which will be the usual line, but because they are evil and deserve it. That argument shows up about halfway down.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-840021

Not surprising. The choice in American politics regarding Palestinians is threefold—

1. Don’t murder them. This is a minority faction amongst Democratic politicians.

2. Murder them, but make sad noises about it and express good intentions. Majority view amongst Democratic politicians

3. Murder them and be unapologetic about it. Republicans are split between 2 and 3.

I don’t expect this will get much coverage.

I will be interested if Oliner’s views get any coverage. .

[russell]

Storage is cheap.

Computing cycles, however, are not.

AI is a great tool, and great or not, it's here and it's probably gonna stay.

But it consumes a lot of power and water. Maybe it's not something to treat like a toy or hobby.

No judgement, really, just laying out the reality. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, y'all.

[GftNC]

Boy, Josh Marshall is good. This seems right to me - what do others think?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-are-democrats-supposed-to-do/sharetoken/d818f29d-c776-4ab9-a523-8df900108d2c

[russell]

What I think:

Elon's kiddos have 24 hours to get the hell out of any federal infrastructure they have infiltrated, whether physical or digital, and surrender any materials they have copied or transferred to any server not owned and operated by the federal government. Failure to do so will result in their immediate arrest and detention, in jail, no bail, no access to electronics of any kind. Criminal charges will follow in any case. They will be barred for life from employment in any enterprise or project sponsored by the federal government, including any research efforts funded in full or part by any federal agency. If any of them are not US citizens, whatever visa they are here under will be cancelled and they will be deported.

Elon Musk is to be barred from any participation in or connection to the federal government, full stop. He should be considered a national security risk and any enterprise under his management that is essential to national security - e.g. SpaceX - will be required to sunder their relationship with him within 30 days or face being nationalized.

Seem harsh? Consider what's happening now to folks whose crimes consist of (a) trying to come to the US and make a life without proper documentation and (b) getting a speeding ticket. Or not even (b).

Is any of the above illegal? Fuck it. "Legal" is now officially out the window, we're playing on a different game board now. I say start with the above and let the lawyers sort it out. And those assholes can sit in jail while it gets sorted.

Further:

No (D) votes for any Trump cabinet nominee, full stop, until all of the above is complete. No (D) votes for any (R) budget proposals, full stop, until all of the above is accomplished. Give them nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, until all of the above is accomplished.

That's what I'm looking for. Enough of this bullshit, I'd really like the (D)'s to go big.

I can more or less put up with Trump, he was elected, and for good or ill I respect the process. Elon has got to fucking go.

[russell]

Yes, I'm pissed off. Thank you for your indulgence.

[wj]

I note this. Musk and his kiddies have taken over the Federal government's payment system. Given the demonstrated ineptitude of everyone associated with the Trump administration, it seems inevitable that, in the course of trying to stop (legally required) payments for things they don't like, they will inadvertently stop payments for other stuff. (Or deliberately. It doesn't really matter which.)

Maybe it's Medicare. Maybe it's Social Security payments. Maybe it's merely disaster aid to red areas of red states. Who knows?

But whatever they screw up, the shit will hit the fan big time. Perhaps even enough to cause Trump to cut his losses and ditch Musk. Probably not the first time around. But the first payment screw up won't be the last.

What do we do? Make sure the mess is tied tightly to Musk and Trump. Make them own it.

[Donald]

Some Musk- bashing from the far left ( far left by US standards.)

https://www.columnblog.com/p/us-medias-credulous-depiction-of

[GftNC]

I like russell's wishlist.

But the big question is: how? Josh Marshall's take seemed to me (but I am prepared to be educated otherwise) like a sensible, and principled, start.

[russell]

The (D)'s can do the following immediately. Everything I'm going to suggest is perfectly reasonable and principled.

1. Get in the face of the American public. There are people at the OPM every day, protesting this bullshit. (D)'s in Congress should show up and make sure press and streaming media are present. LOUDLY explain that a crew of uncredentialed college-age kids currently control the federal treasury payment system, and therefore have access to the PRIVATE FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL INFORMATION of virtually every adult in the United States. Demand entry to the offices of the OPM, the Treasury, USAID, and whoever else they have infiltrated. Do it LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY, LIVE ON TV AND STREAMING MEDIA.

RIght? Get in everyone's face and explain that a kid who calls himself "Big Balls" now knows where you live, how much money you make, whether you have ever been audited, if you have ever received a small business loan and how much and what for, etc. Make it fucking real for people. LIVE ON TV AND STREAMING MEDIA.

2. Impeach Bessent for malfeasance. He gave these punks access to the Treasury stuff.

3. No (D) votes for Trump cabinet nominees, no (D) votes for a (R) budget. No (D) votes, full stop, until Musk and his kids are out of government.

If there is anything unreasonable or unprincipled in any of this, let me know. They could do this tomorrow.

People are showing up at the OPM, people will be showing up at Sentor's offices.

(D)'s in Congress should show up, too. And bring the media. Bring the fucking heat.

People are pissed off. People don't like Musk. And people really don't like a 19 year old kid with a bad haircut who graduated from Rye Country Day School, calls himself "Big Balls", and lists "Camp Counselor" as a previous job on his resume knowing where they live and how much money they make.

Right? PUT THAT OUT THERE, LOUD AND CLEAR. Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, recent high school graduate and former camp counselor, knows where you live, what you do for a living, how much money you make, your marital status, if you have dependents, blah blah blah.

People don't necessarily respond to high-faluting appeals to legal detains and our sacred Constitutional norms. They sure as hell react to callow jerks knowing their personal business.

That's the situation. Get it out there. Embarrass the living fuck out of Trump and Elon. Make Bessent look like the ass he is for letting this crew of entitled punks run amok in the Treasury system.

It ain't that hard. I have no idea why nobody is doing this right now.

[russell]

Much, much shorter me:

1. Show up, be loud, be public, bring the heat
2. Give them NOTHING until the lawbreaking stops

Not hard, not unreasonable, not unprincipled.

[GftNC]

Not hard, not unreasonable, not unprincipled.

Quite right. And a lot of it (particularly point 3) included in Josh Marshall's piece too. But all of it sounds good to me. FYLTGE.

[JanieM]

from a Betty Cracker comment at BJ, quoting from the NYT:

The Senate confirmed Chris Wright to lead the U.S. Department of Energy on Monday, putting the former oil executive in a key position to help shape President Trump’s energy policies.

Democrats who voted in favor:

Michael Bennet Colo.
Ruben Gallego Ariz.
Margaret Wood Hassan N.H.
Martin Heinrich N.M.
John Hickenlooper Colo.
Ben Ray Luján N.M.
Jeanne Shaheen N.H.

Good luck with "Give them NOTHING."

What is wrong with these people?

[Tony P.]

When russell of all people starts talking like this, incumbent Democrats should be pissing their pants.

To add my own small voice, I am telling Rep. Katherine Clark, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sen. Ed Markey this:

For 16 years now, I have been contributing more money than I could easily afford to Democratic candidates for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. I will not waste another dime this way unless the Democratic Party ACTS against the MAGA gangsters NOW. Grind the Congress to a halt until Musk is kicked out of any role in government. Vote against every Trump nominee, period. No unanimous consent to anything in the Senate. No Dem votes for any GOP bill in the House, up to and including the debt limit. No more "respect for the office": call him "Donnie" or "MAGA's Orange Jesus" or "Elon's errand boy" on the floor, in committee, on TV, and to his face. If the Democratic party is too feckless to stand up to the MAGAts, I have no more use for its current incumbents. If I ever support another Democrat, it will be a primary challenger. Grow a spine or get the hell out of the way.

--TP

[JanieM]

Not to be depressing or anything...

Also, a question for russell: Your 6:56 says that the "kiddos" should be charged "in any case." But you didn't include criminal charges in what you suggested should happen to / be done about Musk.

Yet he's the instigator, boss, mastermind, recruiter, etc. Would you charge the minions without charging him?

[wj]

Here's a thought. You know how, when you buy something, the bill/invoice shows a) the price, b) the sales tax, and c) the shipping charge if any, before giving the total due? Suppose a bunch of businesses started adding a line item for tariffs, whether for the item itself or for the parts/ingredients. Make it obvious, every time a buyer turns around, how much they are costing him.

Especially effective if the invoice also says "Same low price!" because the base price hasn't changed.

Just a thought.

P.S. Does anyone know if the sales tax on an import is also charged on the tariff amount? I'm betting it is, but I don't actually know.

[wj]

Yet he's [Musk] the instigator, boss, mastermind, recruiter, etc. Would you charge the minions without charging him?

Seems like a charge of conspiracy to commit those crimes would be an obvious start. I'm betting he doesn't have experience with crime boss elliptical directives like TCFG uses. So, harder to establish deniability.

[russell]

But you didn't include criminal charges in what you suggested should happen to / be done about Musk.

Him too. Maybe him first.

[Mike S]

And Musk is known to have conversations with Putin. Is he currently in contact with Putin and has he passed US government data to the Russians?

[JanieM]

We are on notice.

Courtesy of Anne Laurie at BJ.

[russell]

We are on notice.

Noted

[wj]

You know it's serious when my wife, who takes minimal interest in politics and such, is muttering about what's going on. As are her equally unengaged friends.

Gives me hope that the public generally is noticing. And as unhappy as we are.

[hairshirthedonist]

Bare-link apologies. This comment from Janie's link:

https://bsky.app/profile/sdbwarnedyou.bsky.social/post/3lhcb3rqz5k2x

[Michael Cain]

Yet he's the instigator, boss, mastermind, recruiter, etc. Would you charge the minions without charging him?

I read yesterday that Musk has been classified by the White House as a special executive branch employee with essentially unlimited powers. Since the SCOTUS has put us in "It's not illegal if the president does it" territory, that would seem to settle it.

[Michael Cain]

And Musk is known to have conversations with Putin. Is he currently in contact with Putin and has he passed US government data to the Russians?

Only Musk knows. One of the reasons that he has never had a security clearance through SpaceX is that he doesn't fill out the paperwork reporting conversations with foreign figures. There are parts of the SpaceX facilities where he's not supposed to be allowed in.

[GftNC]

Eeek, and not just "Big Balls" either.

Phrases like “freaking out” are, not surprisingly, used to describe the reaction of the engineers who were responsible for maintaining the code base until a week ago. The changes that have been made all seem to relate to creating new paths to block payments and possibly leave less visibility into what has been blocked. I want to emphasize that the described changes are not being tested in a dev environment (i.e., a not-live environment) but have already been pushed into production.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/musk-cronies-dive-into-treasury-dept-payments-code-base/sharetoken/475e3663-4aad-4ffb-bed4-502e15cdfb16

[wj]

Something tells me that the acronym FUBAR is going to get a lot of work now.

What kind of idiot modifies production code without testing it?!?!?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"What kind of idiot modifies production code without testing it?!?!?"

The Trumpy/Musky kind, of course!

Profoundly ignorant, profoundly stupid, utterly convinced of their superior intellect.

[novakant]

Trump just confirmed that ethnic cleansing is now the US policy regarding Gaza:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/trump-netanyahu-gaza

This is like someone burning my house down and then the police telling me I have to give up my property because my house has been burned down, while they are having drinks with the guy who burned my house down...

[Donald]

He wants Greenland and Gaza. I assume some of this is for Kushner.

[russell]

What kind of idiot modifies production code without testing it?!?!?

People whose work experience is mostly on social media platforms and apps and whose understanding of the software development lifecycle is throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

And the Gaza play is pretty fucking brazen but that's who we're dealing with. Being POTUS is just a way for Trump to enhance his brand.

[Donald]

I am seeing a lot of grotesque takes at Lawyers guns and money and other places bashing people for not voting for Harris about Gaza.

I say grotesque because it shows just how far down the moral sewer we have sunk, that people think that they should score partisan points on the theory that Biden- Harris were less bad for Palestinians than Trump.

Biden supported genocide. I have read the interviews with Biden and Blinken and they think they did the right thing. They aren’t sadists, they didn’t favor killing civilians but what they cared about was weakening Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran and that is what drove them. Civilian deaths were a minor thing to them, maybe slightly more important than concern over Gazan sea gulls that might have been killed in the war.

And if Harris had won, she probably would have maintained that policy. And there might not be a ceasefire either. Trump most likely got it by promising Bibi to support ethnic cleansing.

There is something beyond obscene about American politics and it isn’t just on the Republican side either. There is the attitude that the law is only meant to constrain others— I am paraphrasing that definition of conservatism by the composer whose name I have forgotten.

There is a minority of Democratic politicians who seem to have some sense of decency and no Republicans that I know about. The rest are trash. We are ruled by corrupt, petty, dishonest people. I can’t believe we have to settle for this. But maybe people actually want petty, narcissistic assh@@@@ in office.

[nous]

I saw a FB friend dunking on the Palestinian supporters earlier as well. Same person who has never, ever, forgiven Sanders for not conceding and pushing his campaign until the convention. Said friend was troubled for nearly three hours back at the start of the Israel revenge tour when I asked how many Palestinian children's lives were acceptable losses. Three hours later it had all been tucked behind a door labeled "this is what you get when you trust Hamas."

I don't bother commenting on anything that shows up on that particular friend's wall anymore.

[Donald]

On Trump himself, like others I can’t tell if this constant stream of outrageously horrible policies are all meant literally or as a negotiating tactic— perhaps a mixture.

But even as a negotiating tactic he has permanently wrecked any sense that the U.S. is a stable country with leaders, however bad, could be trusted to adhere to at least some norms.

There are no norms with this guy. You can’t make hyperbolic jokes about what he might do because he might do them. We have had evil Presidents but I don’t think we have ever elected sheer chaos. Malignant chaos.

[wj]

I'm not sure if it is a negotiation tactic so much. More a matter of putting out so much objectionable stuff that opponents are overwhelmed. So, while a lot of illegal executive orders get reversed, a bunch of unpopular stuff falls thru the cracks and gets implemented.

[novakant]

My question:

Is Trump cognitively impaired in some way that can be diagnosed clinically (never mind the character flaws) or is it all just malevolence and greed?

He wouldn't be the first president (Reagan, Biden) but his predecessors could rely on a system designed to keep the show on the road, while now it seems that the inmates are running the asylum.

I'm not sure which option is preferable, actually.

[Hartmut]

Worse, the constitutional option via the 25th would make it arguably worse. There ist still hope that the sheer incompetence of His Orangeness could lead to a collapse of his regime before the republic itself collapses. If Vance gets in via the 25th, there will be less chaos but the speed towards the republic's downfall will even increase and it will be even more difficult to stop it. Many anti-Ts are completely fine with a f----st regime, if only His Orangeness would not be the one in charge.
---
I fear I have to agree with (our) Donald that for Gazans there would not be much difference between a Dem and a GOP US government. And once Gaza is 'solved' Bibi & Accomplices will switch from death by a thousand cuts concerning the West Bank to direct and complete annexation and expulsion (and probably allowing the settlers to commit outright mass murder with impunity to 'encourage' the holdouts to leave 'volontarily'). If he can get away with the former, what reason would he have to not go for the latter too.
That could be too much even for most professional Dems but they will have no say in it.
Will there be a new Herschel Grynszpan then and what will be the results?
No good news on offer at the moment as far as I can tell.

[wj]

Worse, the constitutional option via the 25th would make it arguably worse.

I would say rather that an attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment would almost certainly fail. And thus make things worse.

Consider. The first step would be to assemble a majority of the Cabinet (and the VP, although I'd bet Vance goes along, once a majority is accomplished). But it only takes one person to decline to be recruited, and instead inform Trump. At which point, any cabinet secretary who had been recruited is fired, and replaced by someone more loyal and more fanatical.** That being the case, who would even start the conversation?

Bad as most of Trumps appointees are, odds are the replacements would be worse.,

** Does anyone know if acting Cabinet secretaries can be part of the majority? Do they even count in deciding how many secretaries constitute a majority? .

[Hartmut]

I think I remember deliberations that a GOP president should use ONLY acting cabinet members (and heads of agencies) since those would not need senate confirmations.

[Tony P.]

Donald: And if Harris had won, she probably would have maintained that policy. And there might not be a ceasefire either. Trump most likely got it by promising Bibi to support ethnic cleansing.

Without arguing who was the greater or lesser evil in the last election, I have to note that the Gaza cease fire was negotiated, agreed to, and implemented before He, Trump's inauguration. So I assume Donald is suggesting that Bibi and his orange buddy were making their deal while Biden was still the president. Republicans seem to make a habit of conducting private foreign policy. Nixon did it. Reagan did it. So it's likely Donald is right.

On a completely different subject: any tips on how to identify and communicate directly with whatever political advisors Senators and Congressmen listen to would be greatly appreciated.

--TP

[Donald]

TP

It was in the news, initially the Israeli press and to some extent here, that Trump's envoy Witcoff (sp?) was heavily involved and at one point was supposedly quite nasty towards the Israeli negotiators who didn't want to work during the Sabbath. The Biden and Trump people were openly cooperating (the way it is supposed to work with normal transitions when you have tense diplomatic situations. Of course in this case I don't like either Trump or Biden on this issue.)

So some people were hoping Trump, for his own reasons (not wanting Gaza hanging over his head when he had other things to steal) wanted the war over right now. I was hoping this. Maybe he was more interested in bigger fish, like stealing Greenland and letting Musk take over the power of the purse.

Others claimed he had basically told Netanyahu that we can get the hostages out and then restart the war and he wouldn't care.

Nobody AFAIK was guessing Trump would just come out and say, "hey, let's just ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Gaza and build resort hotels", though given Trump that was a dumb oversight on everyone's part.

My own guess as of the last day or so, seeing what Trump is doing, is that he might very well have told Netanyahu he was going to propose pushing all the Palestinians out of Gaza and he needed a truce right now.

Witcoff seemed a little too good to be true, but yeah, I think it was Trump who got the ceasefire. The terms were essentially the same they have been for months and Netanyahu was the one who didn't want it, though Biden said otherwise. The variable that changed is the relevance of Trump. What he did to get it is, I think, to promise something he probably (I hope) can't deliver.

[wj]

Nobody AFAIK was guessing Trump would just come out and say, "hey, let's just ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Gaza and build resort hotels", though given Trump that was a dumb oversight on everyone's part.

No high profile people may have been saying that. But I was certainly saying it here. And I don't think I was the only one.

As I recall he had even talked about Jared putting resort hotels into Gaza. So this shouldn't have come as much of a surprise.

[Tony P.]

Donald: The Biden and Trump people were openly cooperating

So, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Biden people, the Trump people told Bibi's people "Let us have bragging rights for a cease fire and we won't care what you do after the hostages are out. Oh, and the boss wants the Gaza beachfront when it's over." Is that how it went down?

--TP

[liberal japonicus]

I am seeing a lot of grotesque takes at Lawyers guns and money and other places bashing people for not voting for Harris about Gaza.

Every place has its own culture, and my take on the LGM culture is that taking a step back from your arguments is considered tantamount to losing the argument. I don't know about the other places, but it would make me hesitant to take this as proof of something.

[Donald]

I should correct that— I don’t know if the Biden people knew everything being said. I don’t think anybody knows. That is the one possible flaw in my theory. Could Trump or his underlings secretly promised Bibi something without the Biden people knowing somehow? Would Trump do this if he could? Well, yeah, I think we all know that. I don’t know if he could do it secretly.

Anyway, Biden and company “ worked tirelessly” for a ceasefire and lied tirelessly about the fact that Netanyahu was the obstacle.

Trump comes into the process and this changes.

There are several possibilities for why and I don’t think the likely ones reflect well on Trump. Going with my secrecy theory, I think Trump or his team probably gave Netanyahu assurances, either that he could restart the war after the hostages were released or that he would support ethnic cleansing.

Frankly, I think Biden ( if he had run and won) would have allowed the restart of the war if Netanyahu insisted. Ethnic cleansing, pogroms in the WB— that would be done gradually, without the open endorsement of the US, but with objections and handwringing but in the end, more weapons and pledges of “ ironclad support”. Spokespeople like Miller and Patel would say each week that they would ask their Israeli partners for more information and that the State Department was constantly assessing the latest reports.

Harris never distanced herself from Biden’s policies in any way. No way to know if she secretly wanted to change course.

Biden got precisely nowhere for months because he had nothing to offer except the weapons he was going to supply no matter what. He had no carrots to offer he wasn’t already supplying and he had no stick he was willing to use. Netanyahu used him for the weapons and treated him with contempt.

We will see between Trump and Netanyahu which one will use the other or if they see eye to eye on everything.

[Donald]

Wj

Kushner’s ambitions were clear. Trump all but saying we have to get the Palestinians out to build the Riveria— well, he could have just let the Israelis restart the war and achieve the same result without being so open about it. Maybe he is afraid the Israeli settler population would get the best property before Kushner.

[wj]

Harris never distanced herself from Biden’s policies in any way. No way to know if she secretly wanted to change course.

Pretty much stuck, if you're a VP and running for President. You can propose new programs. But you really can't propose to significantly change (let alone reverse) an existing policy. No matter how much you intend to change course. The best you can do is minimize how much you talk about policies you want to change.

[Donald]

The NYT has shot down my theory that Trump promised Netanyahu an ethnic cleansing. It seems he has been thinking about it for weeks, but it still came as a surprise to everyone, including, according to this piece, the Israelis.

So hard to see how my theory could be right sonce everyone seems surprised by his proposal.

Four more years of this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/trump-gaza-takeover.html?unlocked_article_code=1.u04.bfpd.3PdRNX-wPrOl&smid=url-share