Charlie Muger once said, “It’s not a bad idea you’re in, it’s a good thing.” Sub adopts this quote and means that people can easily get stuck on their own good ideas, even if it doesn’t work. However, we can assume that this means that “good” ideas that have not been implemented can have dangerous consequences for these ideas.
I’m afraid this is where the government’s Ministry of Efficiency (DOGE) is located, at least as it is now implemented. But first, I would like to provide Doge Subdit. They are at least bringing about conversations, or “changes in atmosphere,” among the poor, with an endless, seemingly never-ending increase in government spending. This is at least the beginning of a conversation about how many governments should spend. For example, federal spending is nearly $1 trillion more than pre-pandemic levels, totaling $6.75 trillion in 2024.
Many of the classic liberal traditions share similar values with Doge, and their support is out of control for government spending. However, the process in doing so is important. So far, Doge’s actions have been sporadic and “transparent” but incredibly misleading. There are many examples of Numberus’ gender accounting practices, and there are merely mistakes that make cost savings seem higher than they actually are.
Currently, Cass question the legitimacy of Doge’s actions. For the most part, this deals with the Congress having constitutional authority over the “power of the wallet.” It is not clear whether the president is unable to use the money that retroactively allocated through the spending bill. If this is considered kosher, what would stop a future president from adding to government spending without Congressional approval?
In no way, even Ain Rand, a government ally, argued that the process of cutting government not only reduces its scope, but also reduces its government. She warned that there would be great consequences about the dangers of abolishing control and spending the whole night. She suggests there should be a “sufficient notice to re-align and reorganize” and I agree. This allows the market to better allocate scarce resources under this new environment.
Also, there are simple accounting issues related to dogs. They have made progress by reducing subjects’ spending, but for a long time, this is a drop in the bucket of their promises. Short-lived members of Elon Musk and Doge Vivek Ramaswamy said they could “easily” cut $1-2 trillion from waste, fraud and abuse. As mentioned in the previous article, the majority of government spending is not actually on the board to reduce without dramatic fundamental changes.
My fear of Doge and their sporadic nature is that they make true spending reforms more difficult. Clearly, it is necessary to file for the US government’s financial position, which has seen its debt increase at an astonishing rate in the 21st century. But if Doge isn’t as serious about the process as much as cutting government, there’s no political will to undertake real spending reforms that will maximize the economy. As Doge works within the constitutional framework, there is still time to deal with spending reforms before their reputation is permanently damaged, and it is even less likely to reduce the size and scope of government in our lives and move forward on scale and scope.
Justin Callais is the Chief Economist, co-editor and Archbridge Institute of Profectus Magazine. He has an alternative to economic prosperity that exposes DeBran.
