Political Posts

[lnofeisone]

1 hour ago, Hektor said:

Law firms should see a lot of business during this administration, I guess. Are there publicly traded law firms? 

BUR, is probably as close as you can get.

[Hektor]

1 hour ago, Saluki said:

That's an interesting question and the answer is no. Lawyers have an ethical duty to put their client's interests ahead of their own, so the American Bar Association does not want business people involved in owning law firms. There is one jurisdiction that had a pilot program (DC maybe?) where they allowed an accounting firm to own an interest in a law firm. I don't think it ever caught on.

 

There was a lot of controversy when the Wall Street firms went from partnerships to corporations and went public. Ditto for consultants. It may happen eventually for law firms too. 

Thanks @Saluki

[lnofeisone]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

Musk haters have real impact!

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-25/tesla-sales-fall-45-in-europe-as-rivals-ev-registrations-soar

 

Congrats!

How are you not concerned that Musk and the current administration fudged a past contract to go from $500k to $500M with the US government and all its budget imbalances but somehow find consumer reaction appalling? 

https://electrek.co/2025/02/26/teslas-400-million-armored-ev-us-gov-contract-was-indeed-shady/  h/t @Saluki

 

Nvm that Musk's current enterprises qualify him as the biggest welfare queen in the US. 

[Hektor]

56 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I think the issue is that Lawyers are not permitted to share fees with non-lawyers.

Thanks @73 Reds Any idea why? Is it to avoid conflict of interest?

[Hektor]

9 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

BUR, is probably as close as you can get.

I'll look them up.

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, Hektor said:

Thanks @73 Reds Any idea why? Is it to avoid conflict of interest?

Yes; I believe the reasoning is that lawyers are required to retain their independence and avoid any influence from outside sources in representing their clients.   

[Hektor]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Yes; I believe the reasoning is that lawyers are required to retain their independence and avoid any influence from outside sources in representing their clients.   

[Gregmal]

At the end of the day the solution will never be perfect or appease everyone. But the route of the evil is that the growth of the cancer never stops because whenever someone tries to stop it, you get obstructionists who want to present every reason why it’s not gonna work while offering no alternative solution. So the answer or action taken often ends up being “nothing gets done” until the next regime change and the beast gets to grow again. 

[Saluki]

25 minutes ago, Hektor said:

 

26 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Yes; I believe the reasoning is that lawyers are required to retain their independence and avoid any influence from outside sources in representing their clients.   

 

Yes, for instance if your client runs out of money during a criminal trial, your ethical duty is to still represent him and pay for things like expert witnesses, if needed. It would be an interesting conversation if an MBA was involved. 

 

And the ban on fee sharing is pretty common in other industries, to prevent shady practices. For example FINRA Rule 2040 or NFA Rule 1101 prohibit fee sharing with unregistered people.

[Spekulatius]

57 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

 

I watched a bit of CNA recently and saw a documentary that covered anti-corruption efforts in Singapore over the decades. Pretty draconian at times. Let's do it and let's start with everybody in DC left and right, now.

 

https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-corruption/legislation-and-enforcement/prevention-of-corruption-act/

 

 

It’s going dramatically the other way:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/pausing-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-enforcement-to-further-american-economic-and-national-security/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-maintains-pause-trump-bid-immediately-fire-watchdog-agen-rcna192643
 

[Hektor]

10 minutes ago, Saluki said:

Yes, for instance if your client runs out of money during a criminal trial, your ethical duty is to still represent him and pay for things like expert witnesses, if needed. It would be an interesting conversation if an MBA was involved. 

 

And the ban on fee sharing is pretty common in other industries, to prevent shady practices. For example FINRA Rule 2040 or NFA Rule 1101 prohibit fee sharing with unregistered people.

Thank you.

[Hektor]

On 2/24/2025 at 5:43 PM, Parsad said:

Nothing about Zelenskyy being a dictator.  That there is corruption in Ukraine...yes...but nothing about being a dictator.  That's a new Trump talking point being repeated by the faithful!  Cheers!

Take him at his word at your own risk 

 

 

[james22]

7 hours ago, Saluki said:

I don't have a person in mind, but I have a system in mind.

 

+1

 

I'm reminded of Michael Lewis' description of Germany's civil servants:

 

He is a type familiar in Germany but absolutely freakish in Greece—or for that matter the United States: a keenly intelligent, highly ambitious civil servant who has no other desire but to serve his country. His sparkling curriculum vitae is missing a line that would be found on the résumés of men in his position most anywhere else in the world—the line where he leaves government service for Goldman Sachs to cash out. When I asked another prominent German civil servant why he hadn’t taken time out of public service to make his fortune working for some bank, the way every American civil servant who is anywhere near finance seems to want to do, his expression changed to alarm. “But I could never do this,” he said. “It would be illoyal!”

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/09/europe-201109#gotopage1

 

Those better men didn't protect them from the GFC.

 

Instead:

 

 

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.

 

― Milton Friedman

 

Change the assumption that nothing can be done about government waste and fraud and politicians will do something about it.

[Stuart D]

I’m just happy the conversation is around whether they’ve cut $60m, $6b or $60b. I much prefer this conversation vs the usual: “we spent more money on this project than any government has ever spent before.”

[cubsfan]

6 minutes ago, Stuart D said:

I’m just happy the conversation is around whether they’ve cut $60m, $6b or $60b. I much prefer this conversation vs the usual: “we spent more money on this project than any government has ever spent before.”

 

Yup, all the man is trying to do is answer one question:

"What the hell happened to the money?"

[Xerxes]

Well played Brits 

A second state visit invitation by HRM

 

Someone should tell Trump that Charles III is also head of state of Canada.  

 

 

 

 

[lnofeisone]

11 hours ago, Stuart D said:

I’m just happy the conversation is around whether they’ve cut $60m, $6b or $60b. I much prefer this conversation vs the usual: “we spent more money on this project than any government has ever spent before.”

Lets reframe this a little. The rhetoric you get is how they want to save 60m, 6b, 60b. So far they've wasted way more than 6m (i think it is closer to 60m) sending the dumb give me 5 points email. The actual savings have yet to be demonstrated. Oh and the courts ruling that the govt now might need to bring all the people they fired and most likely with back pay. All while the government is losing qualified people, some of whom will find employment in the private industry, domestic or foreign. Some leadership. 

Edited February 28, 2025 by lnofeisone
grammar

[thepupil]

I’ve avoided commenting but I’ll just say that I think what’s happening and the pace at which it is happening appears counterproductive and chaotic and without regards to any kind of logic.

 

i harbored no antipathy to the civil service and most government workers I know (in my DC burb bubble) are highly educated hard working people who work for the feds because they want to a) serve the country b) not work nights/weekends so they can raise families and c) because they often have family money and can afford to make the low salaries of federal workers. Obviously that’s a type specific to my neighborhood.

 

my other exposure to this is my wife is in the medical field and trained at federal government hospital where they are perpetually understaffed in her field. She works in private practice. 2 of her former colleagues are looking to join her which will gut the VA hospital’s ability to perform care…why work for the feds under this admin? 

that’s just anecdata. For actual data regarding the cost of the civil service,where the growth and bloat is I would point to this paper from Brookings

The federal government employees has been flat for decades while the economy and population grew significantly. Most of the growth in spending is with contractors, 60% of which are defense related.

 

gutting the national park service or (pick your agency) to save dollars seems wholly ineffective. 
 

Back to anecdata and biased opinions.
as a trump hating conservatively inclined person, I think this will swing the country HARD to the left.
 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-government-too-big-reflections-on-the-size-and-composition-of-todays-federal-government/

Edited February 28, 2025 by thepupil

[dealraker]

Wife: "Hubby!!!   We got our Beach trip paid for.  I love Donnie and Elon so much!"

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/27/trump-musk-promote-idea-of-5000-doge-dividend-checks.html

 

Husband: "Sweetie, deficits going up; taxes too; and a recession is coming where I'm gunna  lose my damn job."

 

First fascinate the fools, then muzzle the intelligent.

Edited February 28, 2025 by dealraker

[Hektor]

There is probably some method to what seems to be madness

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/musk-federal-bureaucracy-takeover.html

 

Excerpt from the news article

 

How Elon Musk Executed His Takeover of the Federal Bureaucracy

The operation was driven with a frenetic focus by the billionaire, who channeled his resentment of regulatory oversight into a drastic overhaul of government agencies.

 

On the last Friday of September 2023, Elon Musk dropped in about an hour late to a dinner party at the Silicon Valley mansion of the technology investor Chamath Palihapitiya.

 

Mr. Musk’s visit was meant to be discreet. Still skittish about getting involved publicly in politics, he told the guests he had to be careful about supporting anyone in the Republican nomination fight. And yet here he was at a $50,000-a-head dinner in honor of the presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who was running as an entrepreneur who would shake up the status quo.

 

As the night wore on, Mr. Musk held forth on a variety of topics: the U.S.-Mexico border; the war in Ukraine; government regulations hindering SpaceX; and Mr. Ramaswamy’s highest priority, the dismantling of the federal bureaucracy.

 

Mr. Musk made clear that he saw the gutting of that bureaucracy as primarily a technology challenge. He told the party of around 20 that when he overhauled Twitter, the key was gaining access to the company’s servers.

 

Wouldn’t it be great, Mr. Musk offered, if he could have access to the computers of the federal government?

Just give him the passwords and he would make the government fit and trim.

 

What started as musings at a dinner party evolved into a radical takeover of the federal bureaucracy. Mr. Musk’s strategy has been twofold. His team grabbed control of the government’s human resources agency, the Office of Personnel Management, commandeering email systems to pressure civil servants to quit so he could cull the work force. And it burrowed into computer systems across the bureaucracy, tracing how money was flowing so the administration could choke it off.

 

Mr. Musk’s transformation of DOGE from a casual notion into a powerful weapon is something possible only in the Trump era. It involves wild experimentation and an embrace of severe cost-cutting that Mr. Musk previously used to upend Twitter — as well as an appetite for political risk and impulsive decision-making.

 

Mr. Musk’s stealth approach stunned both Democrats and civil servants. Failing to imagine an incursion from inside the bureaucracy, they were caught essentially defenseless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Hjorth]

2 hours ago, dealraker said:

Wife: "Hubby!!!   We got our Beach trip paid for.  I love Donnie and Elon so much!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/27/trump-musk-promote-idea-of-5000-doge-dividend-checks.html

 

Husband: "Sweetie, deficits going up; taxes too; and a recession is coming where I'm gunna  lose my damn job."

 

First fascinate the fools, then muzzle the intelligent.

 

Thought-provoking, Charlie [ @dealraker ],

 

Reminds one of the madness with helicopter & fiat money in both USA and Europe during the pandemic.

Edited February 28, 2025 by John Hjorth
Fixed spelling

[cubsfan]

31 minutes ago, Hektor said:

There is probably some method to what seems to be madness

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/musk-federal-bureaucracy-takeover.html

 

Excerpt from the news article

 

How Elon Musk Executed His Takeover of the Federal Bureaucracy

The operation was driven with a frenetic focus by the billionaire, who channeled his resentment of regulatory oversight into a drastic overhaul of government agencies.

 

On the last Friday of September 2023, Elon Musk dropped in about an hour late to a dinner party at the Silicon Valley mansion of the technology investor Chamath Palihapitiya.

 

Mr. Musk’s visit was meant to be discreet. Still skittish about getting involved publicly in politics, he told the guests he had to be careful about supporting anyone in the Republican nomination fight. And yet here he was at a $50,000-a-head dinner in honor of the presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who was running as an entrepreneur who would shake up the status quo.

 

As the night wore on, Mr. Musk held forth on a variety of topics: the U.S.-Mexico border; the war in Ukraine; government regulations hindering SpaceX; and Mr. Ramaswamy’s highest priority, the dismantling of the federal bureaucracy.

 

Mr. Musk made clear that he saw the gutting of that bureaucracy as primarily a technology challenge. He told the party of around 20 that when he overhauled Twitter, the key was gaining access to the company’s servers.

 

Wouldn’t it be great, Mr. Musk offered, if he could have access to the computers of the federal government?

Just give him the passwords and he would make the government fit and trim.

 

What started as musings at a dinner party evolved into a radical takeover of the federal bureaucracy. Mr. Musk’s strategy has been twofold. His team grabbed control of the government’s human resources agency, the Office of Personnel Management, commandeering email systems to pressure civil servants to quit so he could cull the work force. And it burrowed into computer systems across the bureaucracy, tracing how money was flowing so the administration could choke it off.

 

Mr. Musk’s transformation of DOGE from a casual notion into a powerful weapon is something possible only in the Trump era. It involves wild experimentation and an embrace of severe cost-cutting that Mr. Musk previously used to upend Twitter — as well as an appetite for political risk and impulsive decision-making.

 

Mr. Musk’s stealth approach stunned both Democrats and civil servants. Failing to imagine an incursion from inside the bureaucracy, they were caught essentially defenseless.

 

Nice article. Thanks @Hektor - since I can't get beyond paywall.

 

Pulling DOGE off will certainly be one of the most difficult tasks of any US President.

 

It's much, much easier to tax & spend, tax & spend - throw money around like it's nothing and leave

the disaster for the next administration.

 

I'm not sure when the Federal Government willingly attempted such a task.

Everyone knows it has to happen.

 

It's great to see it happen.

 

 

[james22]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

Nice article. Thanks @Hektor - since I can't get beyond paywall.

 

https://archive.ph/ggj86

[james22]

 

 

[lnofeisone]

10 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

 

Is he going to fess up to these errors?

 

"The savings, deleted with no explanation from DOGE or the White House, include: a $232 million cut to the Social Security Administration that actually amounted to only $560,000; an $8 billion cut at Immigration and Customs Enforcement that was actually only $8 million; and three $655 million cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development that ended up being a measly $18 million. These mistakes all seem to be completely avoidable human errors."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doge-secretly-changes-website-being-203001406.html

 

 

Also, what a terrible way to make decisions. In my grad school days, one of my advisors had an experiment that pertained to nuclear sensors. The length of the experiment was roughly 10 years and needed daily monitoring and adjustments. Imagine if you "accidently" shut this down and bring the person back 3 days later. Your experiment is wrecked and what will you be doing? Paying for another 10 years of experimental work? He is lucky that nothing bad has happened yet.