« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Y Kant Ryun Crockr Do Economiks
I don't have half the brainpower necessary for economics reporting, but luckily, the Media Consortium's Brian Beutler does. Beutler examines the statistics cited by Amb. Ryan Crocker during his testimony this week, and finds that -- somehow! -- they don't really add up to the success story that Crocker related:
Perhaps Crocker's single biggest claim during his two days on Capitol Hill was this: "The IMF estimates that economic growth will exceed 6 percent for 2007." It's a true statement as far as it goes, but the International Monetary Fund's Executive Board reported the figure with less enthusiasm. "Economic growth has been slower than expected," the IMF fretted, "mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has not materialized."Indeed, it's typical for a country as damaged as Iraq to see its economy fluctuate wildly, resulting in spurts of growth much more substantial than 6 percent.
He continues:
In fact, Iraq's GDP has varied greatly since the 2003 invasion. It climbed 46.5 percent in 2004, after having fallen 41.4 percent in 2003, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index (PDF). In other words, though 6 percent would constitute significant growth for a developed nation like the United States, it is nearly meaningless for a country that's experienced as much turmoil as has Iraq.And even if the figure had been more impressive—two or three times its reported value—it might still be irrelevant to the great majority of Iraqis, who don't benefit from government salaries or oil industry profits.
"The IMF likes to use macroeconomic aggregates, but these are pretty irrelevant for today's Iraq," says Robert E. Looney, a professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School who has written widely on developing economies. He cautions against putting too much stock in Crocker's numbers. "The figures are all over the place."
Comments (13)
Rodney wrote on September 13, 2007 3:47 PM:a 6% increase over zero is still zero.
Joel Patterson wrote on September 13, 2007 4:07 PM:When Boston had its super-growth around Rte 128 in the 1960s, that was around 6%. This has to be an exaggerated figure.
Code word: spade, as in call a spade, a spade
PC in TO wrote on September 13, 2007 4:16 PM:Some simple math,
Start with 100,
41.6% decrease = 58.4
46.5% increase on 58.4 = 85.6%
Down 14.4% in two years.
Terrible!
Phil
kl wrote on September 13, 2007 4:33 PM:GDP is funny. Destroy country by earthquake, war etc, and then a 6% growth rate is impressive?
JimBob wrote on September 13, 2007 5:03 PM:Puts me in mind of the old stockbroker trick, pretty much in disuse now: stock starts at 100, goes down 25%. Then it goes up 33.33%. Subtract down from up, and you've got an increase of 8.33%, right? Happy clients, unless they notice that the stock is only back at 100, where it started.
markg8 wrote on September 13, 2007 5:08 PM:I'm concerned that if I heard Petraeus right the US is directly paying Iraqis to join the local police in Anbar and elsewhere each $300 a mth. These are the only jobs around so of course they take it. Despite Petraeus's denials we're arming them too.
Rumsfeld wasn't right about much but one thing he didn't want to see was the Iraqis become as dependent on us as the South Vietnamese were in early 70s and the Kosovars are right now.
In 1973 when all those GIs and their paychecks left Saigon combined with the first oil embargo crippled South Vietnam's economy. If we were to shut down Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo much the same thing would happen there cuz there's nothing muhc else going on in Kosovo.
If we're paying every Tom, Dick and Omar in the Anbar province $300 a month to run off AQ wannabes
and giving them the weapons to do it we're setting the stage for an economic collapse and the mother of all nasty street fights once we leave and take those paychecks with us.
Paying walking around money for a little peace and quiet in Anbar or anywhere else in Iraq is unsustainable. Arming them in the meantime (instead of disarming them as promised) is a recipe for an even bigger disaster down the line.
illlich wrote on September 13, 2007 6:06 PM:This all reminds me of writing a term paper in high school or college, in particular one paper my old college roommate wrote: he didn't have enough to say for the required amount of pages (for example, not enough data to prove the thesis statement), and so he paraphrased a lot of what he had already said and then increased the margins and spacing, and stretched it out to the required number of pages. End result: D--- (yes, "D triple minus" with a note that said "see me about this" from the professor).
Their evidence of a decrease in sectarian violence (or any violence) is just so unbelievably weak that it's only those who WANT to believe who ARE believing.
illlich wrote on September 13, 2007 6:13 PM:oops-- I was thinking about Petraeus' numbers, not the economics of Iraq . . . surprisingly, the same logic seems to apply here to the economic situation.
Yossarian wrote on September 13, 2007 6:19 PM:Let me say this. President Bush is a shameless git! He attacked and destroyed a country that had done nothing to us, no matter whether Saddam was evil or not, I mean it was Rummy himself who went and shook that tyrant's hand back in the 80s. So why are we letting him still give speeches or address the nation? Dems need to take the line that he is shameless and that he needs to step down immediately, period, end of discussion. If any of us had performed as badly in our jobs as he has in his we would not only be fired but we would be expected to be ashamed of ourselves. So why give this freak a free pass?
SC: step as in Dems need to step up to the plate and start hitting some balls
nofltwlt wrote on September 13, 2007 8:24 PM:All during Crocker's testimony I couldn't help but think how much he looked like a manikin and how someone who is in Iraq could be that pale. Then it struck me, contrary to McCain's phony story, it isn't safe to go outside in Iraq so Crocker spends all of his time inside.
Tim wrote on September 14, 2007 7:01 AM:I remember reading the CIA Fact Book web almanac in 2003. The GNP for the year before we invaded was $52 billion dollars.
For that we have paid a half trillion dollars and counting. Such a deal. A few well placed bribes could have bought us Iraq at a fraction of the price, with infrastructure still in place, and no dead Americans or Iraqi's.
Anonymous wrote on September 14, 2007 7:37 AM:I've come to realize that EVERY bush policy right now is to push off any and all problems on the next administration.
Just look at his sub-prime mortgage/credit crunch solution.
Many economists are coming to the conclusion that Bush will put a bandaide on the liquidity mess in the next couple of months. But the problem will re-emerge in little over a year and be far worse than it is now.
Just look at the UK response (and reason for it), much different than the US.
The economists (including some conservative publications) think this is all a shell game to keep Republican voters in their houses and happy until next November, rather than be homeless in foreclosure. He will accomplish this with even less restrictive lending practices than before.
But the Bush solution will exacerbate the situation in the long term. After Bush is gone, the prediction from the economists is that the entire economy will be in shambles, with the additional bad loans added to the existing portfolio ($2 trillion??) of debt.
Guess who gets stuck paying that bill.
Dump all his problems on the Dem prez is his real solution....'Fuck 'em all'.
JD21 wrote on September 14, 2007 8:09 AM:If you want the truth about the war, as opposed to our President's morally treasonous chearleading, see the NYT Editorial Page today.
Editorial:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Paul Krugman:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp
There's lots more to these articles at the links.