Real estate or Bitcoin?

Started by KeithBurkhardt
19 days ago
Posts: 2810
Member since: Aug 2008
Discussion about
I'm curious who out there is thinking like Michael saylor and who out there is thinking like Adam Schiff? I read a blog comparing Bitcoin to real estate, making an argument that you should leverage Bitcoin the way you leverage buying a house with a 30-year mortgage!? As much as I've tried to educate myself, I still just don't understand Bitcoin and the people that believe it will be the foundation of our banking system in 20 years.
Bitcoin is basically a pure momentum play. That is - rather than investing in stocks of actual companies (with real business, employees, and cashflows) which have recently been trending up..
It's like buying "trending" as an isolated concept, abstracted from any real cashflows.
Saylors trick works well enough on the way down. MSTR will have a very sharp draw whenever Bitcoin starts to steadily go down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Familiar with 'Tulip mania'. But here we are at $100k, 16 years later.
The tulip bubble burst when it ran out of people to put new money in to keep inflating it. Real estate bubble burst similarly. In a global world, with a global digital "asset" it takes longer to run out of people. But in the end, its not really a productive asset, its just hype/momentum.
Real estate has positive "fundamental value".
Bitcoin has zero to negative "fundamental value". Seems to have entertainment value for those who love gambling.
You cannot live in bitcoin or rent it. I would choose real estate.
Couldn't you say the same thing about gold? Although it has some minimal utilitarian use or even paper dollars? Personally, I agree with what you're saying, but what causes me to pause a bit are the number of very intelligent people backing digital currency, especially Bitcoin. Although it does seem a bit fanatical, almost cultish. However, it is a bit head scratching that this digital asset has gone from zero to $100,000 and you're basically saying it's all smoke and mirrors.
They are part pumping and dumping, and part have strong libertarian, anti-regulation political views. They complain that our financial system is too inefficient /slow (which is on purpose to accomplish certain law enforcement and anti money laundering goals, but libertarians really don't care about those things, or think they should be done in other ways, or have some money they need to launder...).
Yes, it is smoke and mirrors, very very successful. Louis Vuitton is also very successful at selling margin in a handbag (even I bought it, and more than one!). Some people argue it is actually an "investment" since prices of luxury bags indeed have been going up faster than the stock market. If you are very very good at marketing you can have hype going for a long time.
There is some scarcity with gold, it is not substitutable with silver or other metals. Unlike gold, there is infinite supply of other "digital coins".
>>>the number of very intelligent people backing digital currency, especially Bitcoin.
And lvs are still very well made. My wife has one of the bottomless totes, that's 20 years old and still looks great!
So the last Bitcoin should be mined in 2140, although it seems like there are some guardrails in place that prevent every Bitcoin from being mined. At this point I think miners will only make money on transaction fees, and this will keep the block chain going. I would think Bitcoin would become more attractive to investors as it becomes more scarce? But the question you bring up krolic, seems to be the big debate. Is this truly all smoke and mirrors or is this a new form of currency that will continue to attract investors into the foreseeable future. And not just conspiracy theorist libertarian pirates.
When I read about it, it seems like quite an elegant equation, but then again, what do I know? I think NADA has expressed some skepticism here about Bitcoin in the past. Curious about your thoughts on it now?
>>>Is this truly all smoke and mirrors or is this a new form of currency that will continue to attract investors into the foreseeable future.
Yes.
It is smoke and mirrors that will likely keep going for a while and continue to attract "investors" (technically they are "speculators") into the foreseeable future.
>>>So the last Bitcoin should be mined in 2140,
Even so, its not scarce because I could start KroliKoin tomorrow using the same (or better!) blockchain technology. The main difference between Bitcoin and KroliKoin is the HYPE.
Suppose I agreed with you that it was scarce. So what? something scarce is only valuable if it is useful. There is some junk in my mom's garage that is very rare and scarce, but not valuable.
Unlike gold, from which you could make industrial products or jewelry, or an LV handbag in which you can carry stuff, bitcoin has no utility. What is the utility of bitcoin?
Some people will argue that bitcoin could be a "store of value", but so are many other things including all the currencies, LV Handbags and even real estate. There is not much scarcity in things that could store value, plus even as a store of value it is not very good: not sufficiently popular, slow transactions, too volatile, and transaction fees are high. My nanny does not accept it, and neither does the coffee shop in my neighborhood, or Uncle Sam.
Here is what finance theory would tell you about bitcoin, explained very simply by a NYU professor:
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/blog/BitcoinAsset.pdf
Just an FYI: Bitcoin was at $6,100 when he wrote this ; )
Very successful hype. :-)
There is no "intrinsic value" to bitcoin according to most of the existing finance theories.
However, momentum strategies, meme stocks and pump and dump schemes have worked great for many speculators in the last couple of decades and regulators have not caught up yet.
Since we went off the gold standard, is there really any intrinsic value to US Dollar or any currency?
A gold bug friend says the difference is the US military. Upon that rests real power, not just cultural sway.
The best legitimate use of bitcoin I’ve heard about is for residents of countries with non-stable currencies and capital controls. E.g., if you put money in a bank, you know inflation will drive its value to zero. So why not bitcoin instead?
Of course, a traditionally-minded person would say “Well, buy Tether or something else that is crypto-dollars”. But people of a certain mindset question the stability of the dollar…. more than the stability of bitcoin.
So given all that, is there utility in bitcoin for some people? Yes, I suppose. What should that utility be valued at? Hard to say. Is that what most people buying bitcoin are thinking about? Doubtful.
>>>Since we went off the gold standard, is there really any intrinsic value to US Dollar or any currency?
Agree, there isn't. A currency is not an investment, it is a medium of exchange/store of value.
The like to like comparison is "should I hold US Dollars, or some unstable currency Nada mentioned, or Bitcoin?"
And then it is your trust in US govt/military vs macro vs libertarian/globalization views, etc. Each currency is a better or worse store of value based on these factors.
And then there is hype.
But that hype has driven it from 0 to $100,000 coin. And there seems to be quite a few intelligent people that believe in this digital currency, including some major Banks.
There was a time when currencies weren't backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. That led to bang and bust cycles and it was really buyer beware. Maybe that's where we're headed - at least for those who are happy to go in. My rule of thumb is: would I be happy being paid in that currency/store of wealth? If my employer suddenly told me I was going to be paid in Bitcoin, I'd probably quit.
MTH,
Do you really believe Bitcoin is so unstable that between the time your employer paid you and you were the value would go to zero or significantly crash? Because if that's not the case I don't think that your argument holds water
@30 not completely the right question. If you are "paid in a currency" that probably means the salary is set in that currency. And bitcoin can crash significantly in a matter of days or months making it not viable for such contracts.
If you peg your earnings to the dollar, and just use bitcoin to process the transaction once a month, based on exchange ratio on that day, and assume employees convert bitcoin to dollars on the same day, then sure, you are only introducing a short duration risk that might be acceptable, plus some transaction fees, however is it fair to say you are really being "paid in bitcoin"? or is it just a weird and expensive payment method for your dollar salary?
Even if it were to dip 5% in the time it took me to convert, I'd feel jipped.
https://www.capitalisnt.com/episodes/why-this-nobel-economist-thinks-bitcoin-is-going-to-zero-with-eugene-fama
>>>But that hype has driven it from 0 to $100,000 coin.
I have not seen too much explanation for hype in finance/economics, but it appears sometimes it does work quite well, giving rise to momentum strategies and bizarre outcomes like meme stocks.
Hype also made a lot of money for LVMH and few other brands.
>>>And there seems to be quite a few intelligent people that believe in this digital currency, including some major Banks.
What people say could be part of pump and dump schemes
Banks don't "believe" in crypto, they are responding to hype/demand and are adding capabilities because some of their wealth clients have bought crypto or want to buy crypto, and banks don't want these clients going off platform
There are also some interesting uses for blockchain technology that banks are looking at. But those are not the same thing as bitcoin
Thanks for sharing the link, Keith. I had high hopes for the commentary given who was providing it, but I was a bit disappointed. I didn’t find it too coherent. Not saying the positions aren’t well-thought out or not, just not communicated coherently. As compare to Krolik here, who has been very coherent in expressing her take on it.
Kind of off topic, but I'm wondering how people feel about the staggering amount of electricity consumed by Bitcoin and AI?
Nada, Good interview. In general, persistence of momentum has made a big dent to Efficient Markets Hypothesis already.
On Bitocoin, it seems that basic utility of Bitcoin is ease of transaction and avoiding banking / govt controls offset by volatility. And I like the example of Bear Babies. Other Cryptos I assume provide the same utility as Bitcoin. I would be very rich if I had any clue about when the market will change their mind about Bitcoin in favor of other cryptos or whether they will all go down.
I think there are a lot of people that really believe in this new digital currency. I have a client that's a mathematics professor, was also the co-creator of one of the larger digital currencies. Definitely not a pump and dump guy, more like a mega mathematics nerd who loves talking about all things crypto, he's in his early thirties.
I was also introduced to a young man in a hoodie a friend of my ex-wife, who's been involved in crypto for many years. He's sort of been this crypto advisor to some pretty big shots in various aspects of Hollywood and Broadway, he's made a lot of people extremely wealthy. Unfortunately, I've been sticking to a more traditional path in investing, and didn't take any of his advice. But I'm okay with that, because I know things could have very easily went the other way.
Although I don't believe that most people are in this and are promoting a massive pump and dump scheme, I don't have any evidence of that. However, even with the very little bit that I know about Bitcoin, I've been skeptical from $1,000 up to its current $100,000 coin price. And I've taken the advice from friends in more traditional investment positions not to invest, like krolic, they also call it basically a scam.
It will be interesting to see if smart contracts make it into the real estate industry. I've owned real estate in third world countries, where it can be a little bit dicey. I think being able to record those transactions in the blockchain and essentially hold your ownership there would be a big improvement over what a lot of these countries currently have.
Yes 30, The power usage is off the charts!
>> I'm wondering how people feel about the staggering amount of electricity consumed by Bitcoin and AI
Applying judgement to economic activity can be hairy. Would it be fair of me to judge Krolik’s former predilection for her self-professed LVHM hype when she could similar judge some economic activity that I prefer? Electricity is not bad in and of itself. In ~100 years, I imagine humanity to have burned through all the carbon reasonably available, after which renewable is the only option. But in the meantime, I think there is a judgement that can be made w.r.t. carbon.
So the economic question becomes the amount of GDP produced per unit of carbon released. I think AI will win on that basis over Bitcoin easily. Partly because the Bitcoin blockchain is very energy-inefficient compared to (say) the Ethereum blockchain. But more importantly, what is the productivity or hedonic gain to be had by economies from crypto? It’s been 15 years, if there was something, wouldn’t it have showed up already?
AI, on the other hand, has been improving productivity in pretty obvious ways. And I’m guessing it’s had and will have all sorts of hedonic benefits. And I am guessing the energy efficiency will improve drastically over time, as DeepSeek demonstrated, with smarter algorithms. Crypto, OTOH, relies on cryptographically difficult problems (read: energy-intensive) computed at mass scale (decentralization feature). You cannot get rid of the latter easily, and if you get past the former the whole thing would collapse. I’m sure I’m missing something, and that someone will figure out an even more efficient crypto eventually, but… for what productivity gain / hedonic purpose? If people could enamel their teeth with Bitcoin rather than gold, that’d be something… but unfortunately, that cannot be a thing.
Keith, you seem to have perfectly fine contacts in the crypto world who should be able to explain it to you. It kinda sounds like they tried explaining it, but it just didn’t make sense to you. And the fact that it went up now leaves you in a position where you are perplexed, that you are simply too dull to understand their explanation?
>> I've owned real estate in third world countries, where it can be a little bit dicey. I think being able to record those transactions in the blockchain and essentially hold your ownership there would be a big improvement over what a lot of these countries currently have.
Uh… I don’t think that’s how real estate property rights work. You can flash your encryption key all you want, but when it comes down to it, it’s a question of who can flash the guns… which best involves a stable govt.
I am half joking. I understand you meant it as a way that is better than, say, local office accidentally removing your name and slipping their cousin’s name instead, out of oversight from a central authority.
>>>It will be interesting to see if smart contracts make it into the real estate industry.
They should, and I agree it would be a particularly useful technology in the scenario you describe which would be a high utility use case for blockchain (which is NOT the same thing as a digital currency)
>>>I have a client that's a mathematics professor, was also the co-creator of one of the larger digital currencies. Definitely not a pump and dump guy, more like a mega mathematics nerd who loves talking about all things crypto, he's in his early thirties.
When he is talking about digital currencies, what specifically does he say? Does he say bitcoin should be worth a dollar? 100k dollars? and what would he base that value on? Because a lot of nerdy experts "talk about it" but in my experience they never appear to say anything concrete. Note: technical details don't count, because like with most things, technical questions about how it works and questions about usefulness/worth are totally separate.
>>>I was also introduced to a young man in a hoodie a friend of my ex-wife, who's been involved in crypto for many years. He's sort of been this crypto advisor to some pretty big shots in various aspects of Hollywood and Broadway, he's made a lot of people extremely wealthy.
So one thing to know about hype, it appears to be persistent and transferable. So if you are a president-elect with tens of thousands of fans, you can launch a crypto currency and it will be worth billions overnight. If you are a Hollywood celebrity, you also can do a variation on that, and it's like a pureplay monetization of hype. Before you had to launch a perfume or a cosmetic line or a clothing line or an alcohol brand and for each unit of product you would be able to charge a bit above product fair value for hype. With crypto, you could now skip the product and sell hype directly.
I am not sure if any economic or behavioral theorist has studied hype and could explain and predict its persistence, but someone should apply math to psychology and history, like a real life Hari Seldon. And then maybe we will have some framework to explain momentum and how long crypto hype might last.
>>> Before you had to launch a perfume or a cosmetic line or a clothing line or an alcohol brand and for each unit of product you would be able to charge a bit above product fair value for hype.
"Jeremy Renner's Hot Sauce"
It's interesting that Isaac named his fictional character Hari, In Sanskrit it has a number of meanings, but one here that would be appropriate might be the remover of darkness and illusion.
And just to be clear, my young acquaintance with the hoodie was just another young math prodigy with a real belief in BTC. He's not part of Hollywood etc, just sort of fell in with some people in the business. As a true believer, he simply convinced people, or more like directed people to buy into this digital currency rather early.
I think Bitcoin longs read Krolik's opinion and it is down 7% at 8.42pm Sunday night.
And down 10% now.
Let's hear from Gemini:
A good argument that Bitcoin is a real currency is that it fulfills many of the traditional functions of money:
* Medium of exchange: Bitcoin can be used to purchase goods and services from a growing number of businesses around the world.
* Store of value: Bitcoin's value has generally increased over time, making it a potential store of value. However, it is important to note that Bitcoin's price is volatile and can fluctuate significantly.
* Unit of account: While not yet widely used as a standard unit of account, Bitcoin can be used to denominate prices and debts in some contexts.
Additionally, Bitcoin has several characteristics that make it attractive as a currency:
* Decentralized: Bitcoin is not controlled by any central authority, such as a government or central bank. This makes it resistant to censorship and manipulation.
* Limited supply: The total number of Bitcoins that will ever be created is limited to 21 million. This scarcity can help to protect its value over time.
* Secure: Bitcoin transactions are secured by cryptography, making them difficult to counterfeit or tamper with.
* Portable: Bitcoin can be easily transferred between individuals anywhere in the world with an internet connection.
However, it is important to note that Bitcoin is not without its challenges. Its price volatility and limited acceptance are two of the main obstacles to its widespread adoption as a currency. Nevertheless, Bitcoin has the potential to play a significant role in the future of finance.
Wealth is becoming an abstraction with the decline of cash.
The fact that it is decentralized is a selling point or a nightmare depending on how you think of government. Right now we're divided into nation states that provide a modicum of rule and order. Governments are also capable of bad things - censorship, political and social repression, genocide, etc. Sometimes there's an out - regime change due to internal (Syria) or external (Iraq) pressure. On the other hand, Bitcoin is used by people involved in drugs and arms trade and human trafficking. I'll risk lawless governments that can be reformed or overthrown over uncontrollable lawlessness.
But let's keep in mind that the majority of various illegal activities still are using dollars.
What percentage of all dollar transactions are illicit? What percentage of bitcoin transactions are illicit?
Also, I heard the US govt would be able to control Bitcoin if needed, they just don't need to right now.
I've read that less than 1% of BTC transactions are illicit. Of course it's difficult get an exact number for obvious reasons.
I don't think anyone really knows the percentage of either cash or Bitcoin transactions which are illicit
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/business/sec-crypto-task-force.html
This has to be a totally random coincidence
https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/
Yes lol. And don't forget the Melania coin. I suppose we'll get a Barron and Ivanka coin as well.
https://www.drorpoleg.com/in-praise-of-ponzis/
I've never bought any Bitcoin, but I did find it very interesting when I first started to read about it. The problem when it was extremely cheap, like a couple of bucks or less, you couldn't buy it. You had to mine it and that was beyond my scope. All these other meme coins to come out seem to just be like people playing the lottery, they're addicted to gambling. Maybe they're bored and they find it interesting? I still think there's the possibility that Bitcoin can become an even more established store of cash, as nada pointed out, especially in places where currency is literally not worth the paper it's printed on and governments can can devalue it at any time.
That said, I personally know people that have made many millions of dollars as true believers in Bitcoin. Yeah I've got a little fomo.
>> I still think there's the possibility that Bitcoin can become an even more established store of cash, as nada pointed out, especially in places where currency is literally not worth the paper it's printed on and governments can can devalue it at any time.
Therein lies the rub. Suppose BTC actually becomes an established store of value, which entails its value becoming stable. Stable in the sense that it can buy a relatively fixed amount of (say) wheat across 1- or 10- or 100-year spans of time. That’s the sort of history gold or USD (including interest) has had. E.g., gold bounces around some year to year, but not egregiously, and perhaps has averaged 2% real returns across 100 years.
If BTC became something like that, how interested would you be in understanding it, finding out more about it, holding it, and having FOMO about it?
Stores of value are certainly a thing, and I guess we could compare BTC to them.
Gold
- been a store of ever since civilization began (10,000 years)
- not a currency (no one buying bags of wheat with it), never been truly so, because of frictions (“Lemme smelt 0.00002 grams off my nugget for that can of beans, sir!”)
- supply truly limited (humans banging rock for 10,000 years only to find a trickle more each year)
- impossible to replicate (only so many elemental metals, and only one Earth with fixed quantities of each)
- $20T total value, as measured by current price times all the gold in the world that’s ever been mined
USD+interest
- been a store of value for ~200 years
- most important and dominant currency in the world (used for 25% of global intra-country exchange and nearly 100% of international exchange); note how we quote the value of everything in USD with a $ symbol
- supply artificially restricted, with spigots being controlled by both holders of USD (voters don’t like inflation) and 25% of the economy of the world (open spigots => economy collapses)
- easy to replicate in theory (I am printing Nadollors for purchase as we speak!), but in practice no one cares (sadly, I have yet to find anyone willing to pay me USD for Nadollars)
- $20T total value, as measured by M2
BTC
- been around for 15 years, has never been a store of value in its nascent history
- not a currency, will never be in any meaningful manner (like gold, the frictions are too high)
- supply artificially restricted, by holders of BTC (who ultimately have collective control over whether there can be more than 20M BTC via protocol change)
- trivial to replicate, with a pretty robust pipeline of people currently willing to pay USD for all manners of replicas
- $2T total value at today’s prices, but that could be anywhere in 10 years because it’s not actually a store of value yet
So here’s the thing. The two best stores of value known to mankind are worth $20T each. It’s hard to scale much further than that because you start exceeding the value of the world economy, all productive assets in the world (every company, every house, every piece of land), once you start talking about $200T.
If and when BTC fulfills its potential as a true store of value, there will be no speculative demand for it (no buying it to get rich, just to store value). If and when that happens, where will it land? The super-store at $200T that exceeds the total value of all other assets in the world, a basket which includes the two best stores of value mankind has ever come up with? I’d be skeptical. At $20T, as a third leg of a gold/USD/BTC hegemony for stores of value. I can imagine it. At $2T, as a second-tier store of value reflecting its inferiority as a store of value compared to gold/USD as noted above for serving as a global store, but still fulfilling a niche. I can imagine that too. At $200B after a collapse in speculative fever, but with true believers hanging on. Sure, I can see that too. Towards $0, as the true believers fizzle away over 10- and 100-year timespans, making BTC a curious relic of history to be marveled for generations to come, like Tulipmania? Sure, I can see that too.
Thanks for all that nada! And I guess I was being a little cheeky with the fomo, at these levels I have zero interest in BTC. Just fantasizing about having bought a hundred coins back in the day ; )
Meanwhile, I am pretty sure my former bestie who has used her considerable talents to capitalize on crypto without regard to any principle other than her own desire to get even richer just upgraded her private jet. She and her cronies are now fully in charge and are all dancing at the demise of the CFPB and the gutting of the SEC. They are making sure nobody will get between them and their prey ever again. To their credit, they have been honest about their belief that they have every right to take money and liberty from anyone who is not paying sufficient attention to stop them.
>> Just fantasizing about having bought a hundred coins back in the day ; )
Well, I’m still hanging onto my only remaining Semper Augustus bulb waiting for a comeback.
“You know what, I think I’ll update my private jet next year…”
*yawn*
Studying the issue in further detail:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081015/can-i-afford-private-jet.asp#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,%2C%20hangar%20rental%2C%20and%20insurance.
>> The least expensive, new private jet for sale is the Cirrus Vision Jet, with a sticker price of $2 million. However, used private jets can sell for as low as $250,000.
Maybe I should get one too? Start with a $250K one and then upgrade to a $500K one. “You know what, my private jet was getting soooo long in the tooth, so you know, I just had to get a new one.”
… “and please let MCR know next time you talk to her.”
Ha! I have not studied the issue, but my limited understanding that the money is not in the purchase, but rather in the regular fuel and maintenance (not unlike buying expensive real estate). I do wonder what the upkeep on her $45 million estate in Atherton is. She is a complicated individual, and while I am sad that our fundamental values have taken us in different directions, I am happy for her that she now has what she has always wanted.
Private jets can also be a terrific tax right off, and like many people who own mega yachts a lot of times they're leased out when not in use by their owners.
@Keith - one of the many reasons I have zero sympathy for tax rate whinging by those above me.
By the time people are raking in 8 figures, it's thru pass thru entities, LLCs, dividends, carry, and convoluted options structures. None of these guys are taking their income in ways subject to standard 37% max bracket. They also control their business & life enough to enjoy the greatest cities in the world without being in any one long enough to declare tax residency.
Cherry on top is structuring meals, travel, etc as business expenses to reduce their tax liability plus all the absurd things that can be written off, like private jets and dubious charitable structures.
I bet a significant % of CEOs demanding RTO and end of WFH take a home office write off too.
I recall the recently leaked 5 years of CEO of Citadels taxes showing a high-for-his-class tax rate paid of 29% on $1.7B of income... which is still clearly well short of the 37% bracket one might naively assume he'd have been primarily subject to. Meanwhile a lowly guy living in BK ;-) working in the industry several rungs below him basically pays the same effective rate.
Reagan's 1040 that fit on the back of a postcard +1.
@MTH lol yeah, the orange man said similar before he started promising tax relief or punishment on every random category of income he thought would excite his base.
No tax on tips.. or overtime.. or overseas tax.. or social security! Uncap SALT deduction! Make auto loan interest deductible but get rid of EV tax credits! Cut the estate tax but close the carried interest loophole! Possible these may add a few more pages to the 1040.
It's almost like he just says whatever the people currently in the room want to hear, but I'm sure it couldn't be that.
Don’t blame the rich for taking advantage of legal loopholes in the tax code to pay less tax. As long as they are not breaking the law, I have no problems with this. IRS tax code is overly complicated and the IRS and accounting profession likes it that way. Simplify it and while you’re at, have Elon and DOGE drastically reduce the size of this bloated institution. Of course the very wealthy will hire clever accountants to take advantage of every loophole that exists. Wouldn’t you? Be honest!
@911 - note my complaint as stated in the first line is the WHINGING by those taking advantage of the legal loopholes to pay lower than a regular high-income W2 earner.
I don't think Elon & DOGE are going to do much to the deficit, this is more a mix of showmanship & loyalty test of the government bureaucracy. Mostly so they can get enough GOP on board to allow various unfunded tax cuts.
Of course it's inefficient, every large organization is. The budget is in trillions so it will be quite achievable to find billions in waste/savings, etc.
Governments that print their own currency generally lean more towards being loose with spending than tight. It is not as simple as "run it like a private business" when part of your business is ensuring some level of safety net for the bottom X%. How strict we are with various benefits programs is a tradeoff between say how many more housing/food insecure children we are happy to deny in service of ensuring not a single person takes advantage of the program.
This is drastically different than say selling $75k cars to high income white collar workers. There you can assume some basic level of financial literacy, IQ, ability to fill out paperwork, etc. The number of free cars you are willing to give out in order to reach a larger market is probably 0.
Of course there is waste, but it's not the double digit percents, near trillions of dollars they talked about on the campaign trail. Particularly if you are not going to touch the hot stove of defense spending or various entitlement programs with broad support/enrollment, which makes up the bulk of our federal work force & spending.
And before someone cites "defense cuts", it's more logically seen as an elite rotation. The Thiel VC industrial complex is substituting their companies (Palantir, Anduril, Starlink, SpaceX, Tesla?) where they can replace the existing defense industrial complex (Boeing, UTX, RTX, etc).
Note Bezos' BlueOrigin is doing some cuts now as they didn't end up in the winners bucket.
Interestingly the State Department found a need for $400M of armored CyberTrucks recently!
One should at least be curious why we have an unelected official who did not have to go through the congressional appointee process because its a made up agency controlling budgets of agencies doing businesses with multiple of his private enterprises?
There's always been a revolving door, but I don't recall Boeing CEOs simultaneously sitting in any prior administrations advising on defense spending?
re: Cybertrucks, this is being walked back now as an existing bidding process and not happening..
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/13/ask-politifact-is-the-state-department-about-to-pa/
+1 on everything @Steve123 said!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/palmer-luckey-says-his-entire-career-has-led-to-this-moment-scoring-a-22-billion-us-army-contract-for-high-tech-goggles/ar-AA1yRHwe
"Don't ’t blame the rich for taking advantage of legal loopholes in the tax code to pay less tax. As long as they are not breaking the law, I have no problems with this"
When the rich use their influence to have tax breaks which specifically benefits them put into the tax code and then go "How did that get in there? Well, since it's already in there you can't blame me for u it."
GTFOH
+1 on what 30yrs said.
My former bestie is the master of this. Completely connected legislatively. I predict that it will become significantly easier for high net worth individuals to hide income in offshore accounts and crypto wallets. If the laws ease up in these areas, it's all good, right? I can't wait to see what they do to FinCEN!