A big media topic of late has been "comprehensive immigration reform." Talking heads keep saying increased immigration means increased economic growth; more people=more potential consumers, etc.
That same media goes right along with any suggestion of sanctions and penalties for countries like Iran. OK...if more consumers means more economic growth, doesn't cutting off the potential consumers of Iran and Cuba and Burma from US output also limit economic growth?
You might retort that the average Iranian or Cuban consumer isn't particularly prosperous. The same is true of many of the immigrants who would arrive in the US via comprehensive immigration reform. It's not like the Statue of Liberty says: "Send us your posh, your one-percenters, your moneyed masses yearning to spend freely." Far from it. So if the media doesn't consider the poverty of those migrating here an impediment, the poverty of those potential consumers in Iran, Cuba, and Burma shouldn't be used as an excuse to cut them off from American markets.
Don't expect anyone on TV to raise this point. The establishment media is firmly in favor of all forms of belligerence against "rogue states," especially those containing Arabs and Persians. When it comes to Americans and the Middle East, economics takes a back seat, and practical foreign policy analysis gets thrown in the trunk.
My Twitter feed trades freely with Stalin's ghost: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne