I don't think anyone would scoff and the discovery and elimination of waste or fraud. I think the vibe you're describing is doubt that these supposed billions in waste/fraud/abuse live up to the hype.
Surely there's plenty of waste in federal spending but I suspect the vast majority is not going to be blatant and easy to identify
NPR did in their February article about DOGE; their story is ostensibly that out of everything claimed, NPR could verify “only” $2B in cuts which they present as meaningless:
> NPR's analysis found that, of its verifiable work completed so far, DOGE has cut just $2 billion in spending — less than three hundredths of a percent of last fiscal year's federal spending.
> "Think of Congress and its budget as the debt-ridden dad on the way to buy a $250,000 Ferrari on the credit card, and DOGE is the $2 off gas card he used along the way," Riedl said. "It's great that he saved $2 on gas, but I think his wife may be more concerned about the $250,000 car."
Getting everything they want? Go do some research on what this has cost Russia - its the biggest catastrophe for Russia, possibly ever. They will never recover due to demographic & energy realignment pressure. Try to think ahead.
Their demographic collapse was happening anyway. This made it worse, but they may have already just been resigned to that. I think that's also what made them desperate.
The cost to Russia has been steep, but I think Russia is walking away from this feeling good. Russia's borders are vast and undefendable so they view it as existentially important to control their bordering states as buffers. When one of them flirts with joining NATO they view it with almost the seriousness with which the USA would view, I don't know, California flirting with becoming a part of China.
Its only a catastrophe if they didn't get Ukraine. If they have compromised the sitting US president and get Ukraine they will write history books forever in Russia about how they defeated a super power, expanded the county, with a shit army and Internet trolls.
Often the US hires young Americans to do these jobs. It is huge for helping young people with job training and class mobility. Without these jobs it will be that much harder to find a job with no experience in the outdoor industry.
I’m curious to know if you think unions are bad for the economy now, after everything they/labor have accomplished for worker rights in the last century, or if it’s those very things you consider bad for the economy?
Is child labor good for the economy? Maybe short term.
Are 16 hour workdays and subsistence pay good for the economy? That doesn’t make good consumers out of the employees.
Unions exist because people were subjected to brutal conditions and it seems very unlikely to me such conditions were conducive to a healthy economy.
Because a business cycle contraction occurred? If GM had been allowed to fail, other companies would have filled the gap in the market, and new businesses would have emerged, most likely generating even greater tax revenue over time. While there may have been some short-term thumb twiddling, the market would have eventually created new jobs elsewhere, jobs that would have been even more productive. There's a great opportunity cost to "saving" millions of unproductive jobs.
Yeah, but I only included ~Q4 of 1998, as I consider those games "morally" 1999 titles given the pressure to publish in time for Christmas. In any case, both 1998 and 2000 were very good years for PC gamers as well.
