Summary

Elon Musk’s DOGE faces mounting pressure to show achievements amid criticism. Staffers, under pressure from Trump administration officials, seek public relations wins to counter negative headlines.

Cuts to federal offices led to mass layoffs, and efforts to modernize government services have been chaotic. DOGE prioritizes speed over security and protecting sensitive information.

Trump has distanced himself, stating agency chiefs, not Musk, control department cuts, preferring a “scalpel” over a “hatchet” approach. Public opinion has turned against DOGE, with 48% disapproving versus 34% approving, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll.

With limited time before their tenure ends, DOGE officials are desperate to show results.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Every time there’s a World War, a bunch of industries are put under the control of the government in a process called Nationalization, or a “War Economy”…

    …this is because it’s highly efficient. This is an excellent argument against free market libertarian types. They don’t put business in charge of government (like is being done now, eg. Privatization) they put the government in charge of business/industry.

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      2 days ago

      My societal dream is that the government would nationalize industries once they reach the monopoly or oligopoly stage. Like, congratulations Comcast/Verizon, you won the game of capitalism. Now move over and let the government actually provide services to the people at a reasonable cost.

      But I know this is just a dream.

      • oppy1984@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Honestly I’d prefer that the government set up government corporations to provide basic needs. The private corporations could still operate but they would control the higher end market. The gov. corps. would just make sure basics were affordable, not high quality.

        Need a car? The gov corp car is $15,000 brand new and is basic as hell, but it gets the job done.

        Need Internet? The gov corp fiber network is mid range speed and connects to everyone. As a bonus for profit corps and but rights to the dumb pipe fiber network that the gov corp set up and off higher speed at a higher price.

        Basic clothes, basic toiletries, basic food, etc. you want designer or high end stuff, get it from the for profit corps. But basic necessities should be made at cost by the government for the citizens. It is the job of the government to care for it’s citizens after all.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          I mean, the poison is already in your pitch - “private sector gets the high end”. What happens when the government fiber turns out to be faster? What happens when the government cheese is actually better? What happens when the government clothes turn out to be higher quality than the shit we wear today?

          What is Verizon going to do? Cry to Congress that they need to go out of their way and pay more to artificially slow down gov fiber. Kellogg will cry free healthy food is ruining demand for overprocessed corn syrup products. If they don’t kill it in the cradle they’re all going to chip away at it, one bit at a time

          How about the government produces the basics and the infrastructure, and corporations get fucked? Let small local business take over, and use the infrastructure at cost. Let competition thrive, and we use antitrust like the pro-active protection against oligarchy it was meant to be

          • oppy1984@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I get what you’re saying, but government fiber speeds could be capped, products wouldn’t be high end, ect.

            I am by no means an economist, or an expert in these matters, and I apologize if I was presenting as those I was. I just feel like you should put those kind of ideas out there for others to iterate on.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 hours ago

              But there’s the root problem - why are you capping the speed at all? Why are you making inferior products?

              To leave room for others to make money. That is the taint in the idea… Why do they need to make money if they can’t provide a better service than what the government can do at cost? Or lower even, for the essentials

              It’s looking at it backwards. People don’t need to make money - money is the sign that you’re providing value to society. If you can’t beat out the government, which is presumably focused on the things everyone needs, why does someone deserve money for it?

              It’s ok if the government becomes the largest food distributor, hopefully that means everyone eats. It’s ok if telcos go out of business, so long as people pay less to get online

              Companies should be able to challenge the government, but that doesn’t mean they should be given special privilege - making money is a sign you’re doing something valuable. If you’re carving out room for people to make money you’re doing it wrong

              • oppy1984@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.

                Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.

                • theneverfox@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  That’s the kind of middle ground with fascism the Democratic party is engaging in…

                  You can make compromises, you can find a middle ground. But that ground has to be stable, it can’t be compromised from the get go - that’s how you get Obamacare, a payout to insurance companies that has a few positives baked in

                  If it’s compromised from the start, you haven’t done anything positive - you’ve just opened the floor to bastardize it further

                  • oppy1984@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    31 minutes ago

                    I guess I’m just stuck in the 90’s mindset of trying to find compromise. I know that idea was on the decline then, but I still, maybe foolishly, hold on to it.

            • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              22 hours ago

              There is no point in capping fiber speeds. Either that capacity is in use or it isn’t. It isn’t like water, where a resource is depleted from usage.

              Aside from that, I agree with your concept of the government providing all the essentials. Capitalism is great for providing products that suit a person’s individuality, but it sucks at ensuring the survival and wellbeing of people.

              • oppy1984@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Ok, now that I’ve had a bit of sleep (,3rd shifter here) how about the government owns the fiber a sells access to the for profit companies. But there is no monopolies so there is competition and every company is required to offer a basic package that is low cost and has enough bandwidth for the average work from home video meeting. Oh yeah, and no data caps.

                After that they can increase prices and offer more services. And if somewhere like farm country isn’t being served by any of the for profit companies, then the government corporation could set up an ISP and serve those citizens.

                • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  That is local loop unbundling. Anyhow, as I said, no point in capping data speed. Society benefits from faster internet - less congestion, transactions like stocks, purchasing goods, and Zoom meetings are all faster or more reliable. It is a type of infrastructure that benefits civilization, in ways far more beneficial than raw money itself. Time is the most valuable thing for every human, since you can’t buy more and it is always depleting. The less time people spend on slow internet, the more they can use it for other things.

                  Money should not, must not, be the purpose of civilization. That is just enslaving humans to it. We invented it to save time, and shouldn’t lose sight of that.

                  • oppy1984@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 hours ago

                    I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.

                    Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Like they do for snail mail? The government gets an envelope through in one or two days for a dollar or two, the corporations do it in two or four days for ten or fifteen… Because they’re high end?

        • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          It is the job of the government to care for it’s citizens after all.

          This is where some people would have a difference of opinion.

          • oppy1984@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            While I disagree with those that feel differently, that’s what this country is supposed to be about, finding a middle ground in differing opinions. Sadly we seem to have largely lost that mentality.

      • Jax
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        This is how I assumed things would work when I was a child.