![Max Anderson Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1464270530027077634/jVlhNEuD_x96.jpg)
Max Anderson
@maxjanderson
Followers
29K
Following
3K
Statuses
2K
Bootstrapped #SaaS co to $15mm ARR. Helped take another from 0 to NASDAQ IPO. Made and lost a couple million in the markets
Remote
Joined November 2011
In principle agreed. But in practice, it’s too easy to game metrics like approval ratings and customer satisfaction. When you put a pay incentive behind metrics like that, people will always find ways to game it, and the system self-optimizes for getting better and better at gaming it over time The #1 issue of government, and what has caused the downfall of every great nation & empire in history - is that left on its own a government’s only incentive is to get bigger. Individual gov employees solve for job security + pay raises, and the best way to ensure those is to hire more people around and below you. Companies who do this go bankrupt / get eaten by more efficient & effective competitors. But for government there’s no market force to cleanse the system like that You have to create an incentive where the government wants to get smaller as a % of GDP over time. Without that, government keep growing until it eventually kills its host
0
0
1
Agreed in principle, but in practice, it’s impossible to measure the performance / quality / output of government via metrics that can’t be gamed Unlike the private sector, where profits & market cap offer immediate + objective + unfakable measures of performance & quality, there isn’t any thing like that for the public sector Any metric for public sector performance - e.g. inflation, unemployment, GDP etc is both too slow moving and too easily gamed to be effective Best answer for public sector is 1) aim incentives towards cutting spending, and 2) make sure the people making the cutting decisions are long-term stakeholders in America (ideally with kids) and are a representative sample of average Americans (ideally not DC lifers) In that system, smart people will make intelligent tradeoffs in cutting things that are inefficient, ineffective or wasteful, while keeping and improving the things that make the country better for their kids and grand kids
1
0
2
Rich and famous people are currently sorting themselves into 1 of 2 buckets, publicly for all of us to see: Bucket 1️⃣: Angry + complaining about DOGE = simply showing you where the bulk of their wealth / income / status likely came from They’re angry because their income & status, in part or in whole, depend on the grift continuing. That’s it Bucket 2️⃣: Happy (or at least not angry) about DOGE = likely got where they are by hard work and merit, despite having to swim upstream against the grift of bucket 1 folks Every day I’m surprised to see who else raises their hand and publicly sorts themselves into bucket 1 🍿 The vast majority of Americans are in bucket 2. This is not a coup, it’s the will of the majority of hard-working Americans. This is exactly what was promised on the campaign trail, and this is what we voted for. Posts like this 👇 will not age well. These people are destroying their reputations
🚩 Kara Swisher & Scott Galloway Are in Full Panic Mode Now Calling for the Arrest of the @DOGE Engineers “I want to see Democratic governors … use the full faith and the letter of the law to put you folks in prison … This is a coup … We need to go gangster here.”
5
5
57
You do not understand how equity incentives work The remaining A players in each government organization are Americans too, subject to the same environment as you If a service is essential, smart people will preserve and improve it out of their own self interest, balancing what’s best for their family today and what’s best for their kids and grand kids of the longer term The faster you get the bozos out of the organization, the more efficiently this happens
4
0
0