Deficit is a worry and right-wing governments aren't going to fix it
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
The ridiculously named "big beautiful bill" recently passed in the US warrants close attention from Australian policymakers.
The focus should not just be on the items in the bill, but on how the US political landscape has shifted and what that might mean for Australian political parties on both sides.
Although numerous contested claims have been made about the bill's benefits, it seems clear that it will add to the (already enormous) US deficit.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Trump, of course, has form on the debt and deficit front. ProPublica calculated that national debt increased by almost $7.8 trillion in his first term.
The Republicans have shifted a long way from 2012, when vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a radical new fiscal program that would have cut the budget deficit by 75 per cent or more within 10 years.
This shift should worry Australian politicians for two reasons. The first is that debt and deficits are not nearly as benign as the public seems to believe.
Second, it suggests some closely held political truisms may no longer hold true.
The CIS has been warning about the risks of debt and deficits for some time. For example, a recent CIS publication by Robert Carling, Gene Tunny and Peter Tulip laid out the fiscal challenges facing the government.
As Robert states "the federal government's finances [will not] cope well with more economic or other shocks to the system - and there are even bigger debt problems in some states and territories."
However, the political economy effects of shifting attitudes to debt and deficit are more subtle.
It was traditionally taken for granted that the right cared more for debt and deficits than the left.
Right-wing politicians used to grumble that the public would elect right-wing governments to do the hard work of balancing the books, and then they would immediately elect a left-wing government to unbalance them again.
There was a positive element of this, too, though.
John Howard convinced the public that fiscal prudence was the best measure of the competence of a government. This millstone hung heavily around the neck of the Rudd - Gillard - Rudd Labor government that followed.
This millstone is gone, or at least greatly diminished.
It seems clear that voters no longer consider a budget surplus the sign of success, or a large deficit that of failure.
The main measure of a good budget now seems to be how much cash is shovelled out the door.
Certainly, the lack of alarm over the deterioration in the fiscal position in the recent budget suggests Labor isn't very worried about debt and deficits.
Some on the left believe that voters ignoring on budget surpluses is an unalloyed good for the party - and they aren't entirely wrong.
The conventional wisdom suggests that in any contest between left and right over who can hand out the most money, the voters will prefer the real deal on the left over those Johnny-come-lately spendthrifts on the right.
But Trump's example shows that this wisdom only holds as long as the status quo holds on the right.
To put it bluntly, if the right abandons fiscal responsibility to the same extent as the left, then not only can the right compete with the left on spending, they can win the fight.
Why? Because in so many areas, the left is now tied to vested interests in a way that the right simply isn't.
The left is compelled to launder their spending through the priorities of quasi-government institutions, not-for-profits and unions because these groups represent key constituencies for left-wing political parties across the globe.
These bodies - which range from the well-meaning to the borderline corrupt - have their own weaknesses.
Even those who interests align relatively well with voters will take a cut from any funding. Many are preoccupied with policy solutions that don't work very well.
Take teachers unions for example. In Australia, Labor's Gonski spending explosion was heavily influenced by what the unions thought the money should be spent on (such as reducing class sizes).
This spending was largely ineffective in terms of improving results.
Another example is childcare. Voters might well feel good about recent moves to subsidise higher wages for childcare workers, but if given a meaningful choice would they prefer the government to spend that same money on greater subsidies and more flexible care options instead?
Labor might retort that they have done both, but what if the Coalition promised to overhaul the whole system and give voters the option to keep the same subsidy and spend it on any type of care they want?
Another, rather crude, example: do you think there are more votes in increasing the age pension or in boosting unemployment benefits?
And that is before you get into ideological crusades - which many of the left-wing institutions are obsessed with - that the public has little patience for.
A populist, big-spending right would be unencumbered by the baggage that hamstrings these bodies. They could cut out the middlemen and just bribe the voters directly.
To be clear, the Australian right adopting big government populism would be terrible for the country, as it undoubtedly will be for the US.
The extent to which US politicians have abandoned their responsibilities is scandalous.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
In the same way that the recent inflation crisis put paid to the nonsense economics of modern monetary theory, the US is on the path for a potentially disastrous fiscal reckoning that will force US politics to focus on debt and deficits again.
Australia would be ill-served to follow the same path. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that a more positive direction will be taken.
The populist alternative remains alluring, especially in the short term where the consequences can be deferred into the future.
Australia would be far better off if politicians and voters cared more about fiscal responsibility. But the onus lies on both sides of politics to prevent this from happening; not just the right.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Wall Street slips amid new tariff turmoil
Wall Street has fallen marginally as investors ran into US President Donald Trump's latest tariff threats against the European Union and Mexico, starting a week loaded with economic data and major second-quarter earnings. Trump ramped up trade tensions over the weekend, vowing to slap a 30 per cent tariff on most imports from the European Union and Mexico starting August 1 - a move that leaves the clock ticking for last-minute trade deals. The EU extended its pause on retaliatory measures until early August, holding out hope for a negotiated truce. The White House said talks with the EU, Canada and Mexico are still underway. Trump's latest salvo follows last week's tariff offensive, which targeted the United States' close allies like Canada, Japan and South Korea, and a 50 per cent duty on copper. Yet, investors barely flinched, having grown accustomed to Trump's tariff threats and his track record of last-minute reversals. "The stock market's muted reaction to the latest volley of tariff headlines suggests investors may be growing numb to them, or are deciding that the tariff bark will likely be worse than the eventual bite," said Chris Larkin, managing director, trading and investing, E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley. In early trading on Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 27.60 points, or 0.06 per cent, to 44,343.20, the S&P 500 lost 11.72 points, or 0.19 per cent, to 6,248.16 and the Nasdaq Composite lost 36.06 points, or 0.17 per cent, to 20,549.58. RBC Capital Markets raised its year-end S&P 500 target to 6,250 - its second upgrade this year - citing upbeat investor sentiment and optimism about the economic outlook through 2026. Focus was also shifting to the commencement of the second-quarter earnings season, with Wall Street's banking giants reporting on Tuesday. Attention was also on Tuesday's consumer price data, expected to show an uptick in US inflation in June, as sellers began raising prices to factor in Trump's sweeping tariffs. Meanwhile, producer and import price reports are due on Wednesday and retail sales figures are due on Thursday. While traders have almost fully ruled out a July rate cut, the probability for a September move stands at 61 per cent, according to CME FedWatch. In an interview on Fox Business, Cleveland Fed president Beth Hammack rejected the need to immediately lower interest rates. Most S&P sectors were in the positive domain but the information technology index was a drag, down 0.8 per cent. Chip stocks came under pressure, with Micron Technology falling about 5 per cent and Nvidia down 1.2 per cent. Among other stocks, Tesla rose 1.3 per cent after CEO Elon Musk ruled out a merger between the electric vehicle maker and xAI. Crypto stocks ticked up after bitcoin topped $US120,000 for the first time. Coinbase global rose 2.7 per cent, Bitfarms gained 5.1 per cent and Riot platforms was up 5.4 per cent. Waters Corp dropped 9.4 per cent after the lab equipment maker agreed to merge with rival Becton, Dickinson and Company's Biosciences & Diagnostic Solutions unit in a $US17.5 billion ($A26.7 billion) deal. Declining issues outnumbered advancers by a 1.03-to-1 ratio on the NYSE while advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 1.13-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted nine new 52-week highs and four new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 41 new highs and 28 new lows.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Why Elon Musk may have reached the end of the road at Tesla
'In real life he would be sacked from Tesla and somebody would actually run the company,' says Ross Gerber, an early investor who has called for Musk to go. 'If he's going to do politics, then he shouldn't be the chief executive. There's a lot of work that needs to be done at Tesla.' Political distractions Most investors have said they want Musk to stay in charge of the company, but they want him to commit to the job full time. Despite his frequent controversies, he is recognised as a uniquely talented executive who has repeatedly defied his doubters. Sales may be in decline, but the company is pressing ahead with the launch of driverless taxi rides in the US, a business that Musk has said is Tesla's future. In May, a group of shareholders wrote to Tesla's board asking that Musk commit to working 40 hours a week at the company. 'The current crisis at Tesla puts into sharp focus the long-term problems at the company stemming from the CEO's absence, which is amplified by a board that appears largely uninterested and unwilling to act,' it said. At the time, Musk acknowledged the concerns, promising to pare back his work at the White House's department of government efficiency and return '24/7″ to his businesses, which also include rocket company SpaceX and social network X. But his spat with Trump and promises to end America's two-party system indicated that he had once again become distracted. Loading On Monday, Tesla's shares fell 8 per cent as Musk's launch of the America Party reignited questions about his commitment to Tesla. James Fishback, a Trump-supporting investment manager, has written to Tesla's board asking it to force Musk to clarify his political ambitions. 'This [running a party] is a full-time job, and the question is whether this full-time job is compatible with his full-time job as Tesla chief executive,' he says. 'When Elon deviates from its core competency and does things that are self-destructive, the share price rightfully responds.' Individual shareholders, however disgruntled, have little influence over Musk. The company's board, which would be formally responsible for firing him if it came to it, contains several Musk allies. In May, Robyn Denholm, the company's chairman, swiftly denied a Wall Street Journal report that the company had started looking for a successor. And the majority of shareholders last year backed a $US56 billion pay package for its chief executive. Who could replace Musk? There would also be the tricky task of replacing Musk, who, as the company's largest shareholder, would continue to be actively involved. Last week X's chief executive Linda Yaccarino resigned after two years in which she had regularly been undermined by Musk's behaviour. The most likely candidate would be an insider such as JB Straubel, the company's former technology chief, or Tesla's chief designer Franz von Holzhausen. Musk would bristle at any attempt to replace him. He has said he wants to run Tesla for another five years, predicting that it will be the most valuable company in the world. When Wall Street analyst Dan Ives last week called on the board to rein him in, Musk tweeted back: 'Shut up, Dan'.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Why Elon Musk may have reached the end of the road at Tesla
'In real life he would be sacked from Tesla and somebody would actually run the company,' says Ross Gerber, an early investor who has called for Musk to go. 'If he's going to do politics, then he shouldn't be the chief executive. There's a lot of work that needs to be done at Tesla.' Political distractions Most investors have said they want Musk to stay in charge of the company, but they want him to commit to the job full time. Despite his frequent controversies, he is recognised as a uniquely talented executive who has repeatedly defied his doubters. Sales may be in decline, but the company is pressing ahead with the launch of driverless taxi rides in the US, a business that Musk has said is Tesla's future. In May, a group of shareholders wrote to Tesla's board asking that Musk commit to working 40 hours a week at the company. 'The current crisis at Tesla puts into sharp focus the long-term problems at the company stemming from the CEO's absence, which is amplified by a board that appears largely uninterested and unwilling to act,' it said. At the time, Musk acknowledged the concerns, promising to pare back his work at the White House's department of government efficiency and return '24/7″ to his businesses, which also include rocket company SpaceX and social network X. But his spat with Trump and promises to end America's two-party system indicated that he had once again become distracted. Loading On Monday, Tesla's shares fell 8 per cent as Musk's launch of the America Party reignited questions about his commitment to Tesla. James Fishback, a Trump-supporting investment manager, has written to Tesla's board asking it to force Musk to clarify his political ambitions. 'This [running a party] is a full-time job, and the question is whether this full-time job is compatible with his full-time job as Tesla chief executive,' he says. 'When Elon deviates from its core competency and does things that are self-destructive, the share price rightfully responds.' Individual shareholders, however disgruntled, have little influence over Musk. The company's board, which would be formally responsible for firing him if it came to it, contains several Musk allies. In May, Robyn Denholm, the company's chairman, swiftly denied a Wall Street Journal report that the company had started looking for a successor. And the majority of shareholders last year backed a $US56 billion pay package for its chief executive. Who could replace Musk? There would also be the tricky task of replacing Musk, who, as the company's largest shareholder, would continue to be actively involved. Last week X's chief executive Linda Yaccarino resigned after two years in which she had regularly been undermined by Musk's behaviour. The most likely candidate would be an insider such as JB Straubel, the company's former technology chief, or Tesla's chief designer Franz von Holzhausen. Musk would bristle at any attempt to replace him. He has said he wants to run Tesla for another five years, predicting that it will be the most valuable company in the world. When Wall Street analyst Dan Ives last week called on the board to rein him in, Musk tweeted back: 'Shut up, Dan'.
