I see only superficial similarities between the situations in Argentina & the US. I agree that the Milei playbook is being used by DOGE but the core issues in the US & in Argentina as well as the motivations of the players are very different. Personal grievances, greed & caprice appear to the drivers in the US so the end goals aren't about fiscal solvency. Milei's situation & solutions while dramatic & untested were more limited in scope & untainted by personal vendetta. Besides, they affected a much smaller state.
There's a small chance that the US comes through this stronger and a much higher likelihood of much worse outcomes; lower state capacity & uneven regulations. And an even more polarised society.
Anyone studying/analysing Public Policy, Governance/Constitutions or International Relations is in for a treat! In an year's time I would love doing GCPP one more time with 2024-25 world events serving as the backdrop for a revised curriculum. Seriously :)
Given the tax cuts that the Republicans hope to enact, it is quite unlikely that any federal budget cuts will be paid for adequately. The current budget resolution passed by the Senate Republicans *increases* the fiscal deficit by $2.8t [1]. I don't see this as responsible governance in any sense, and I don't think Musk is being sincere at all about reducing the fiscal deficit.
The assumption of sincerity on behalf of Musk is incredible to me. Dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency, Dept of Education, wiping out the contributions of PoC and women from NASA walls, removing mention of gay people and the word 'equity' from federal websites, giving federal workers an ultimatum to quit... All this is deregulation FTW?!
I have to imagine you're a little high on your own supply. Maybe touch grass.
I am rather surprised at RSJ's take on DOGE's initiatives. We have a real example of shrinking the role of the state and size of bureaucracy - it is what India achieved post 1991. The process was devoid of chaos. It was carried out by "deep state" experts who had enormous knowledge, skill, and integrity. China did the same in many ways under Deng/ Jiang Zemin. "Move fast and break things" is fine in a startup, but leads to people dying when done at a governmental scale. Gutting the CFPB, tearing up contracts, revoking subsidies post facto, and generally creating chaos are terrible for economic and human outcomes.
On another note, one doesn't need a lot of legislation to capture the state. Having a pliant Attorney General, firing the seniormost lawyers in the military, and capturing the enforcement arms (without which court orders have no teeth) are quite enough to achieve this.
I normally tend to agree with a lot of what is written on this blog. Even in cases where our first principles differ, I often find myself convinced by your arguments and the evidence you present. It’s one of the reasons I keep coming back—your writing helps me update my mental models.
However, when it comes to RSJ’s take on DOGE, I have to differ. My disagreement isn’t just rooted in a theoretical critique of deregulation or market-driven reforms; it’s also informed by the tangible, real-world consequences I’ve seen these policies unleash. While I appreciate the intellectual rigor behind arguments for reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies (a point I’ve come to understand better through works like TSATU and GCPP), I can’t overlook the human and ethical costs of implementing such policies haphazardly.
Let me explain why. My aunt works as a hospital administrator at a research hospital in Boston, and her recent experiences have been a stark reminder of how poorly executed reforms can backfire. In one of our conversations, she described the chaos that followed the abrupt implementation of cost-cutting measures. To quote her directly:
“They’re firing people left and right, including probationary staff in research facilities. One center, which houses nearly 3,000 animals for critical medical research, is now operating with skeleton crews. The facility chief is beside herself—she’s worried about losing years of work and, worse, the lives of these animals if they aren’t properly cared for.”
This isn’t just an isolated case of bureaucratic inefficiency being trimmed; it’s a cascading failure that risks derailing important research and causing unnecessary suffering. And while I understand that bureaucracies can be self-perpetuating and freedom-curtailing (a point I’ve learned to appreciate through GCPP), I also believe that reforms must be implemented with care and foresight. Erratic dismantling, even in the name of efficiency, often leads to more harm than good.
This brings me to a broader point. In his conversation with Amit Varma on The Seen and the Unseen, Prof. Karthik Muralidharan made an observation that has stayed with me. Paraphrasing, he said: “Progress and development will happen regardless of our actions. What we’re trying to do is accelerate that progress—to achieve in 25 years what might otherwise take 100—so that we can reduce the net pain and suffering along the way.” I think this is a crucial insight. While I don’t doubt that some good may come from the actions of figures like Musk or Trump, I fear that any positive outcomes will be incidental rather than intentional. Their approaches often seem driven more by intellectual hubris and unaccountable power than by a genuine commitment to minimizing harm.
This reminds me of a quote from Iain M. Banks: “The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system. It is—without drastic amendments liable to cripple its economic efficacy—intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged, and widespread suffering of conscious beings.” What Musk and others are doing feels even worse: they’re not just relying on the market’s blind mechanisms; they’re actively dismantling systems without regard for the consequences. And while I agree that intentions shouldn’t be mistaken for actions or their effects (a lesson I first encountered in GCPP), I also believe that purported intentions matter. They reveal something about the values driving these decisions. In this case, the stated goal of efficiency seems to be overshadowed by a reckless disregard for the collateral damage.
To conclude, I think there’s a fine line between necessary reform and destructive upheaval. While I’m all for reducing inefficiencies and fostering innovation, I believe we must approach these changes with humility and a commitment to minimizing harm. After all, what separates us from *homo economicus* is our ability to weigh not just the economic outcomes but also the ethical and human costs of our actions. And in this case, I fear that line has been crossed.
#I have utilized AI tools to refine and clarify the points presented here.
It is easier to announce programs for freebies and spend public money than policy-making involving hard work. But, I doubt how long we can run an economy by being a nanny state making people perennially dependent on the Government for their livelihood.
Please suggest an article from " Anticipating the Unintended" explaining the effect of rampant welfarism on the real economy.
I see only superficial similarities between the situations in Argentina & the US. I agree that the Milei playbook is being used by DOGE but the core issues in the US & in Argentina as well as the motivations of the players are very different. Personal grievances, greed & caprice appear to the drivers in the US so the end goals aren't about fiscal solvency. Milei's situation & solutions while dramatic & untested were more limited in scope & untainted by personal vendetta. Besides, they affected a much smaller state.
There's a small chance that the US comes through this stronger and a much higher likelihood of much worse outcomes; lower state capacity & uneven regulations. And an even more polarised society.
Anyone studying/analysing Public Policy, Governance/Constitutions or International Relations is in for a treat! In an year's time I would love doing GCPP one more time with 2024-25 world events serving as the backdrop for a revised curriculum. Seriously :)
Given the tax cuts that the Republicans hope to enact, it is quite unlikely that any federal budget cuts will be paid for adequately. The current budget resolution passed by the Senate Republicans *increases* the fiscal deficit by $2.8t [1]. I don't see this as responsible governance in any sense, and I don't think Musk is being sincere at all about reducing the fiscal deficit.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/us/politics/senate-republicans-budget.html
The assumption of sincerity on behalf of Musk is incredible to me. Dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency, Dept of Education, wiping out the contributions of PoC and women from NASA walls, removing mention of gay people and the word 'equity' from federal websites, giving federal workers an ultimatum to quit... All this is deregulation FTW?!
I have to imagine you're a little high on your own supply. Maybe touch grass.
I am rather surprised at RSJ's take on DOGE's initiatives. We have a real example of shrinking the role of the state and size of bureaucracy - it is what India achieved post 1991. The process was devoid of chaos. It was carried out by "deep state" experts who had enormous knowledge, skill, and integrity. China did the same in many ways under Deng/ Jiang Zemin. "Move fast and break things" is fine in a startup, but leads to people dying when done at a governmental scale. Gutting the CFPB, tearing up contracts, revoking subsidies post facto, and generally creating chaos are terrible for economic and human outcomes.
On another note, one doesn't need a lot of legislation to capture the state. Having a pliant Attorney General, firing the seniormost lawyers in the military, and capturing the enforcement arms (without which court orders have no teeth) are quite enough to achieve this.
I normally tend to agree with a lot of what is written on this blog. Even in cases where our first principles differ, I often find myself convinced by your arguments and the evidence you present. It’s one of the reasons I keep coming back—your writing helps me update my mental models.
However, when it comes to RSJ’s take on DOGE, I have to differ. My disagreement isn’t just rooted in a theoretical critique of deregulation or market-driven reforms; it’s also informed by the tangible, real-world consequences I’ve seen these policies unleash. While I appreciate the intellectual rigor behind arguments for reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies (a point I’ve come to understand better through works like TSATU and GCPP), I can’t overlook the human and ethical costs of implementing such policies haphazardly.
Let me explain why. My aunt works as a hospital administrator at a research hospital in Boston, and her recent experiences have been a stark reminder of how poorly executed reforms can backfire. In one of our conversations, she described the chaos that followed the abrupt implementation of cost-cutting measures. To quote her directly:
“They’re firing people left and right, including probationary staff in research facilities. One center, which houses nearly 3,000 animals for critical medical research, is now operating with skeleton crews. The facility chief is beside herself—she’s worried about losing years of work and, worse, the lives of these animals if they aren’t properly cared for.”
This isn’t just an isolated case of bureaucratic inefficiency being trimmed; it’s a cascading failure that risks derailing important research and causing unnecessary suffering. And while I understand that bureaucracies can be self-perpetuating and freedom-curtailing (a point I’ve learned to appreciate through GCPP), I also believe that reforms must be implemented with care and foresight. Erratic dismantling, even in the name of efficiency, often leads to more harm than good.
This brings me to a broader point. In his conversation with Amit Varma on The Seen and the Unseen, Prof. Karthik Muralidharan made an observation that has stayed with me. Paraphrasing, he said: “Progress and development will happen regardless of our actions. What we’re trying to do is accelerate that progress—to achieve in 25 years what might otherwise take 100—so that we can reduce the net pain and suffering along the way.” I think this is a crucial insight. While I don’t doubt that some good may come from the actions of figures like Musk or Trump, I fear that any positive outcomes will be incidental rather than intentional. Their approaches often seem driven more by intellectual hubris and unaccountable power than by a genuine commitment to minimizing harm.
This reminds me of a quote from Iain M. Banks: “The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system. It is—without drastic amendments liable to cripple its economic efficacy—intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged, and widespread suffering of conscious beings.” What Musk and others are doing feels even worse: they’re not just relying on the market’s blind mechanisms; they’re actively dismantling systems without regard for the consequences. And while I agree that intentions shouldn’t be mistaken for actions or their effects (a lesson I first encountered in GCPP), I also believe that purported intentions matter. They reveal something about the values driving these decisions. In this case, the stated goal of efficiency seems to be overshadowed by a reckless disregard for the collateral damage.
To conclude, I think there’s a fine line between necessary reform and destructive upheaval. While I’m all for reducing inefficiencies and fostering innovation, I believe we must approach these changes with humility and a commitment to minimizing harm. After all, what separates us from *homo economicus* is our ability to weigh not just the economic outcomes but also the ethical and human costs of our actions. And in this case, I fear that line has been crossed.
#I have utilized AI tools to refine and clarify the points presented here.
Too generous a view of Trump-Musk's hack and slash at the Federal government
It is easier to announce programs for freebies and spend public money than policy-making involving hard work. But, I doubt how long we can run an economy by being a nanny state making people perennially dependent on the Government for their livelihood.
Please suggest an article from " Anticipating the Unintended" explaining the effect of rampant welfarism on the real economy.
Thus far they are not succeeding in reaching their avowed target of USD 3 trillion.