PRO OR CON?
Updated: Jul 28
Someone from The Economist sat down for an interview with Elon Musk. Aside from the usual discussion involving electric cars, space launches, artificial intelligence, and predictions for the future, the journalist does the predictable and accuses the guy of being a fascist or at least supporting those who are, claims he spends an inordinate amount of time fearmongering about the state of Europe, and also blames Musk and DOGE for killing people. Nice.
As everyone knows, the guy has a tremendous amount of transparent activity in the world and been pretty open about his politics, beliefs, and hopes for the world — which places him pretty clearly on the spectrum of an ecofriendly Obama voter and someone pushed, like so many, by the depravities of the Democratic party and the Biden/Harris anarchy, into the arms of the only available alternative. Musk and friends spent the day following the interview posting videos of Democrats delivering speeches conveying similar policies (things such as maintaining and defending borders as well as limiting immigration and deporting criminals and folks who snuck in) that the journalist says places Musk on the radical and dangerous side of the political Right. Videos such as: Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union address; Barack Obama’s 2006, 2008, and 2014 speeches on immigration reform; Chuck Schumer’s 2009 and 2012 speeches on illegal immigration; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden spending a decade backing the fortification of the southern border to reduce the unrestricted movement of millions of folks into the country; Bernie Sanders pushing for “comprehensive immigration reform”… Ah yes, Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama: America's notorious and fringe, far- alt-right extremists.
Though it shouldn't need stating, of course if there are actual evil-doers out there or political parties with abhorrent policy aims then reporters should be the least inhibited to point fingers and delineating specifics. And it also shouldn't need pointing out that labelling everyone you don't like as a dangerous radical or claiming policies you yourself voted for two elections ago are now shocking and beyond the pale is not helping make sense of things or build a better world...
Musk’s concerns about the state of the UK and Europe's most liberal nations don’t appear to be ridiculous either. And we don't have to talk about the most potent and outrageous cases in the UK, such as federal investigations finding authorities not incompetent or ignorant of coordinated child exploitation and abuse by immigrant networks but that, in fact, anti-racist preferences and policies caused police and government, with the help of the press, to hide the problem, allowing it to perpetuate for decades. We don't have to get into how it came out that authorities preferred to blame thousands of child victims of horrific sexual abuse in cities and towns all over the UK rather than cause the communities in which this was happening to suffer bad publicity. Ignore that. And ignore the social and political impact of the systemic cover-up and that of the investigation's findings.
Instead, look to Sweden. Formerly the most open, generous, and high-trust nation on Earth, this place has become chaotic and dangerous. As many have reported, a decade ago bombings were not even a category of crime tracked by police in Sweden. Why? Because, of course, they simply did not occur. Since then, Stockholm, Malmö, and Gothenburg have become the bombing, gun violence, and child soldier capitals of Europe, reaching several IED and grenade attacks per week by 2019, with January of 2025 reaching a new extreme and landing almost one bombing per day. Like the UK Swedish authorities and the press were pretending this wasn't happening and pretending no one knew the source of the problem. Who were they covering for? Gangs and organized crime from North Africa and the Middle East. The situation got so bad that for the first time since WWII Denmark felt it had to impose border checks to stop criminals and terrorists coming in from Sweden. But Sweden, who spent the last decade denying it, is now admitting there is a real problem and that the vast majority of criminals in the gangs perpetrating this violence have two foreign-born parents and that these gangs are actively recruiting young children as a novel form of gig worker: contract killers carrying out bombings and street executions. That's just one more country but no one would've believed any of this was even possible if you'd told someone just a few years ago. Still, the journalist from The Economist would have you believe that Europe and the UK in 2026 looks no different that Europe in 2006, except for the inexplicable rise of parties endorsing Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders-style changes to immigration and border policy across the continent.
I won’t get into the stuff around DOGE, whose mere composition the press was eager to lie about, and the baseless claims made regarding the harms they were allegedly unleashing upon the world. I’ve already beat that to death… So what's new?
EVIDENCE FOR DEADLY GOVERNMENT CUTS
What’s got me interested here is that there was a lot of discussion online after the Musk interview. One of those discussions was started by someone who regularly covers fashion-related happenings. They talked about DOGE being responsible for slashing federal funds for human rights watchdogs they care about. They shared how, for instance, the Worker Rights Consortium, a US nonprofit monitoring labour abuses in the garment industry abroad, had their funding cut thanks to DOGE. Of course, such cuts to funding are framed as directly reducing garment industry transparency and accountability everywhere in the world, hobbling efforts to combat human rights abuses and hold people accountable, and thus helping bad actors exploit labourers while, doubtless, imperiling lives.
INTERNATIONAL AID
As with the similar reporting about health-related funding from a year ago, I see what is framed as a critique of the Trump administration and their policies as, actually, a weird kind of endorsement. Forwarding this claim seems to me like support for the silly Trumpist argument that America (and US taxpayers specifically) disproportionately and unfairly keep the whole of the world afloat. Everything, from antiretrovirals getting to children in Sub-Saharan Africa to labourers in Vietnam getting fair pay, overwhelmingly relies upon — or so we are told — the too-generous contributions of America's over-taxed workers. And this sort of thing has become a rallying cry for the America-first crowd and so many others. Only, this narrative is not true in the least.
The best known fact in the aid and NGO world is that, as I’ve noted many times in the past, per capita the US contributes far less than peer or even far poorer nations. And it's not a little less that they contribute but commonly a tiny fraction of what less robust economies offer. From Canada to New Zealand, Sweden to Ireland, nearly every taxpayer in the western world looks to be contributing 2X or 20X or even 200X what US taxpayers do to key health and development initiatives around the globe.
You'll recall the US demand for NATO member states to put up 5% of GDP for military spending; but, in reality, just to subsidize US companies with non-US taxpayer dollars. Well, when the United Nations set a benchmark for developed nations to provide just 0.7% of their gross national income to “official development assistance” the US balked. During the Obama years the US failed to hit 0.2% and the disbursement under the Trump administration was slashed n half, to below 0.1%, making the US the least generous provider of development assistance of all 38 OECD countries (including places such as Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Iceland, Portugal, Slovenia, Estonia, Turkey, and Israel...) Of course, looking at it from a per capita lens only makes things look worse. While US citizens contribute around $85 per person, folks in Canada, the UK, and Belgium, are giving closer to $200-300; in Ireland, Germany, and Denmark they contribute around $400-500, and Norway is double that at around $900-$1,000 per person. That's just one metric. There are many more like it.
Given this longstanding trend, what do you think are the chances that the US taxpayer provides all, most, or even a sizable portion of the funding for this US-based global garment industry watchdog?
