For DU: If you don't want US to invade Iran, how are you helping support the nuclear deal?

[blm]

I ask because sometimes it becomes apparent that GOP strategists are so much quicker than the left and they KNEW they could manipulate the narrative on the deal faster and more persistently than the left, who would, once again, wait till the corpmedia had adopted the GOP storyline based in lies and half-truths with the left, once again, stuck in a position of defense instead of offense.


This poll showing majority favor deal gets NO ink or airtime.
http://aufc.3cdn.net/e6dca770dc6d71f7d2_tgm6bxklu.pdf

CNN poll claiming majority wants deal rejected is getting lion's share of ink and airtime.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

So, shouldn't DU and other left sites being doing our DAMNEDEST to promote the FACTS of this deal and our support for the diplomacy of peace mongers?

If you're serious about waging peace as much as our opponents are about waging war, then it's past time we all ENGAGE - SERIOUSLY ENGAGE and defeat the warmongers' lie machines.

If you DO want US to invade Iran and side with the warmongers, then please GFY….gently…..with a chainsaw.

[Octafish]

1. K&R!

John Kerry is doing his best.

Some of the people working for him are, too, but in the opposite direction.

Take Victoria N of Washington DC, please.

For some reason, she and her PNAC family and cronies escape any kind of real coverage.

[blm]

4. Kerry, Moniz, Lew testifying to GOP @sshats who use their 'questions' to spread more lies.

And media does not WANT the American people to see this. If they did, they would have broadcast these hearings for the American people.

[Fred Sanders]

2. A bit of the Left is also buying into the corporate media narrative that Clinton not wanting to take a stance

on Keystone XL - because she respects that the decision is a current Department of State decision now heavily politicized and thus does not want to supply ammunition to Republicans who will twist and distort any response - is highly unreasonable and so worthy of setting hair on fire.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. What does that have to do with supporting the Iran deal?

[Fred Sanders]

17. "A bit of the Left is also buying into....." RW media narratives. Like on Iran, like anything

Clinton.

Stop buying into the media narratives because it fits into a pre-conceived mindset.

[JEB]

3. Aren't there any corporations that stand

to make money via peace with Iran? Certainly the MIC and their shills seem to be pulling most of the strings for now. This should be a defining issue for upcoming elections. I will not support any candidate who opposes the deal with Iran. Fuck the war mongers.

[blm]

6. Those engaged in primary battles are the ones ignoring the deal the most.

As if ANY candidate will have a chance if GOP dominates the foreign policy narrative on this Iran nuclear deal.

[Octafish]

9. Tyler Cowen wants to know, too.

Scholar. Sage. Pro-business. Big ideas of how to make a killing. Heh heh heh.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

The guy seems to specialize in Big Ticket themes:

Just when I thought, maybe, we had reached bottom and were ready to bounce up -- I discovered there may be no bottom -- for me and the large part of the 99-percent.



Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, those at the top, though, are in for some more good times. He spoke about his findings with NPR's Steve Inskeep. I almost dropped my smartphone into my coffee while texting during rush hour, listening to the report this morning, I was so steamed.

Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse

For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously.

Oh, the good news is the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class" while the rest of the middle class goes the other way. Gee. That sounds eerily familiar. Oh..."Commercial interests are very powerful interests" uttered same press conference where Smirko said, "Money trumps peace." Pretty much always the on-message 24/7/366 for most of the last century.

Tyler Cowen, man of the Final Hours.

[blm]

15. There's corpmedia's corner….pro-war side puts more dollars in their bank accounts.

Who cares how much it costs this nation in blood and treasure? That's MORE money for them.

[Octafish]

18. Tyler Cowen on Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine'

Naomi Klein wrote extensively about Chile and the Chicago Boys in her book, "The Shock Doctrine."

Theory: The Shock Doctrine

Contributed by Mark Engler

“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change.” -- Neoliberal economist Milton Friedman

In Sum: Pro-corporate neoliberals treat crises such as wars, coups, natural disasters and economic downturns as prime opportunities to impose an agenda of privatization, deregulation, and cuts to social services.

Origins: Naomi Klein’s 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

The shock doctrine is a theory for explaining the way that force, stealth and crisis are used in implementing neoliberal economic policies such as privatization, deregulation and cuts to social services. Author Naomi Klein advanced this theory in her 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

By way of metaphor, Klein recounts the history of electroshock therapy experiments conducted by Scottish psychiatrist Ewen Cameron for the CIA in the 1950s. Cameron’s “shock therapy” sought to return troubled patients to a blank slate on which he could write a new personality. Klein argues that a parallel “shock therapy” process has been used at the macro level to impose neoliberal economic policies in countries around the world.

The shock doctrine posits that in periods of disorientation following wars, coups, natural disasters and economic panics, pro-corporate reformers aggressively push through unpopular “free market” measures. For more than thirty years, Klein writes, followers of Milton Friedman and other market fundamentalists have been “perfecting this very strategy: waiting for a major crisis, then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens were still reeling from the shock, then quickly making the ‘reforms’ permanent.”

One of the earliest examples of the shock doctrine is the case of Chile. In 1973, Chile’s democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a coup d’état led by army general Augusto Pinochet, with support from the United States. Amid lingering turmoil created by the coup and tensions caused by the ensuing economic downturn, Milton Friedman suggested that Pinochet implement a “shock program” of sweeping reforms including privatization of state-owned industries, elimination of trade barriers, and cuts to government spending. To implement these policies, the Pinochet regime appointed to important positions several Chilean disciples of Friedman. Additionally, to squash popular movements that opposed these changes, the regime unleashed a notorious program of torture and “disappearances,” which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of dissidents.

CONTINUED...

http://beautifultrouble.org/theory/the-shock-doctrine/

For some reason, economist and neo-something Tyler Cowen has a big problem with that idea. The economist frp, George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.

Shock Jock

By TYLER COWEN | October 3, 2007
Book Review
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
by Naomi Klein

EXCERPT...

Ms. Klein's rhetoric is ridiculous. For instance, she attaches import to the fact that the word "tank" appears in the label "think tank." In her book, free market advocates are tarred with the brush of torture, because free market advocates often support unpopular policies, and torture also often supports unpopular policies. Clearly, by her tactic of freewheeling association, free market advocates must support torture. Often Ms. Klein's proffered connections are so impressionistic and so reliant on a smarmy wink to the knowing that it is impossible to present them, much less critique them, in the short space of a book review.

Rarely are the simplest facts, many of which complicate Ms. Klein's presentation, given their proper due. First, the reach of government has been growing in virtually every developed nation in the world, including in America, and it hardly seems that a far-reaching free market conspiracy controls much of anything in the wealthy nations. Second, Friedman and most other free market economists have consistently called for limits on state power, including the power to torture. Third, the reach of government has been shrinking in India and China, to the indisputable benefit of billions. Fourth, it is the New Deal — the greatest restriction on capitalism in 20th century America and presumably beloved by Ms. Klein — that was imposed in a time of crisis. Fifth, many of the crises of the 20th century resulted from anti-capitalistic policies, rather than from capitalism: China was falling apart because of the murderous and tyrannical policies of Chairman Mao, which then led to bottom-up demands for capitalistic reforms; New Zealand and Chile abandoned socialistic policies for freer markets because the former weren't working well and induced economic crises.

But the reader will search in vain for an intelligent discussion of any of these points. What the reader will find is a series of fabricated claims, such as the suggestion that Margaret Thatcher created the Falkland Islands crisis to crush the unions and foist unfettered capitalism upon an unwilling British public.

The simplest response to Ms. Klein's polemic is to invoke old school conservatism. This approach, most prominently represented by classical liberal Friedrich Hayek, rejected the idea of throwing out or revising all social institutions at once. Indeed the long history of conservative thought stands behind moderation in most matters of social and economic policy. That tradition does advise a scaling down of free market ambitions, no matter how good they may sound in theory, and is probably our best hedge against disasters of our own making. Such a simple — indeed sensible — point would not have produced a best-selling screed, however. And so we return to charging Friedman as an enabler of torture. The clash between democratic preferences and policy prescriptions is, if anything, a problem for Ms. Klein herself. Ms. Klein's previous book, "No Logo" (2000), called for rebellion against advertising and multinational corporations, two institutions which have proved remarkably popular with ordinary democratic citizens. Starbucks is ubiquitous because of pressure from the bottom, not because of a top-down decision to force capitalism upon the suffering workers in a time of crisis.

If nothing else, Ms. Klein's book provides an interesting litmus test as to who is willing to condemn its shoddy reasoning. In the New York Times, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz defended the book: "Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one." So nonacademics get a pass on sloppy thinking, false "facts," and emotional appeals? In making economic claims, Ms. Klein demands to be judged by economists' standards — or at the very least, standards of simple truth or falsehood. Mr. Stiglitz continued: "There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification." Have we come to citing the failures of one point of view to excuse the mistakes of another?

With "The Shock Doctrine," Ms. Klein has become the kind of brand she lamented in "No Logo." Brands offer a simplification of image and presentation, rather than stressing the complexity, the details, and the inevitable trade-offs of a particular product. Recently, Ms. Klein told the Financial Times, "I stopped talking about (the campaign against brands) about two weeks after ‘No Logo' was published." She admitted that brands were never her real target, rather they were a convenient means of attacking the capitalist system more generally. In the same interview, Ms. Klein also tellingly remarked, "I believe people believe their own bulls---. Ideology can be a great enabler for greed."

CONTINUED...

http://www.nysun.com/arts/shock-jock/63867/

Which is all fine and good, until we remember that's what Naomi Klein was saying, that what destroyed democracy in Chile and threatens to destroy it in the USA. If not Iran, then Ukraine, WAR is what Tyler Cowen sees as being the economy of the future.

Most importantly: Hope you are well, my Friend. Read somewhere you haven't been feeling 100-percent. Godspeed your health, and you and yours, blm.

[Ghost Dog]

19. neo-something...

Neo-liberal in the economic sense: "... the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy..."

Disaster-capitalist.

[blm]

5. Mention Iran nuclear deal, prepare to be ignored at today's DU.

Today's DU.

[JEB]

7. Kick.

This is a real issue. Who knows how many lives at stake.

[JEB]

8. Kick again.

Are we all resigned to letting the neocons and war profiteers continue the bloody party? Too many distractions?

[blm]

10. Unfortunately, this isn't the old DU where this would be the MOST discussed matter

at hand because its import was apparent and undeniable.

[spanone]

11. k&r...

[RobertEarl]

12. What's Israel's stance?

Ya think maybe they are against a deal?

[RobertEarl]

13. Nevermind, I found it

"Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, met with the most conservative House Republicans last week to urge them to “leave everything on the field” to derail the accord. "

DU Link;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141159716

[blm]

16. Most Jewish Americans are FOR the deal. Some Israeli security experts are

supporting it, as well. It's the hardline extremists in Israel, hardliners in Iran, and hardliners in US who are opposed.

War mongers and war profiteers can NEVER get enough war.