Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government

[Brian4Liberty]

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government
Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab.
By Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy
Nov. 20, 2024

Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.

President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
...
More: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and...-grab-fa51c020

[PAF]

Mises.org
Power & Market
David Brady, Jr.
11/18/2024


Yes, Senator Cruz, Elon Musk should read Mises’s Bureaucracy


On his podcast “Verdict” November 13, Ted Cruz mentioned one of my favorite books by Ludwig von Mises: Bureaucracy. He mentioned it in reference to the “Department of Government Efficiency” that was also announced by President-elect Donald Trump on the same day. Cruz brings up a crucial point to the conversation surrounding this plan, pointing at Mises for getting it right. The idea lingers that this Department will make government efficient; that is why you need two businessmen—Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—at the helm.

At a surface level, this idea is compelling, but a closer examination shows that it runs into roadblocks. That roadblock is Ludwig von Mises and his analysis of socialism. Mises’s theory of socialist calculation put an end to the debate over socialism, but it reaches just as much into bureaucracy. To really grapple with what Senator Cruz is sharing about Mises, we need to ask ourselves why businesses are efficient and then ask why the government is not? Mises answers both of these questions.


Why Do Businesses Succeed (or Fail)?

Mises’s Bureaucracy is a rather short text and is a hidden gem in Mises’s collection. He takes his famous theory of the impossibility of socialist economic calculation and grafts it onto bureaucracies. To understand this we first should ask ourselves what are bureaucracies and what aren’t bureaucracies?

Mises addresses this problem quickly. “Bureaucracy”—even in 1944 when Mises wrote this book—was used arbitrarily as a slur against general inefficiency. Corporate affairs? They were dubbed “bureaucracy” by progressives. Governments? Well, conservatives called those “bureaucracies” too. Mises clarifies that businesses—unlike the mentality of the progressives—cannot be “bureaucratic” in the sense it is popularly used. Businesses are naturally efficient. Led by entrepreneurs with a vested interest through ownership, businesses pursue profit. Profit isn’t an aberration of exploitation but rather a demonstration that the use of resources creates value for others.

Exchange only occurs (short of violence) when the actors in the exchange have a double inequality of valuation—both sides of the exchange believe they are receiving more value from the object they are obtaining than what they give up. Through this process—alongside the help of a medium of exchange (money)—we get market prices and economic calculation.

Economic calculation is the core of the market economy. It is the ability to gauge whether the deployment of land, labor, and capital has been beneficial to society is the essential function of the market-price system. This is why businesses have the ability to be efficient. Businesses are able to gauge whether their actions—as well as the actions of managers or their employees—are profitable. Mises praises double-entry bookkeeping for this reason. Double-entry bookkeeping allows for the entrepreneur to view various factors and learn whether they are lending to the general profitability of the venture. Management must—on the risk of losing their job, if not everyone’s—seek out the most efficient and profitable means for operating. This is hardly bureaucratic.

Businesses are not omnipotent, of course, but the market system largely solves this problem. Entrepreneurs and managers who continually make poor judgements of future conditions are quickly flushed from these positions. They suffer losses and must liquidate their poor investments. Those more successful at sleuthing out future conditions through their general knowledge and anticipations are rewarded with profits.

Businesses are, thus, efficient! This isn’t the so-called bureaucracy of contemporary slang. It also isn’t Mises’s bureaucracy. Then, what is a bureaucracy?


Bureaucracies and Why They Fail

Mises has a distinct definition. He defines bureaucracy as “the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs the result of which has no cash value on the market.” What he means is that a bureaucracy is not a form of management. It isn’t even necessarily a structure. It is a trait of firms and agencies that do not have the ability to engage in proper economic calculation. They either do not, or cannot, seek profit.

Without profit, a bureaucracy cannot be efficient. This gets to the core of Mises’s socialist calculation problem. Mises concedes—for the sake of the argument—that so-called central planners could be benevolent and be imbued with knowledge of technological possibilities with the resources at hand. But, without the ability to engage in economic calculation of factors of production, they will have no idea whether they have engaged in malinvestment or waste. Are they producing too much or too little? Are they going to the right place? Is X method more efficient than Y method? These questions cannot be answered without economic calculation.

Bureaucracies suffer the very same problem. These agencies are given some ideal other than profit and have no gauge for efficiency. This is necessarily the core method of government, as Mises argues. Government does not operate for profit and lacks the ability to do so, even if they wanted to do so.

Take the Post Office for instance. The United States Postal Service is notoriously sloppy and inefficient. On the other hand, UPS and FedEx are celebrated as far more efficient. What causes this difference despite the similarity of their services? The USPS does not work to earn a profit. Their modus operandi is simply transporting mail that they are given a monopoly over. Their only goal is to do this task that is assigned by government edict and often constrained by the very same. The bureaucrats in them have no means to determine whether they are profitable or not. Even the small modicum of revenue brought in are fees rather than market prices.

Bureaucracy is not a thing of business, but rather government. Government services and agencies have no gauge for profitability and, as a result, no gauge for efficiency. How does one calculate where to allocate efficiently police, or the IRS, or immigration, absent of market prices? This leaves government groping around in a dark room with no information that tells them where they are: until they run into a wall.


The Businessman & Bureaucracy

Can a savvy businessman fix a bureaucracy? Can they apply the methods of a successful business to a government agency to make it more successful? The idea is appealing at first: after all, why couldn’t a more efficient person fix the government? Unfortunately, this misses the core problem with government efficiency. The issue of government efficiency is not one of personage and their knowledge. The issue is one of the system in which they operate. Mises clarifies:

"The quality of being an entrepreneur is not inherent in the personality of the entrepreneur; it is inherent in the position which he occupies in the framework of market society. A former entrepreneur who is given charge of a government bureau is in this capacity no longer a businessman but a bureaucrat. His objective can no longer be profit, but compliance with the rules and regulations. As head of a bureau he may have the power to alter some minor rules and some matters of internal procedure. But the setting of the bureau’s activities is determined by rules and regulations which are beyond his reach."

The system of a bureaucracy is not one of profit and loss, and the methods of an entrepreneur cannot operate there. Mises continues in the same section:

"In the field of profit-seeking enterprise the objective of the management engineer’s activities is clearly determined by the primacy of the profit motive. His task is to reduce costs without impairing the market value of the result or to reduce costs more than the ensuing reduction of the market value of the result or to raise the market value of the result more than the required rise in costs. But in the field of government the result has no price on a market. It can neither be bought nor sold."

While it is well-meaning to desire greater efficiency in the systems through which we must operate; we encounter a problem that cannot be solved by changing the men inside them. No swapping around of policies, personnel, and processes can make government work better, because those have no measurement mechanism in profit or loss. Government is by the code, not by the consumer. It lacks a way to efficiently allocate labor, land, or other resources because it lacks economic calculation. An entrepreneur doesn’t operate in these conditions.

Senator Cruz sums it up well: “All of your incentives [in government] not only are they not aligned on the profit motive, they are exactly the opposite of the profit motive. So I actually recommended Elon, he read the book.”

Government in of itself can never be efficient, it can only get moved out of the way of what brings real efficiency—entrepreneurs like Elon and Vivek. The best way to bring efficiency to America is to heed Mises’s warnings and just get rid of bureaucracies. I hope Elon Musk takes the time to read this book by Mises, as it is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with government. To make America efficient again, we need to make America non-bureaucratic again.


Get a copy of or read Mises’ Bureaucracy here!



https://mises.org/power-market/yes-s...ss-bureaucracy

[unknown]

Vivek gives away his status quo streak when he keeps trying to validate the Supreme Fraud.

[Intrepid]

Mises.org
Power & Market
David Brady, Jr.
11/18/2024


Yes, Senator Cruz, Elon Musk should read Mises’s Bureaucracy


On his podcast “Verdict” November 13, Ted Cruz mentioned one of my favorite books by Ludwig von Mises: Bureaucracy. He mentioned it in reference to the “Department of Government Efficiency” that was also announced by President-elect Donald Trump on the same day. Cruz brings up a crucial point to the conversation surrounding this plan, pointing at Mises for getting it right. The idea lingers that this Department will make government efficient; that is why you need two businessmen—Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—at the helm.

At a surface level, this idea is compelling, but a closer examination shows that it runs into roadblocks. That roadblock is Ludwig von Mises and his analysis of socialism. Mises’s theory of socialist calculation put an end to the debate over socialism, but it reaches just as much into bureaucracy. To really grapple with what Senator Cruz is sharing about Mises, we need to ask ourselves why businesses are efficient and then ask why the government is not? Mises answers both of these questions.


Why Do Businesses Succeed (or Fail)?

Mises’s Bureaucracy is a rather short text and is a hidden gem in Mises’s collection. He takes his famous theory of the impossibility of socialist economic calculation and grafts it onto bureaucracies. To understand this we first should ask ourselves what are bureaucracies and what aren’t bureaucracies?

Mises addresses this problem quickly. “Bureaucracy”—even in 1944 when Mises wrote this book—was used arbitrarily as a slur against general inefficiency. Corporate affairs? They were dubbed “bureaucracy” by progressives. Governments? Well, conservatives called those “bureaucracies” too. Mises clarifies that businesses—unlike the mentality of the progressives—cannot be “bureaucratic” in the sense it is popularly used. Businesses are naturally efficient. Led by entrepreneurs with a vested interest through ownership, businesses pursue profit. Profit isn’t an aberration of exploitation but rather a demonstration that the use of resources creates value for others.

Exchange only occurs (short of violence) when the actors in the exchange have a double inequality of valuation—both sides of the exchange believe they are receiving more value from the object they are obtaining than what they give up. Through this process—alongside the help of a medium of exchange (money)—we get market prices and economic calculation.

Economic calculation is the core of the market economy. It is the ability to gauge whether the deployment of land, labor, and capital has been beneficial to society is the essential function of the market-price system. This is why businesses have the ability to be efficient. Businesses are able to gauge whether their actions—as well as the actions of managers or their employees—are profitable. Mises praises double-entry bookkeeping for this reason. Double-entry bookkeeping allows for the entrepreneur to view various factors and learn whether they are lending to the general profitability of the venture. Management must—on the risk of losing their job, if not everyone’s—seek out the most efficient and profitable means for operating. This is hardly bureaucratic.

Businesses are not omnipotent, of course, but the market system largely solves this problem. Entrepreneurs and managers who continually make poor judgements of future conditions are quickly flushed from these positions. They suffer losses and must liquidate their poor investments. Those more successful at sleuthing out future conditions through their general knowledge and anticipations are rewarded with profits.

Businesses are, thus, efficient! This isn’t the so-called bureaucracy of contemporary slang. It also isn’t Mises’s bureaucracy. Then, what is a bureaucracy?


Bureaucracies and Why They Fail

Mises has a distinct definition. He defines bureaucracy as “the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs the result of which has no cash value on the market.” What he means is that a bureaucracy is not a form of management. It isn’t even necessarily a structure. It is a trait of firms and agencies that do not have the ability to engage in proper economic calculation. They either do not, or cannot, seek profit.

Without profit, a bureaucracy cannot be efficient. This gets to the core of Mises’s socialist calculation problem. Mises concedes—for the sake of the argument—that so-called central planners could be benevolent and be imbued with knowledge of technological possibilities with the resources at hand. But, without the ability to engage in economic calculation of factors of production, they will have no idea whether they have engaged in malinvestment or waste. Are they producing too much or too little? Are they going to the right place? Is X method more efficient than Y method? These questions cannot be answered without economic calculation.

Bureaucracies suffer the very same problem. These agencies are given some ideal other than profit and have no gauge for efficiency. This is necessarily the core method of government, as Mises argues. Government does not operate for profit and lacks the ability to do so, even if they wanted to do so.

Take the Post Office for instance. The United States Postal Service is notoriously sloppy and inefficient. On the other hand, UPS and FedEx are celebrated as far more efficient. What causes this difference despite the similarity of their services? The USPS does not work to earn a profit. Their modus operandi is simply transporting mail that they are given a monopoly over. Their only goal is to do this task that is assigned by government edict and often constrained by the very same. The bureaucrats in them have no means to determine whether they are profitable or not. Even the small modicum of revenue brought in are fees rather than market prices.

Bureaucracy is not a thing of business, but rather government. Government services and agencies have no gauge for profitability and, as a result, no gauge for efficiency. How does one calculate where to allocate efficiently police, or the IRS, or immigration, absent of market prices? This leaves government groping around in a dark room with no information that tells them where they are: until they run into a wall.


The Businessman & Bureaucracy

Can a savvy businessman fix a bureaucracy? Can they apply the methods of a successful business to a government agency to make it more successful? The idea is appealing at first: after all, why couldn’t a more efficient person fix the government? Unfortunately, this misses the core problem with government efficiency. The issue of government efficiency is not one of personage and their knowledge. The issue is one of the system in which they operate. Mises clarifies:

"The quality of being an entrepreneur is not inherent in the personality of the entrepreneur; it is inherent in the position which he occupies in the framework of market society. A former entrepreneur who is given charge of a government bureau is in this capacity no longer a businessman but a bureaucrat. His objective can no longer be profit, but compliance with the rules and regulations. As head of a bureau he may have the power to alter some minor rules and some matters of internal procedure. But the setting of the bureau’s activities is determined by rules and regulations which are beyond his reach."

The system of a bureaucracy is not one of profit and loss, and the methods of an entrepreneur cannot operate there. Mises continues in the same section:

"In the field of profit-seeking enterprise the objective of the management engineer’s activities is clearly determined by the primacy of the profit motive. His task is to reduce costs without impairing the market value of the result or to reduce costs more than the ensuing reduction of the market value of the result or to raise the market value of the result more than the required rise in costs. But in the field of government the result has no price on a market. It can neither be bought nor sold."

While it is well-meaning to desire greater efficiency in the systems through which we must operate; we encounter a problem that cannot be solved by changing the men inside them. No swapping around of policies, personnel, and processes can make government work better, because those have no measurement mechanism in profit or loss. Government is by the code, not by the consumer. It lacks a way to efficiently allocate labor, land, or other resources because it lacks economic calculation. An entrepreneur doesn’t operate in these conditions.

Senator Cruz sums it up well: “All of your incentives [in government] not only are they not aligned on the profit motive, they are exactly the opposite of the profit motive. So I actually recommended Elon, he read the book.”

Government in of itself can never be efficient, it can only get moved out of the way of what brings real efficiency—entrepreneurs like Elon and Vivek. The best way to bring efficiency to America is to heed Mises’s warnings and just get rid of bureaucracies. I hope Elon Musk takes the time to read this book by Mises, as it is a perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with government. To make America efficient again, we need to make America non-bureaucratic again.


Get a copy of or read Mises’ Bureaucracy here!



https://mises.org/power-market/yes-s...ss-bureaucracy

This is a compelling argument for government being a small as possible, and government regulations being as few as possible.

Maybe instead of putting a sh*tpile of people out of work, Elon and Vivek should spend year 1 getting rid of 80% of the regulations, and 80% of the tax code. That would be a great start and show people they aren't fuggin around. Give all those gov employees a year to retrain themselves for something else.

[Swordsmyth]

This is a compelling argument for government being a small as possible, and government regulations being as few as possible.

Maybe instead of putting a sh*tpile of people out of work, Elon and Vivek should spend year 1 getting rid of 80% of the regulations, and 80% of the tax code. That would be a great start and show people they aren't fuggin around. Give all those gov employees a year to retrain themselves for something else.

Both, the parasites deserve no consideration.

[unknown]

This is a compelling argument for government being a small as possible, and government regulations being as few as possible.

Maybe instead of putting a sh*tpile of people out of work, Elon and Vivek should spend year 1 getting rid of 80% of the regulations, and 80% of the tax code. That would be a great start and show people they aren't fuggin around. Give all those gov employees a year to retrain themselves for something else.

What you're suggesting also makes sense but government was never meant to be an employer, let alone the nation's largest employer.

Musk is a guy who recently bought a company and fired 90% of its staff.

And there were zero issues with quality or service...

That was the private sector.

If we apply that standard to the bloated, wasteful, corrupt government, they should probably aim for a 99% reduction in staff.

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1859595501022150816

[Intrepid]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1859595501022150816

Oh my, that's pretty awesome.

[unknown]

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0KJ5Cpcxs

[PAF]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0KJ5Cpcxs

Friedman kept saying "abolish", but what I gather from this DOGE stuff is that the .Gov/Bankers want a more stream-lined money flow. Without abolishing, while reducing staffing, they get more money in their pockets.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUFulmb3OwI

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ALPaQFTzo

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0JDyqgHzM

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U3b4Olf7IY

[PAF]

Firing employees is not the same as eliminating agencies. The Bankers/Technocrats simply want to streamline government in order to rake in even more.


Related:



https://youtu.be/Z3D8Vo9hRyw


Thread: Peter Thiel On Why Competition Is For Losers

Thread: Manufacturing the Far-Right: Who Is Shaking the Jar?

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyldCl4IMqE

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvXOT3iIGPE

[vita3]

DOGE.

Same as doge bitcoin Musk has been pushing for years

Getting played….

[dannno]

The negativity in this thread is comical, but nobody has commented yet about how they are creating a new government agency to get rid of the other government agencies like in previous threads on the topic, and that is a shame.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1863666221301764462

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVBW4CMq91Q

[Occam's Banana]

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government
Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab.
By Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy
Nov. 20, 2024

Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.

President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
...
More: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and...-grab-fa51c020

FTA [archive: https://archive.ph/53txb ; bold emphasis added]:

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.

DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.

A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. [...]

THREAD: Commercial fishermen land a big one: SCOTUS overturns the "Chevron doctrine"

[PAF]

This is a compelling argument for government being a small as possible, and government regulations being as few as possible.

Maybe instead of putting a sh*tpile of people out of work, Elon and Vivek should spend year 1 getting rid of 80% of the regulations, and 80% of the tax code. That would be a great start and show people they aren't fuggin around. Give all those gov employees a year to retrain themselves for something else.

It's not only about regulations and tax code, it's about the money. A lot of these jobs and contracts involve "contractors" and public/private partnerships [PPP], so simply eliminating [some or more] government employees will not solve the root problem.

See here:

Want to Cut Federal Workers? Just Cut Spending.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB50E9z4lFw






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6RWbz1j2yE

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ZPVTQjmxE






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbjCQjC72CU

[unknown]

[PAF]

Coming from another opportunist who tried selling the Fed.gov Surveillance Apparatus during Covid.

What, he's trying to make friends and "suck this libertarian in"? I don't buy his bull for one second no matter he says now.

[PAF]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ZPVTQjmxE






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbjCQjC72CU

They didn't talk about eliminating 3 Letter Agencies. Instead, they want "efficiency".

Rebuilding Trust: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2024

The World Economic Forum provides a global, impartial and not-for-profit platform for meaningful connection between stakeholders to establish trust, and build initiatives for cooperation and progress.

- Achieving Security and Cooperation in a Fractured World

- Creating Growth and Jobs for a New Era

- Artificial Intelligence as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society

https://www.weforum.org/meetings/wor...-meeting-2024/

[CCTelander]

They didn't talk about eliminating 3 Letter Agencies. Instead, they want "efficiency".

Rebuilding Trust: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2024

The World Economic Forum provides a global, impartial and not-for-profit platform for meaningful connection between stakeholders to establish trust, and build initiatives for cooperation and progress.

- Achieving Security and Cooperation in a Fractured World

- Creating Growth and Jobs for a New Era

- Artificial Intelligence as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society

https://www.weforum.org/meetings/wor...-meeting-2024/

Stop worrying and get in line for your brain chip. And be sure to enjoy the “salty tears” of the lefties. As long as we can do that things are hunky dory.

[Swordsmyth]

They didn't talk about eliminating 3 Letter Agencies. Instead, they want "efficiency".

They have talked quite a bit about eliminating agencies.
A government with agencies it doesn't need/shouldn't have is not efficient.