Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts • Hacker News Board

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#481

Post by jajko » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #156

yongjik wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side, Trump is so unstable that he'll trash your business one day and then the next day he'll reverse course. So, "if people kiss your ass enough, they get contract" does not seem to be a long-term viable strategy. (Exhibit A: Musk.) I'm 90% sure it will lead to America's ruin, but it might not quite be the same path that led the USSR to ruin. Hey, at least it looks more entertaining! :/

> but it might not quite be the same path that led the USSR to ruin. The end of the Soviet Union as a political and geographic entity was not its ruin. What ruined it and opened the door for a strongman ruler was: a) an inexperienced President (Yeltsin) who lacked a unifying vision for the newly formed republic and wasn't respected by its business elite or by foreign leaders b) the 'free market liberalization' reform…

You are completely missing Gorbachev, the fall began with him. He was a good guy, but a bit naive within soviet situation. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY hated russians. That's where brutal oppression came from for rest of soviet republics, that's where eastern Europe satellites were invaded and controlled from via strong firm hand (and many military bases). I know this damn well as I was raised thre and saw first hand the continuous destruction of what we would call normal society that russians brought along with them everywhere they went.

When the soviet empire twitched a bit and seams became just slightly more loose, everybody run the fuck away from them. You can't be literally enslaved for 2 generations and ignore whats around you and whats happening to all your citizens, family, friends, yourself. Not when you clearly see how west has technological, moral and societal advantage in its approach and its getting bigger every year. The only exception is Belarus, and the only reason is that the dicktator there needs desperately strong continuous backing or he would be brought down in quick coup.

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#482

Post by rendall » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #344

AlexandrB wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to love this pithy quote but reflecting on it more recently this doesn't seem like something limited to fascists or fascism. Indeed, this kind of thinking is used by those of any political leaning when ideology becomes more important than principles. An obvious example is the USSR.

This is a great example of the horseshoe theory of politics [0], which I believe in very strongly. I made a separate post if anyone cares to discuss it. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44214040

Horseshoe theory has always read like a Pythagorean epicycle to me, an attempt to redeem a broken model. For a reductive political model, I prefer the 2 dimensional Collectivist-Individualist, Authoritarian-Libertarian axes. No need to literally contort the outdated Left-Right spectrum.

An added benefit is you get to avoid annoying semantic battles such as whether Nazis or Fascists are Right wing or Left wing.

Plus you get to add other axes as needed. My favorite, perhaps relevant today, is principled vs. expedient: do we apply principles like this "Rights" stuff impartially, even to people with whom we disagree, or do we just git 'r done?

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#483

Post by wqaatwt » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:42 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #214

bobxmax wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's naive and you know it. A massive drive for him was electing the first black president. A less, but still not-insignificant drive was for Hillary as the first female president.

I’d be shocked if Hilary had a net benefit being a female candidate. We’ve had 2 chances to elect a female president and they both lost the general election with not that great turnout. John McCain’s VP was female during 08 and he lost by a huge margin.

It did help her to get on the ballot quite a bit. Of course it had the opposite effect in the general election.

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#484

Post by matwood » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:43 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #245

yongjik wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the positive side, Trump is so unstable that he'll trash your business one day and then the next day he'll reverse course. So, "if people kiss your ass enough, they get contract" does not seem to be a long-term viable strategy. (Exhibit A: Musk.) I'm 90% sure it will lead to America's ruin, but it might not quite be the same path that led the USSR to ruin. Hey, at least it looks more entertaining! :/

America's ruin will be spending itself into bankruptcy.

If you truly believe that, the fix is the opposite of what the GOP is proposing. Freeze spending at today’s levels, raise taxes (uncap SS, add higher tax brackets, add a wealth tax, etc…), then let the economy grow naturally.

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#485

Post by tzs » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:45 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #391

kortilla wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For starters, Trump can simply revoke Elon's security clearance. There's no recourse for this. And that makes SpaceX's military contracts real awkward. This isn't an issue. Execs nor shareholders are required to have clearance and even the ones that have clearance aren't read in to top secret stuff without a need to know. Elon's focus was starship which is quite far removed from any of those contracts (falcon gov la…

> Execs nor shareholders are required to have clearance and even the ones that have clearance aren't read in to top secret stuff without a need to know No clearance would absolutely compromise Musk’s ability to control SpaceX. (I think that’s a good thing.)

Aren't they using the same rockets for non-government missions that they use for government missions, so the classified parts of government missions would just concern the payload and where they fly it to? Musk shouldn't need access to that information to run the company.

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#486

Post by wqaatwt » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:47 AM UTC

bobxmax wrote: post #231

Retric wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hillary and Clinton got boosts It’s Hillary and Kamala Harris. I’m not saying they don’t get some voters from being women, the point is they also lost votes from being women. I think a rotting corps might have won in 2016, but 4 years later vs a women and suddenly he’s doing great.

Kamala lost because of Biden, who somehow was even less likeable than Hillary by the end.

In a way yes. Kamala lost because she was the ultimate DEI candidate (in how own words that the only reason he picked her to be VP). Regardless of her personal skills or qualities it’s very hard to move past that..

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#487

Post by wqaatwt » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:48 AM UTC

bobxmax wrote: post #231

Retric wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hillary and Clinton got boosts It’s Hillary and Kamala Harris. I’m not saying they don’t get some voters from being women, the point is they also lost votes from being women. I think a rotting corps might have won in 2016, but 4 years later vs a women and suddenly he’s doing great.

Kamala lost because of Biden, who somehow was even less likeable than Hillary by the end.

In a way yes. Kamala lost because she was the ultimate DEI candidate (in how own words that the only reason he picked her to be VP). Regardless of her personal skills or qualities it’s very hard to move past that..

Had she had a chance to prove that she could win a primary things might have been different

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#488

Post by wqaatwt » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 6:56 AM UTC

voidfunc wrote: post #240

cosmicgadget wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity. The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?

If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.

That the opposite of how laws work..

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#489

Post by aerhardt » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 7:00 AM UTC

pantalaimon wrote: post #420

andrepd wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is no longer a serious place. Everybody is turbo-infantilised via social media. I don't know if that's indeed the root cause or if it's a combination of factors, but the fact remains that people don't even feel the need to _ pretend to care _ about honesty, character, seriousness, etc.

Social media is easy to blame, but we had something similar, but worse happening in Germany well before the invention of the computer even. Human society has not developed an antidote to charismatic demagogues yet I'm afraid.

Human society is limited in the antidotes to human nature that it can code through law, institutions or culture. It’s the same species throughout 1930’s Germany and today.

We shouldn’t give up on law, institutions or culture, but accepting our failings instead of seeing humans as a perfectible project can at least give us solace in confusing times.

Re: Musk-Trump dispute includes threats to SpaceX contracts

#490

Post by 6figurelenins » Sun, Jun 08, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

brookst wrote: post #336

WalterBright wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America's ruin will be spending itself into bankruptcy.

This wouldn’t be possible as the world’s reserve currency and provider of political stability. At incredibly low interest rates, most investments are positive ROI. But by destroying the US’ position as reserve currency and establishing the country as too untrustworthy to do business with, Trump has made your statement true. We can’t afford what we spend without those special economic benefits. And we just threw them…

The geopolitical stability is now cheaper[1] than the debt service.

Naturally, that calls into question the incredibly low interest rates, and the reserve currency status.

If you need to blame Trump, the last straw was COVID.

> At incredibly low interest rates, most investments are positive ROI.

Step 1: Hold short term rates at zero, forever Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit Step 4: Wow, that's a lot of debt

[1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/first-time-us-spending-more-debt-in...