Gary Johnson Answers All The Questions Asked At The Debate He Wasn’t Invited To
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson wasn’t invited to Monday’s debate in New Hampshire for completely arbitrary reasons that I objected to, along with others. However, he put together a YouTube video where he gave his answer to all the substantive questions that were asked:
A creative response to an unfair decision, I must say.
H/T: Conor Friedersdorf
How does eliminating corporate taxes create jobs? Doesn’t demand create jobs?
1. What’s his source about the claim that the coal fired electrical facilities not being built because of carbon taxes?
2. HCR reduces the deficit doesn’t it? How can we not afford it? And *America* has a market that is as far removed from a free market as it can be? Really? America’s system is as far as possible from a free market?
3. What does “free market” mean to him? No FDA? No USDA? No FTC?
4. I don’t know enough about Union agreements with the businesses they work with, but isn’t it an agreement they both sign on to? Why would the business agree that they can’t “punish” the worst and reward the best? Perhaps they shouldn’t have agreed to that?
5. Government “assistance” to businesses, but “welfare” to persons…language shows the slant that some persons have I suppose.
6. The FDA prevents significant issues in the market, and was founded for those very good reasons. And these “bad actors” he’s trivializing will kill people, maim, or significantly harm the public. It’s not in general accidents, its disregard for good practices to meet the profit goals or investor demands. And just because we will always have “incidents” doesn’t mean you stop trying to prevent them!
And what contractors is he talking about, re: FDA???
@ Robert in SF: No, demand is for lowering wages (and, from what I understand from the economists at Cato and Heritage, no economic forces raise wages as higher wages only cripple employment and the economy). Tax relief is for creating jobs because all hiring decisions are filtered through the answer to the question “how much did we pay in taxes last year.”
I find it fascinating that none of the anti-regulations “libertarian” types around here have no answer for the disaster that is lead poisoning in China.
This is what we’re looking at here if Michelle Bachman gets her way…
You are asking a libertarian to defend the record of a country where the economy is controlled by the government? Interesting.
I’m not surprised that a command economy like China’s has a horrible record on the environment. The USSR did too. See, the state doesn’t care about the environment at all.
I’m not happy that Johnson didn’t get into the debate, either. But CNN had specific criteria. Johnson didn’t meet the criteria. There was nothing “completely arbitrary” about it.
If the decision was so “unfair”, then what’s the fair way to do it? Let in everybody that Mataconis likes? Or just let in everybody that wants to get on stage?
@Voices:
You say, “Tax relief is for creating jobs because all hiring decisions are filtered through the answer to the question “how much did we pay in taxes last year.””
IANAE, but I don’t think that’s true, at least not in the gross generalization you have summed up here. Perhaps it’s a consideration as part of the bigger picture of “how much does it cost me to hire” VS “how much will I gain from hiring. But taxes are just one of many factors that affect the cost to run a business. And most certainly not the most prominent one. That would surely be cost of goods….
As for you initial statement, “No, demand is for lowering wages (and, from what I understand from the economists at Cato and Heritage, no economic forces raise wages as higher wages only cripple employment and the economy).”….what is this, I don’t even.
Demand drives prices up, doesn’t it? Higher demand, lower supply, the two key factors to prices going up? So, please help me understand this idea you are proposing…I could Google it, but it sounds like you have some sources already…
@Robert: I’m sorry you don’t recognize snarkiness when you read it. I’ll try to do better in the future.
@Voice: /embarrassed/ I am sorry….I totally thought that you were serious. I would not put it past some of the commenters I have seen here to actually spout off similar ideas as those you had posted!
I probably wouldn’t be supporting him, but the debates would be better if there were more interesting voices there. I really liked James Joyner’s idea of allowing Governors, Senators, Reps that had served in the last 10 years.
And the early polls are mostly just name recognition, CNN should be embarrassed to use that as a criteria. Seriously, Giuliani and Trump are more likely to be vanity candidates, but just their celebrity could get them polling high enough to be invited.
@ Robert: No need to be embarrassed; there are people who would have made the post I did as a serious addition to the commentary. In fact, several months ago, I read a syndicated column from a Heritage Foundation economist (sorry, I can’t remember his name) who used Say’s law and supply/demand structures to opine that the joblessness problem in the US is simply the fact of the minimum wage, among other low-level wages, being too high and too many greedy people (his term if I recall correctly) expecting to be paid $25 or 30,000 a year for jobs simply because they believed that they needed that wage level to live on. He went on to suggest that lowering the minimum wage back to $5.25 or lower would add 10 million jobs to the economy, thus wiping out the recession job loss.
That’s not even rooted in reality, Doug. China stopped being a command and control economy in the 1990’s
Now, the bizarre thing is that they’ve kept communist disregard for the environment, as they allow privatized firms to flourish.
In that sense, they are like a libertarian government, taking hands of firms, and with very little oversight compared to the western market democracies.
It’s a decent idea, but not flawless. For one thing, do we really need to see Roland Burris at the 2016 Democratic Party debates? (Burris was appointed to Obama’s senate seat)
So let’s make that any Gov, Sen, or Rep that was elected to their seat. And let’s also limit them to the same party that they were elected under. That would keep a troublemaker from mucking up the other party’s debate. (And as a side bonus it would bar Lieberman from the Democratic party debates.)
But even then, what about the Weiners of the world? Suppose Weiner gets tossed out of his seat and wants revenge against the Democratic party? He could show up at the debates in 2016 and 2020 to cause trouble. Heck, he could demand a Democratic primary debate for 2012. CNN would have to give him airtime next to an empty podium (obviously Obama wouldn’t attend). That doesn’t sound like a great solution.
It isn’t a perfect criteria either, but I think it’s better than you allow. The fact is that name recognition is an important part of politics. Sure, there’s a chicken/egg conundrum here, but 2% is a pretty low bar. If you can’t get 2% support on your own, how are you going to ever win the nomination?
Doug — You didn’t bother to read the article, did you? I realize that China is a different country and all, but you should really check out what’s happening there — the Chinese government has put strict limits on lead emissions, but factory managers are desperate to show profits and local politicians are either bribed to look the other way or are simply desperate to keep local businesses happy, and it all spirals down from there. You can say it’s all because they’re Commies over there, but it’s exactly the same set of forces that get exerted here — and everywhere in the world. An unregulated market — or one in which regulators are handcuffed — will inevitably turn out this way. And if you don’t believe me, ask the widows of those dead coal miners in West Virginia.