Musk's American Party: A threat or a promise?

[essentialsaltes]

There’s a Wikipedia entry now.

Musk ... confirmed that the party's platform is to reduce debt,

Yes!

modernize the military with artificial intelligence,

What, heck no.

cut regulations,

Nope. Not the way billionaires want to cut regulations.

and encourage more births.

No thanks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, if the Republicans split in two, then the democratic party has to as well, in an equality based society, or it's not fair.

That's not how this works.

 

[Desk trauma]

That's not how this works.

Never underestimate the dems ability to botch anything.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Equality is the spirit of of the Democratic party! How could the democrats claim to be consistent if they don't agree to a platform based on the very nature of what they profess?

Or is the foundation of the movement shifting towards something different from "equality"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

modernize the military with artificial intelligence,

What, heck no.

That's going to happen at some point regardless of whether or not a 3rd party politician wins, or a traditional establishment candidate.

AI is going to permeate just about every sector (both public and private) over the next decade or two.

cut regulations,

Nope. Not the way billionaires want to cut regulations.

Well, if Andrew Yang ends up being the front man for this new party, I would assume the regulatory structure wouldn't be a "billionaire first" model (unless Yang completely abandons all principles he's had for the last 15 years)

As of the most recent write-ups I can find, it would seem that Musk and Yang are still in alignment on the concept of a "UBI funded by an Automation Tax" model.

and encourage more births.

No thanks.

This one is a "pick your poison" situation.

Safety net solvency (will require making more people)
vs.
Reduce human impact on climate (requires making fewer people)

If people want the former, we're going to need more people to work and pay taxes so we don't run into the situation some of the Asian countries are running into. Japan is going to have some very tough decisions to make by 2040 due to their dependency ratio increasing so much as a result of their 65+ population increasing from 28% to 40% over the past 20 years, meanwhile, their 16-50 portion of population percentage is estimated to drop by 30% by 2060 unless they start making some more babies pronto...their only other option will be to raise the retirement age from 65 to 75 as a stop gap until they figure something else out. (like the Nordic countries have started doing)

If people want the latter, they're going to have to make some concessions on the former and find ways to reign in government spending, and be willing to accept some deep cuts that are going to sting.

 

[Bradskii]

Musk ... confirmed that the party's platform is to reduce debt,

Yes!

modernize the military with artificial intelligence,

What, heck no.

cut regulations,

Nope. Not the way billionaires want to cut regulations.

and encourage more births.

No thanks.

If his party takes votes away from Trump, as it will, then...Yes!
Everything else? Whatever....

 

[JSRG]

This feels like it would most likely end up just splitting the conservative vote and giving the election to Democrats. Though I suppose it's possible Musk is so spiteful he doesn't care if that happens.

If Musk was angered by Republicans voting for the bill he didn't like, it seems to me a more productive use of his resources would be to back challengers in primaries against people who were particularly instrumental with the bill he didn't like. I would actually say money makes a bigger difference in the primary than the general election.

Alternatively, if his problem is the two-party system, starting his own party is unlikely to do much unless it can legitimately take votes equally from the two major parties, and I don't think Musk will make such a party. What would be more beneficial to him would be to try to strongly back electoral reform like ranked choice voting or proportional representation or approval voting, either by backing groups in favor of those or strongly supporting with money candidates who are in favor of such things.

Him trying to make his own party, which is unlikely to solve the problems he sees, indicates to me that he's either just that spiteful with Trump and the Republicans, or he's really just doing this as a publicity stunt, in which case who knows if this party ends up even running anyone for election.

 

[RileyG]

Trump and Musk’s feud blows up again with threats of Doge and deportation

Reignited quarrel centers around Musk’s opposition to the president’s signature tax bill as it moves through Congress

www.theguardian.com

'Musk, a top Republican megadonor, intensified his campaign in recent days with threats that he would form his own “America Party” and target lawmakers in upcoming elections who voted for the bill in 2026 primary elections.'

Is it a real threat? If it comes to pass, what will the effect be on the GOP?

I don't trust him.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't trust him.

What happened?

You guys trusted him with DOGE just a few weeks ago, didn't you? What changed?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This one is a "pick your poison" situation.

Safety net solvency (will require making more people)
vs.
Reduce human impact on climate (requires making fewer people)

Or we could do what we have been doing for decades: Importing young adults from other countries.

 

[Pommer]

I don't trust him.

Neither do I. (Oh, wait, you probably meant Musk!, don’t trust him neither.)

 

[durangodawood]

....Japan is going to have some very tough decisions to make by 2040 due to their dependency ratio increasing so much as a result of their 65+ population increasing from 28% to 40% over the past 20 years, meanwhile, their 16-50 portion of population percentage is estimated to drop by 30% by 2060 unless they start making some more babies pronto...their only other option will be to raise the retirement age from 65 to 75 as a stop gap until they figure something else out. (like the Nordic countries have started doing)

If people want the latter, they're going to have to make some concessions on the former and find ways to reign in government spending, and be willing to accept some deep cuts that are going to sting.

Japan countryside and small towns were already a little spooky quiet back in 2019 when I bike toured all around Kyushu. All the farmers looked like they were 60+ years old.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or we could do what we have been doing for decades: Importing young adults from other countries.

But there's a cap on that as well...

And the source of where the workers are from isn't really relevant to the "safety net/climate" tradeoff I mentioned.


If our social programs are based on the formula of
"We need 4 people working for every 1 retiree" (I don't know if that's the actual number, that's just an example)

...then the impacts on climate will still ultimately be the same.

If we have 20 retirees, and 40 people needed to work and pay taxes to support that.

In a few decades, we'll need 160 people to support those 40 people.


Globally, requiring more people still has the same climate impact.


The only ways to address it are
1) Increase the retirement age (which the nordic countries have already started doing, and like Japan is already considering)
2) Hope that there's major developments and uptakes in new technologies that allow for massive footprint reductions per person in the next few decades.

 

[durangodawood]

....Globally, requiring more people still has the same climate impact.

The only ways to address it are
1) Increase the retirement age (which the nordic countries have already started doing, and like Japan is already considering)
2) Hope that there's major developments and uptakes in new technologies that allow for massive footprint reductions per person in the next few decades.

3) footprint reductions by implementing techniques that are already viable. Some are even age-old.

 

[Jerry N.]

I think the biggest problem is government waste and mismanagement. How can it be that I gave a sizable chunk of my income into government retirement plans for nearly 50 years, and they don’t have enough money to give me a pension for 20 years?

 

[Nithavela]

I think the biggest problem is government waste and mismanagement. How can it be that I gave a sizable chunk of my income into government retirement plans for nearly 50 years, and they don’t have enough money to give me a pension for 20 years?

Your money wasn't put into a savings account, it was given to the pensioneers of your working time. The system only works when there is a sizeable amount of working people supporting those who don't work. It works well when the demographic pyramid is shaped like an actual pyramid, but things have turned pear shaped.

 

[durangodawood]

I think the biggest problem is government waste and mismanagement. How can it be that I gave a sizable chunk of my income into government retirement plans for nearly 50 years, and they don’t have enough money to give me a pension for 20 years?

As bad as the waste and mismanagement may be, the demographic problem is completely real and easily quantifiable as huge.

 

[Jerry N.]

Your money wasn't put into a savings account, it was given to the pensioneers of your working time. The system only works when there is a sizeable amount of working people supporting those who don't work. It works well when the demographic pyramid is shaped like an actual pyramid, but things have turned pear shaped.

I understand, but it seems more like they started in debt for about 20 years of retirement.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

3) footprint reductions by implementing techniques that are already viable. Some are even age-old.

Some are available...

However, just like with anything else, there are countervailing economic interests as well.

For instance, we're all aware of the fossil fuel one, but phasing that one out globally would be tough.

It's going to be a very hard to get developing countries to give up fossil fuels, on account of many of them just getting their hands on that technology recently.

"Hey, we realize that the rest of us have built massive wealthy societies of this technology, and you just got access to it 20 years ago...gee whiz, bad timing, we decided it's bad now (after we've already leveraged it for a century) so you're going to have to scrap it" is going to be a very tough sell for obvious reasons.

As would the factory farming of animals.

Point of reference, global livestock consumption would have to be reduced by 70% globally for it to cut emissions by 20%.

The trade-off on that? The livestock sector (globally) employs over a billion people.



For the techniques that are already available, I feel like if those were palatable to large swaths of the population, they'd already be doing those things, that's why I mentioned newer technologies.

An example of what I'm talking about.

They've tried the imitation meat route, the uptake hasn't been substantial enough -- while some of them are technically edible (and some people pretend it tastes the same -- it doesn't), they need to ramp up their efforts on the lab grown meat technology. (which is still real meat and will taste identical, but without the ecologically destructive process for procuring it)

 

[Nithavela]

I understand, but it seems more like they started in debt for about 20 years of retirement.

Yes, it sucks that your government has never adressed this issue.

German government is pretty much the same. They are just making politics for the old because that's their greatest voter block, and young people are left to foot the bill.

If it helps, just imagine that you're better of than those who are currently entering the workforce. Assuming humanity doesn't go belly up until then, they'll probably not retire until their mid seventies, and if they don't manage to set some money aside themselves, they'll have to continue to work until they die anyway.