Elon Musk's CEO-Dictator Playbook

[barbos]

I'm sure the Ukrainians do. /s

Well, lots of them voted to leave Nazi Ukraine and join Russia.

 

[barbos]

Auditors which were auditing for years and finding nothing?

Because real auditors don't look for disloyalty to Rump.

Yeah, they looking for disloyalty to Deep State.

That's what is going on now.
Folks like Musk and Crowe and Murdoch are the Deep State. Folks like Trump and Johnson and MTG are their minions.

They are determined to replace competency with loyalty.
Tom

No, Deep State is Nuland, McConnell, Mark Twain Guy and countless number of less visible/prominent scum like Fiona Hill.
Bolton his name, John Bolton.

 

[unapologetic]

Well, lots of them voted to leave Nazi Ukraine and join Russia.

And lots of us voted for Harris. But look where we're at. It's not a popularity contest.

Deep State is ... Mark Twain Guy ...

Mark Twain Guy?
Do you even know who Mark Twain was? Was.

Why are you still up this late?

 

[barbos]

Do you even know who Mark Twain was? Was.

Of course I know, I read his books in soviet school.

 

[unapologetic]

Of course I know, I read his books in soviet school.

What does he have to do with your fantasy of Deep State?

 

[barbos]

Of course I know, I read his books in soviet school.

What does he have to do with your fantasy of Deep State?

Nothing except John Bolton looks like him.
And it's not a fantasy.

 

[barbos]

Why are you still up this late?

It's 09:25 in the morning.

 

[unapologetic]

Why are you still up this late?

It's 09:25 in the morning.

As I suspected. Harassing us is your job.

 

[barbos]

Why are you still up this late?

It's 09:25 in the morning.

As I suspected. Harassing us is your job.

Not really.

 

[TomC]

Auditors which were auditing for years and finding nothing?

Because real auditors don't look for disloyalty to Rump.

Yeah, they looking for disloyalty to Deep State.

That's what is going on now.
Folks like Musk and Crowe and Murdoch are the Deep State. Folks like Trump and Johnson and MTG are their minions.

They are determined to replace competency with loyalty.
Tom

No, Deep State is Nuland, McConnell, Mark Twain Guy and countless number of less visible/prominent scum like Fiona Hill.
Bolton his name, John Bolton.

Nope.
Those folks all have legitimate federal authority. The ones I referred to have none. But they are all mega rich and tell the people who have authority what to do.
Tom

 

[barbos]

Nope.
Those folks all have legitimate federal authority.

And they should not have.

 

[KCFlyer]

Bolton his name, John Bolton.

Tell Vlad that Trump, who appointed him in his first term in case you forgot, has had his security detail removed so he's an easy mark.....and Trump said he won't feel responsible if something bad befalls him, so Vlad can take him out and not fear any retribution from Trump.

 

[barbos]

Tell Vlad that Trump, who appointed him in his first term in case you forgot

I did not forget that.

 

[TomC]

Nope.
Those folks all have legitimate federal authority.

And they should not have.

Your opinion on that doesn't change the reality.
I don't think Trump should have it either. He's a traitor and an insurrectionist, both are well documented. But, nevertheless he does.
Tom

 

[RVonse]

How are they determining which employees to lay off in such a short amount of time?

What I heard was Interns. Temps, latest hires (less than one year). If you believe that. Then going into the employee files, looking for 'libs'.

It’s not based on quality at all. So we may end up with a smaller workforce but not necessarily (or even likely) a better workforce.

Just the opposite.
Who do you think most likely to leave. Top notch professional people, with experience and credentials, or the rest?
Tom

Exactly. When you engage in massive cuts you have a strong tendency to cut the lean and leave the fat. Short term gain, long term harm. Same as any corporate raider. And note his approach to determining waste--cut until it breaks, then back off. Note the result is you remove any safety margin.

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

For example, what difference does it matter to the US taxpayer if a study of whale hibernation does not get quality research if the whole project is deemed waste spending to begin with.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How are they determining which employees to lay off in such a short amount of time?

What I heard was Interns. Temps, latest hires (less than one year). If you believe that. Then going into the employee files, looking for 'libs'.

It’s not based on quality at all. So we may end up with a smaller workforce but not necessarily (or even likely) a better workforce.

Just the opposite.
Who do you think most likely to leave. Top notch professional people, with experience and credentials, or the rest?
Tom

Exactly. When you engage in massive cuts you have a strong tendency to cut the lean and leave the fat. Short term gain, long term harm. Same as any corporate raider. And note his approach to determining waste--cut until it breaks, then back off. Note the result is you remove any safety margin.

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

For example, what difference does it matter to the US taxpayer if a study of whale hibernation does not get quality research if the whole project is deemed waste spending to begin with.

The issue is more of “who gets to deem it waste”? The congress that approved the funding or the executive that just thinks it sounds wasteful? Does the law have any stance on this, I wonder.

 

[TomC]

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

More bullshit.
It might work, sometimes, for people entirely concerned with their own personal gains. Not for operations that are for the public welfare.

Here's an idea. Privatized Federal highway system. Sell them off to companies that will make them toll roads. Why should taxpayers that don't even own cars subsidize the highways. That's socialism.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

More bullshit.
It might work, sometimes, for people entirely concerned with their own personal gains. Not for operations that are for the public welfare.

Here's an idea. Privatized Federal highway system. Sell them off to companies that will make them toll roads. Why should taxpayers that don't even own cars subsidize the highways. That's socialism.
Tom

Or why not private weather forecasting (which I have read they are actually thinking about). If I don't care about the weather and am willing to find out just by going outside, why do I have to pay with my taxes for others to know. They can just buy their own forecast if they need to know.

Why should I pay for healthcare for military veterans of VOLUNTEER armed forces. Let them get a real job like the rest of us and purchase their own health insurance.

There's no end to this kind of thinking.

 

[Elixir]

How are they determining which employees to lay off in such a short amount of time?

What I heard was Interns. Temps, latest hires (less than one year). If you believe that. Then going into the employee files, looking for 'libs'.

It’s not based on quality at all. So we may end up with a smaller workforce but not necessarily (or even likely) a better workforce.

Just the opposite.
Who do you think most likely to leave. Top notch professional people, with experience and credentials, or the rest?
Tom

Exactly. When you engage in massive cuts you have a strong tendency to cut the lean and leave the fat. Short term gain, long term harm. Same as any corporate raider. And note his approach to determining waste--cut until it breaks, then back off. Note the result is you remove any safety margin.

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

For example, what difference does it matter to the US taxpayer if a study of whale hibernation does not get quality research if the whole project is deemed waste spending to begin with.

The issue is more of “who gets to deem it waste”? The congress that approved the funding or the executive that just thinks it sounds wasteful? Does the law have any stance on this, I wonder.

Even if it was clear how to seek remedies, it wouldn’t matter. Nothing that has been done by these thugs has made anything better for anyone. Yet MAGAts approve.

The intent is clear, and has nothing to do with improving anything, it’s straight up rape and pillage. How did Uncle Vlad make HIS hundreds of billions?

 

[Elixir]

But as you said this has proven to work well for corporate raiders who are only interested in net utility versus expense. At this point, pretty much exactly the same thing the US taxpayer should want as well. If the process did not truly generate value they would not continue to do this.

More bullshit.
It might work, sometimes, for people entirely concerned with their own personal gains. Not for operations that are for the public welfare.

Here's an idea. Privatized Federal highway system. Sell them off to companies that will make them toll roads. Why should taxpayers that don't even own cars subsidize the highways. That's socialism.
Tom

Or why not private weather forecasting (which I have read they are actually thinking about). If I don't care about the weather and am willing to find out just by going outside, why do I have to pay with my taxes for others to know. They can just buy their own forecast if they need to know.

Why should I pay for healthcare for military veterans of VOLUNTEER armed forces. Let them get a real job like the rest of us and purchase their own health insurance.

There's no end to this kind of thinking.

The NOAA building South of Boulder will make a nice summer home for one of the boys.