Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson's CPAC Speech

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course there are laws of economics. It's just that Keynesians and other statists try to subvert those laws. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid. We're seeing that now, and if these policies continue we'll be seeing it for a long time.

I could name a few Nobel prize for economics winners who would disagree with you.

"Laws", by definition are universally agreed on. Economics includes nothing like that.

I could name a few that agree.

No, laws are simple facts whether they're agreed upon or not.

Because you and the Mises Institute say so? Not quite. Opinions are not equal to laws.

 

[VaYank5150]

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

I'll play....just WHO do you think should lead this market reform, if not government? You aren't suggesting letting these greedy bastards reform themselves are you? No one is that stupid, right?

The market will do it on its own, nobody has to "lead" it. In fact, trying to "lead" the market is what got us into this mess in the first place.

REALLY? Who lead the banks and insurance firms into betting on credit default swaps?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I could name a few Nobel prize for economics winners who would disagree with you.

"Laws", by definition are universally agreed on. Economics includes nothing like that.

I could name a few that agree.

No, laws are simple facts whether they're agreed upon or not.

Because you and the Mises Institute say so? Not quite. Opinions are not equal to laws.

Well hey we've got Nobel Prize winning economists after all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll play....just WHO do you think should lead this market reform, if not government? You aren't suggesting letting these greedy bastards reform themselves are you? No one is that stupid, right?

The market will do it on its own, nobody has to "lead" it. In fact, trying to "lead" the market is what got us into this mess in the first place.

REALLY? Who lead the banks and insurance firms into betting on credit default swaps?

The Federal Reserve.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I could name a few that agree.

No, laws are simple facts whether they're agreed upon or not.

Because you and the Mises Institute say so? Not quite. Opinions are not equal to laws.

Well hey we've got Nobel Prize winning economists after all.

I think my point was that because both sides have disagreeing Nobel prize winners means there are no LAWS, just THEORIES.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because you and the Mises Institute say so? Not quite. Opinions are not equal to laws.

Well hey we've got Nobel Prize winning economists after all.

I think my point was that because both sides have disagreeing Nobel prize winners means there are no LAWS, just THEORIES.

That's a very fair point. So let's go with the guys who predicted the recession in the first place. That would be the Austrians, by the way.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well hey we've got Nobel Prize winning economists after all.

I think my point was that because both sides have disagreeing Nobel prize winners means there are no LAWS, just THEORIES.

That's a very fair point. So let's go with the guys who predicted the recession in the first place. That would be the Austrians, by the way.

You're welcome to go with whoever you like, it's not like it'll change anything.

But, keep in mind all the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think my point was that because both sides have disagreeing Nobel prize winners means there are no LAWS, just THEORIES.

That's a very fair point. So let's go with the guys who predicted the recession in the first place. That would be the Austrians, by the way.

You're welcome to go with whoever you like, it's not like it'll change anything.

But, keep in mind all the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories.

Well I personally think it makes more sense to go with those who saw the recession coming for how to get out of it, rather than those who laughed at those who saw it coming. But you're free to do as you wish, of course.

I'd say keep in mind the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories, but they're out there for us all to see in broad daylight.

 

[VaYank5150]

The market will do it on its own, nobody has to "lead" it. In fact, trying to "lead" the market is what got us into this mess in the first place.

REALLY? Who lead the banks and insurance firms into betting on credit default swaps?

The Federal Reserve.

So, the Federal Reserve forced these private institutions into making these piss poor investment choices? How so?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

REALLY? Who lead the banks and insurance firms into betting on credit default swaps?

The Federal Reserve.

So, the Federal Reserve forced these private institutions into making these piss poor investment choices? How so?

They made it possible, and since their competition was going to do it it made sense for them to do it as well. Not to mention the bankers were unlikely to be Austrians and probably didn't realize that artificially setting interest rates creates the business cycle.

 

[Oscar Wao]

He'd certainly make things more interesting if he was President. He might destroy the country, or he might end up being a hypocrite - but either way, he'll make life more interesting.

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

We've dealt with damage for ages...we may as well try alternative policies.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That's a very fair point. So let's go with the guys who predicted the recession in the first place. That would be the Austrians, by the way.

You're welcome to go with whoever you like, it's not like it'll change anything.

But, keep in mind all the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories.

Well I personally think it makes more sense to go with those who saw the recession coming for how to get out of it, rather than those who laughed at those who saw it coming. But you're free to do as you wish, of course.

I'd say keep in mind the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories, but they're out there for us all to see in broad daylight.

Yeah, not quite. I don't have an answer, as I said already. I know enough about economics to know that I know nothing about economics. Seeing as how every utopian ideal that someone puts in front of me can never seem to explain away the immediate damage it would do, I'll stick with the status quo until someone can give me an answer that doesn't immediately ruin the lives of millions of Americans.

 

[Oscar Wao]

You're welcome to go with whoever you like, it's not like it'll change anything.

But, keep in mind all the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories.

Well I personally think it makes more sense to go with those who saw the recession coming for how to get out of it, rather than those who laughed at those who saw it coming. But you're free to do as you wish, of course.

I'd say keep in mind the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories, but they're out there for us all to see in broad daylight.

Yeah, not quite. I don't have an answer, as I said already. I know enough about economics to know that I know nothing about economics. Seeing as how every utopian ideal that someone puts in front of me can never seem to explain away the immediate damage it would do, I'll stick with the status quo until someone can give me an answer that doesn't immediately ruin the lives of millions of Americans.

Well, he DID admit that those already paying into it or are receiving entitlements such as SS, and the two Med-prefix programs benefits should receive them. He would probably support phasing it out, however.

Believe me, people like him and other libertarian GOP's are realistic. They may sound utopian in talk but are pragmatic and realistic in deed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well I personally think it makes more sense to go with those who saw the recession coming for how to get out of it, rather than those who laughed at those who saw it coming. But you're free to do as you wish, of course.

I'd say keep in mind the unintended consequences of your ideologies and theories, but they're out there for us all to see in broad daylight.

Yeah, not quite. I don't have an answer, as I said already. I know enough about economics to know that I know nothing about economics. Seeing as how every utopian ideal that someone puts in front of me can never seem to explain away the immediate damage it would do, I'll stick with the status quo until someone can give me an answer that doesn't immediately ruin the lives of millions of Americans.

Well, he DID admit that those already paying into it or are receiving entitlements such as SS, and the two Med-prefix programs benefits should receive them. He would probably support phasing it out, however.

Believe me, people like him and other libertarian GOP's are realistic. They may sound utopian in talk but are pragmatic and realistic in deed.

I was talking less about Johnson, and more directly to the other poster.

But I realize that to function in the real world, libertarians have to be pragmatic - and hence at least to some extent become hypocritical to their utopian talk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, not quite. I don't have an answer, as I said already. I know enough about economics to know that I know nothing about economics. Seeing as how every utopian ideal that someone puts in front of me can never seem to explain away the immediate damage it would do, I'll stick with the status quo until someone can give me an answer that doesn't immediately ruin the lives of millions of Americans.

Well, he DID admit that those already paying into it or are receiving entitlements such as SS, and the two Med-prefix programs benefits should receive them. He would probably support phasing it out, however.

Believe me, people like him and other libertarian GOP's are realistic. They may sound utopian in talk but are pragmatic and realistic in deed.

I was talking less about Johnson, and more directly to the other poster.

But I realize that to function in the real world, libertarians have to be pragmatic - and hence at least to some extent become hypocritical to their utopian talk.

It's not hypocritical to continue to pay benefits to those who have already rightfully paid into the system. Now if a libertarian were to get into office and then support social security that would be hypocritical. But to slowly phase it out so that those who did pay into it don't get screwed is simple decency.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, he DID admit that those already paying into it or are receiving entitlements such as SS, and the two Med-prefix programs benefits should receive them. He would probably support phasing it out, however.

Believe me, people like him and other libertarian GOP's are realistic. They may sound utopian in talk but are pragmatic and realistic in deed.

I was talking less about Johnson, and more directly to the other poster.

But I realize that to function in the real world, libertarians have to be pragmatic - and hence at least to some extent become hypocritical to their utopian talk.

It's not hypocritical to continue to pay benefits to those who have already rightfully paid into the system. Now if a libertarian were to get into office and then support social security that would be hypocritical. But to slowly phase it out so that those who did pay into it don't get screwed is simple decency.

What about those millions of "government waste" jobs? Will those be slowly fazed out too, creating a steady flow of increasing unemployment rather than doing it all at once?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I was talking less about Johnson, and more directly to the other poster.

But I realize that to function in the real world, libertarians have to be pragmatic - and hence at least to some extent become hypocritical to their utopian talk.

It's not hypocritical to continue to pay benefits to those who have already rightfully paid into the system. Now if a libertarian were to get into office and then support social security that would be hypocritical. But to slowly phase it out so that those who did pay into it don't get screwed is simple decency.

What about those millions of "government waste" jobs? Will those be slowly fazed out too, creating a steady flow of increasing unemployment rather than doing it all at once?

The sooner they get off the government rolls and into the private market the better. But it would be a case by case basis I assume.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Bingo Kevin , never knew a Kennedy could be right in this day and age.

Well there was also this Kennedy.

Joe Kennedy for Senate

Doesn't take him long to answer question.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not hypocritical to continue to pay benefits to those who have already rightfully paid into the system. Now if a libertarian were to get into office and then support social security that would be hypocritical. But to slowly phase it out so that those who did pay into it don't get screwed is simple decency.

What about those millions of "government waste" jobs? Will those be slowly fazed out too, creating a steady flow of increasing unemployment rather than doing it all at once?

The sooner they get off the government rolls and into the private market the better. But it would be a case by case basis I assume.

I'd love to see a proposal that would explain how to do that without damaging the economy drastically in the short run.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about those millions of "government waste" jobs? Will those be slowly fazed out too, creating a steady flow of increasing unemployment rather than doing it all at once?

The sooner they get off the government rolls and into the private market the better. But it would be a case by case basis I assume.

I'd love to see a proposal that would explain how to do that without damaging the economy drastically in the short run.

The government not spending our money is a good thing.