Topic: Common Sense with Dan Carlin

[TrickTrain]

Um.. Yeah, what about the power to declare war? Is Dan right that all the wars since world war two are illegal?

I remember Chomsky many years ago saying in a lecture that the majority of the US's military actions since WWII _technically_ are not wars, but I could never since find the sound bite.

Is that a controversial point?  Are there actually people who think that Korea, Veitnam, Granada, the Persian Gulf, etc, were actual wars?

They were not wars because Congress didn't declaration of war.

[seaotter]

There sure as hell called wars on the memorials in Washington.

[seaotter]

Latest CS rails about Santorums promise to take us to war with Iran. Could Santorum even pretend to be able to beat Obama when he promises to start another middle eastern war?

[Johnny Slick]

No, but he's in fairness already a joke as a candidate. The guy post a reelection campaign by 18 points. That's a rare, um, achievement.

[stonesean]

Latest CS rails about Santorums promise to take us to war with Iran. Could Santorum even pretend to be able to beat Obama when he promises to start another middle eastern war?

I do find it very strange that the Republicans keep harping on the President's foreign policy.  This is pretty much the only issue I would absolutely avoid if I were trying to unseat Obama.

I imagine they'll stow this crap once the general election starts up.

Otherwise a GOP candidate is going to have to get up on a podium, look the American people in the face and say that the Iraq war should continue, Libya was a failure, and Bin Laden's killing was insignificant, or done wrong.

They may be getting some traction with the recent Pentagon plan to change strategy and no longer have forces available to fight two ground wars at the same time.  The GOP base seems to be eating this up right now, but again, once the general election starts, I think that criticism can be easily deflected by reminding folks that this was Bush/Rumsfeld's plan too....

[seaotter]

New common sense is pretty good. stonesean love to hear your reaction to his we have to see war to decide if it's worth it point. Dodd is a weasel.

The hardcore history on the middle ages was awesome as usual.

[Jordan]

Any thoughts on the newest common sense?? It's a real change of pace!!

I loved it, because he basically came to most of the same conclusions that I have, in that nobody is stepping up to do anything, so we kind of need to do it ourselves. Probably approximately 90% of the people I know who also feel that way are under the age of 25 or so, so it's pretty cool to hear him say it! I'm not sure his approach will be useful, but I'll definitely be checking in to find out...

[Johnny Slick]

I think we were closer to a revolution in the period from 1890-1914 than people give credit for, and again from 1965-1975. Right now I think there's a lot of discontent but I also think people may have learned the wrong lessons from the earlier "failures" and as a result things aren't focused enough. I'd love to see a revolt against the Democratic Party, even if it splits it into two pieces for an election or two. The Democrats could use a little education as to who their constituents actually are. As for the Republicans, well, fuck the Republicans.

[seaotter]

Newest CS. The militarization of the police.

[seaotter]

Anybody hear the most resent CS? Its about jobs and globalization. What did yall think?

[Johnny Slick]

...and socialism.  I was kind of afraid that this ep was going to be exactly what it turned out to be. I don't fully agree with him on globalization - I think there's more to the gloomy acceptance of its reality than he makes a case for in particular - but I will definitely say that there ought to come a time when the externalities of a country that "allows" its workers to be woken up at midnight and work 12-hour shifts with no increase in pay need to get taxed somehow.

I also think that the cure isn't so easy as a big country like the USA just stepping up and saying that the buck stops here. That will work to some small extent but the era of US economic hegemony is long since past and all that will happen to us in the end is we'll pay higher prices for iPhones and T-shirts and *still* not get those jobs back. However, if, for instance, an international policing agency was created... well, that would be sure to piss everybody off, which in and of itself demonstrates how well it would work.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

Yeah, I tend to agree with Carlin that it's obvious that the jobs ain't coming back, but I do not agree that the answer is to pretend we live in/try to go back to a time when nation-states were the only game in town. International organisations with teeth are the way forward - like the EU. 

[Johnny Slick]

Or (and I can't believe that I'm saying this as a person who not only grew up around Seattle but who used to work with many of the reporters who covered the Battle in Seattle) the WTO. Or at least an idealized, non-corrupt version of the WTO. But even a corrupt expanded WTO is better than what we have now, the same as the corrupt police of the early 20th century were better than the lawlessness of the 18th century in cities.

[stands2reason]

Yeah, I tend to agree with Carlin that it's obvious that the jobs ain't coming back, but I do not agree that the answer is to pretend we live in/try to go back to a time when nation-states were the only game in town. International organisations with teeth are the way forward - like the EU. 

There is another issue, that jobs are being "destroyed" by technological change. People are not adjusting to change in large enough numbers to the large number of new high tech jobs available. That's only part of the question though.

 I don't think it would make much difference if we had much less sweatshop-type labor. In principle most of it could still be automated, and for cheaper than a US minimum wage human alternative, let alone a "living wage" alternative in the US. If anything there is enough demand for minimum wage work that these parts of low end manufacturing would pay just that.

If you want to make the living wage argument, then you are accepting that a lot of people don't have enough economic value to live an enjoyable life on their own, or we have a structural problem where people just won't get the skills that are valuable. For these these people an income subsidy (negative income tax) would be way cheaper and more efficient than some crazy high minimum wage laws. Why torture the economy into solving a social problem when the government can solve it more directly.

[stands2reason]

If you think these ideas are a little "out there":

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/70-of-the-jobs-that-will-exist-20-years-from-now-dont-even-exist-today
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/structural-unemployment