NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ
Not everything from Iraq is doom and gloom. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook's assessment of the Iraqi economy. Its GDP grew by 52.2% in one year alone. I also noticed that the unemployment rate is much lower than even a year before. This is happening even despite lower oil output.

BTW, if you dispute these findings, they probably aren't too terribly far from the truth. The Economist reported a 45% increase in GDP earlier this year.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ
Not everything from Iraq is doom and gloom. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook's assessment of the Iraqi economy. Its GDP grew by 52.2% in one year alone. I also noticed that the unemployment rate is much lower than even a year before. This is happening even despite lower oil output.

BTW, if you dispute these findings, they probably aren't too terribly far from the truth. The Economist reported a 45% increase in GDP earlier this year.

A 52% increase on what was left of their GDP isn't quite as impressive as the percentage alone might suggest. (If your GDP consists of 2 lemonade stands opening a third gives you a 50% increase.)

Compared to what? A year that saw their economy wiped out by a war? Or by their average economy in the pre-war years?

Compared to what? A year that saw their economy wiped out by a war? Or by their average economy in the pre-war years?
Over last year. Last year's GDP did decline by around 20%. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that growth will be over 100% year after year. It takes time to build an economy, yet it is happening remarkably quick. Perhaps a little too quick.

Compared to what? A year that saw their economy wiped out by a war? Or by their average economy in the pre-war years?

It's YoY... so compared to last year.

GDP increase is not necessarily good. Imagine two huge oil tankers crashing into each other off the coast of the US. The GDP would climb because people are paid to treat the wounded, bury the dead, get rid of the leaking oil and build two new tankers. The GDP went up.

I am sure it is a combination of foreign investment, treating wounded and selling other services, rising oil prices and Iraq is allowed to sell more oil, and over estimation. We will see what happens in the future. I believe the CIA tries to win people's hearts by claiming everything is going up because of democracy.

GDP increase is not necessarily good. Imagine two huge oil tankers crashing into each other off the coast of the US. The GDP would climb because people are paid to treat the wounded, bury the dead, get rid of the leaking oil and build two new tankers. The GDP went up.

I am sure it is a combination of foreign investment, treating wounded and selling other services, rising oil prices and Iraq is allowed to sell more oil, and over estimation. We will see what happens in the future. I believe the CIA tries to win people's hearts by claiming everything is going up because of democracy.
I've never connected the World Factbook with CIA policy, but always saw it as objective.
If there is foreign investment, it is probably government sponsored only. Iraq is dangerous enough to scare investors away. I credit it on two things. First, Iraq has a low profile, yet very compotent central banking team. They have managed to keep a lid on hyperinflation that is so frequent in war zones, and they have kept the Iraqi dinar stable, even while floating it. Secondly, I credit it to a return to market activity. Iraqis have economic freedom as never before under Saddam, and they are spending it. I hear that luxury goods are being imported from Kuwait. And their port of Umm Qasr is the wealthiest town in Iraq because of its trade, even wealthier than some towns by oil fields.

How about a few comments from Iraqis?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/in_pictures_iraqi_lives_two_years_after_saddam/html/1.stm

Good news for the freedom loving crowd.

How about a few comments from Iraqis?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/in_pictures_iraqi_lives_two_years_after_saddam/html/1.stm
I read most of them. It seems like the feelings were mixed. Some of them did hint at the incoming wealth, but nearly all were concerned about security. However, it is my belief that government institutions alone can't bring security. The US is training the Iraqi security forces the best they can, but even if they are world class, they won't stop it. Rapidly rising standards of living are also needed. That seems to be coming.

I love me some Republicans!

Waste the living crap out of a country,drive its economy to a dead stand still, and you strut around like Bush is a living God when that country has a little anemic growth.

Oh yeah, and Iraq has it pretty bad too.

I love me some Republicans!

Waste the living crap out of a country,drive its economy to a dead stand still, and you strut around like Bush is a living God when that country has a little anemic growth.

Oh yeah, and Iraq has it pretty bad too.
When you have a picture of how the world should be, you never escape the frame. When you have an idea of what the world will be, your horizons are endless. You, my friend, are in the former. Tragically, so is the rest of the left, both pro and anti war.

When you have a picture of how the world should be, you never escape the frame. When you have an idea of what the world will be, your horizons are endless. You, my friend, are in the former. Tragically, so is the rest of the left, both pro and anti war.
Thanks, you've just pigeon-holed an enormous number of people in a completely inappropriate manner. You're clearly intelligent, so please don't stoop to such risible generalisations. Christ.

Thanks, you've just pigeon-holed an enormous number of people in a completely inappropriate manner. You're clearly intelligent, so please don't stoop to such risible generalisations. Christ.
Who ever said I was intelligent?

Who ever said I was intelligent?
Well... me, just then. Prove me wrong, I dare ya...

Well... me, just then. Prove me wrong, I dare ya...
What non Americans can't understand is that American politics is poisoned. So poisoned that we are in mental septic shock. That's why I jdebate ideaologies. I'm an ideaologue, and I'm not ashamed of it. These other people are as well. Freakstonia, however, never has an intelligent counterpoint. So he/she says something stupid, and I say something stupid back.

BTW, if you dispute these findings, they probably aren't too terribly far from the truth.I bet they are not terribly far [/sarcasm]
:D :D

What non Americans can't understand is that American politics is poisoned. So poisoned that we are in mental septic shock. That's why I jdebate ideaologies. I'm an ideaologue, and I'm not ashamed of it. These other people are as well. Freakstonia, however, never has an intelligent counterpoint. So he/she says something stupid, and I say something stupid back.
Trust me, UK politics is little better. We're heading in your direction, but with an extra frisson of European-style racism for good measure.

What non Americans can't understand is that American politics is poisoned. So poisoned that we are in mental septic shock. That's why I jdebate ideaologies. I'm an ideaologue, and I'm not ashamed of it. These other people are as well. Freakstonia, however, never has an intelligent counterpoint. So he/she says something stupid, and I say something stupid back.

Dude, it was a comment about the US economy drawing a comparison with the Iraqi economy and how Republicans are even now trying to sell the country the economic marvel which is the Bush malaise.

I love me some Septic Shock! :p

Dude, it was a comment about the US economy drawing a comparison with the Iraqi economy and how Republicans are even now trying to sell the country the economic marvel which is the Bush malaise.

I love me some Septic Shock! :p
Bush made no major changes to the economy. Quite frankly, I don't know what economic model Iraq will adopt one day. While I hope it is a free market model, they will have the final say. Still, it's good that their economy is improving.

Some people here look for the silver lining on the dark cloud. Most others, however, look for the Dark Cloud when they see the silver lining.. and if they can't find it... they complain that it's not Gold. :rolleyes:

luck bastards! i wish I lived in a coutry with an economic boom where the ambulance sent to rescue wounded people turns out to be full of explosives.

luck bastards! i wish I lived in a coutry with an economic boom where the ambulance sent to rescue wounded people turns out to be full of explosives.
You just can't see anything good, can you?

luck bastards! i wish I lived in a coutry with an economic boom where the ambulance sent to rescue wounded people turns out to be full of explosives.
where everymorning...when father goes to work...the children pray that he will make it alive tru the DeathTraps (UScheckpoints)...

lucky bastards indeed...

where everymorning...when fether goes to work...the children pray that he will make it alive tru the DeathTraps (UScheckpoints)...

lucky bastards indeed...and not forget that when he does go to work, he also prays that no 'Freedom Fighters' don't blow up his kids school to "show those Americans."

Please, let's not use this thread for rehashing arguements.

and not forget that when he does go to work, he also prays that no 'Freedom Fighters' don't blow up his kids school to "show those Americans."
their school is a Police academy?

Please, let's not use this thread for rehashing arguements.
True... my apologies.

really mystic. last year the country was in ruins. this year it is still in ruins but doing somewhat better. with all the money we are pumping into iraq, including several billions that are utterly unaccounted for, they should be having incredible growth.

it is starting to piss me off that we can spend so much money rebuilding iraq (which we have to do in my opinion) but have none for things in this country like "no child left behind".

really mystic. last year the country was in ruins. this year it is still in ruins but doing somewhat better. with all the money we are pumping into iraq, including several billions that are utterly unaccounted for, they should be having incredible growth.

it is starting to piss me off that we can spend so much money rebuilding iraq (which we have to do in my opinion) but have none for .....and when are basic Public services going to be what they were before the invasion?

really mystic. last year the country was in ruins. this year it is still in ruins but doing somewhat better. with all the money we are pumping into iraq, including several billions that are utterly unaccounted for, they should be having incredible growth.

it is starting to piss me off that we can spend so much money rebuilding iraq (which we have to do in my opinion) but have none for things in this country like "no child left behind".
If the US government passes a law for US citizens, chances are that you'll see no effects on your personal life. I never do. The American system is too well entrenched for most people to seriously notice all but the most sweeping of changes. However, it is undeniable that the series of events in Iraq, from the fall of Saddam to the insurgency, has touched each and every single Iraqi.
As for the money that the US gives to Iraq, it is a pity that Iraq isn't growing faster, but there is a reason: the insurgency. It seems a bit calmer than last year, and while only time can tell if I am right, I do believe that I am. It will take years to completely neutralize the insurgency, but as time goes on, the economy will get better each succeeding day.
BTW, at least the Iraqis only have to worry about one insurgency. Remember how Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr launched his own? He's been marginalized. The Shi'ites no longer have any interest in an insurgency, as they control the government. And as long as the Kurds can keep a modicum of autonomy, they won't start one, either.

BTW, I've heard a bit of good news about the Iraqi dinar. As you may immagine, the dinar devalued exponetentially after it was floated from Hussein's fixed rate (about 0.38 dinar/$1). It is now hovering around 1800 dinar/$1. However, the central bank has managed to keep that rate stable, despite Iraq being a warzone. It is utterly amazing if you ask me.

and when are basic Public services going to be what they were before the invasion?In most areas... they are already better than what they were before the Invasion.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ
Not everything from Iraq is doom and gloom. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook's assessment of the Iraqi economy. Its GDP grew by 52.2% in one year alone. I also noticed that the unemployment rate is much lower than even a year before. This is happening even despite lower oil output.

BTW, if you dispute these findings, they probably aren't too terribly far from the truth. The Economist reported a 45% increase in GDP earlier this year.


That sound like bush is doing great for Iraqs economy. Now why cant bush do the same for us????

That growth is likely mostly because the sanctions are gone. It just shows what kind of hardship they inflicted upon the Iraqi people.

In most areas... they are already better than what they were before the Invasion.

prove it.

In most areas... they are already better than what they were before the Invasion.
geo areas?.... most of Iraq is worst off....

economy areas...
unemployement? nope
security? nope
health? nope
education? nope
water? nope
electricity? nope

just in what service area are they better off than before the US Bombed the shit out of their Country?

Unemployment in Iraq is improving very rapidly too. Just last year, nearly 100,000 entry-level terrorist jobs were created.

Unemployment in Iraq is improving very rapidly too. Just last year, nearly 100,000 entry-level terrorist jobs were created.but the Churn is High...

People who succeed their first Assignment is immediatly taken to see Da Big Boss...

those who failed are given an enforce Sabattical and their return dates are not confirmed...

Unemployment in Iraq is improving very rapidly too. Just last year, nearly 100,000 entry-level terrorist jobs were created.

Entry level terrorist job description:

Must be willing to work for little to no pay or food and shelter. Face insurmountable odds against trained, well armed and coordinated opposition. No medical benefits. Must be proficient at pushing up desert roses.

Incentive package: Upon completion of said objectives, you will have access to all the virgins(gender of your choice) and grapes and dates(fruit) that you can manage.

Penalties for failure/capture: you will be housed and fed better than you have ever been in your life. You will generally have your rights respected except for the occasional naked pyramid games. A select few will be provided with air conditioning throughout the day and the rest will have the opportunity to "volunteer" for Syrian/Israeli information extraction techniques.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ
Not everything from Iraq is doom and gloom. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook's assessment of the Iraqi economy. Its GDP grew by 52.2% in one year alone. I also noticed that the unemployment rate is much lower than even a year before. This is happening even despite lower oil output.

BTW, if you dispute these findings, they probably aren't too terribly far from the truth. The Economist reported a 45% increase in GDP earlier this year.

That's good to hear, but by no means does this justify the war (I'm not saying you implied that, I'm just saying).

Rebuilding an entire country ravaged by 15 years of war will always stimulate economy, duh!

Bush claimed it before the war started while looking for support. He said something like "Any nation that follow us in Iraq will be granted with lucrative reconstruction contract, while any nation who don't wont have nothing".

The question is who get the real profits from this reconstruction; Iraq, the Iraqui's people, americans or the few entrepreneur who happens to be friends with Bush?

The largest reason for GDP growth is the amount of reconstruction money put in to the country, some 20 billion by the US alone. This amounts to a 22% of GDP influx of spending in to the country, so the effects will be very dramatic. Plus, Iraq's oil now flows freely (and quotaless by special dispensation from OPEC) so that produces even more revenue. The country's GDP was disproportionately small due to Saddam's mismanagement and the sanctions so growth was even more pronounced because that choking effect was lifted. As a result, foreign investment is even more attracted to the nation, and this creates a spiral that will result in stellar growth until the economy has fully recovered from the two wars and Saddam, and then will shift to (hopefully) sustainable growth.

I should preface by saying I thought the war and occupation were a shit idea. I could criticise it further, but it's better to look to the future, isn't it?

ANYWAY.

Regarding Vetalia's comment: GDP isn't only money that comes into an economy, but rather the sum of all the goods and services produced within that country's borders within a given time period (year to year in this case). Money pumped into a country does not by itself guarantee success. It's what's done with that money that's absolutely critical. If raw cash alone were a dictate of GDP stimulation, we wouldn't have deep recessions in certain cash-rich countries of western Europe.

As far as Iraq's phenomenal GDP growth over the last year is concerned, it IS entirely true that the biggest reason for it is most likely the reconstruction effort. If physical infrastructure wasn't being built at the pace it's being built at, we wouldn't see numbers like 52% over last year.

That being said, devastation and occupation seem to work wonders for ravaged populaces and economies. I keep thinking of Japan, South Korea, and Germany. All of these were countries that were ravaged by massive wars that threw society into varying degrees of chaos and led to double-digit poverty. The economies of those countries were, for decades, bouyed by resource-mobilisation for reconstruction efforts and (regrettably, for reasonings of dependency) by a boost from military stationings by the U.S.

So, really, we could totally decry the sharp GDP hike as a result of the occupation, but the same write-offs could have been made about the Koreans or the Japanese 40 or 50 years ago, but here we are with two of the most vibrant major economies, arguably jump-started by military devastation.

I don't advocate war as a means of economic jump-starting, nonetheless. Read the novel "The Mouse That Roared" by Leonard Wibberly. It's completely satire, but it has some wry truth regarding this phenomenon.

The largest reason for GDP growth is the amount of reconstruction money put in to the country, some 20 billion by the US alone. This amounts to a 22% of GDP influx of spending in to the country, so the effects will be very dramatic. Plus, Iraq's oil now flows freely (and quotaless by special dispensation from OPEC) so that produces even more revenue. The country's GDP was disproportionately small due to Saddam's mismanagement and the sanctions so growth was even more pronounced because that choking effect was lifted. As a result, foreign investment is even more attracted to the nation, and this creates a spiral that will result in stellar growth until the economy has fully recovered from the two wars and Saddam, and then will shift to (hopefully) sustainable growth.
That, however, is no bad thing. Right now, Iraqi economic institutions barely exist, and it was far worse during Hussein. Yet the common excuse that third world countries have for not developing a thing is a lack of capital. That cannot be applied in Iraq anymore. And if security improves, Iraq may become a new China: a place for foreign investment regardless of return. Yet China is using that money, and I have great faith that Iraq will, too.

That's good to hear, but by no means does this justify the war (I'm not saying you implied that, I'm just saying).
Maybe I didn't imply it, but I'm guilty of supporting it.

Now, what I think would be great for Iraq is debt relief. Iraq's debt burden was, until recently, the highest in the world, accounting for 235% of GDP. And every year, it would grow as interest compounded itself.
The debt burden is also very high in countries like Japan, Jamaica, and Italy. Yet they used every last cent toward a legitamite cause, and often had the free market apply it. Iraq did no such thing. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was arguably the most repressive, toltalitarian, and megalomanic regime the world has ever seen since Josef Stalin's. He lended heavily, and spent it all on his palaces, WMD programs, and the wars that he started. The bit of infrastructure he did spend on was a dam project that destroyed the marshes of southern Iraq, displacing a million people. Convieniently, his regime viewed them as troublemakers.
The new government, despite its faults it will have, can never be worse than Hussein's. It will also be far more legitamite in the eyes of the Iraqis and the world. Iraq deserves a second chance because of this. The massive debt relief so far is encouraging, but not enough. The only debt I want to see Iraq have is war reparations to Kuwait, which are mostly paid off by oil revenue, anyhow. Otherwise, the Iraqis deserve to be debt free.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was arguably the most repressive, toltalitarian, and megalomanic regime the world has ever seen since Josef Stalin's.

playing "who want's to be a totalitarian nightmare?" is fun. but hussein is just a second-rate playground bully compared to pol pot.

playing "who want's to be a totalitarian nightmare?" is fun. but hussein is just a second-rate playground bully compared to pol pot.


Of course the US didn't groom and help place Pol Pot into power, nor did we arm Pol Pot with WMDs, to help keep him power. Saddam was our Frankenstein and if he hadn't invaded Kuwait he'd still be our embarrassing friend.

Of course if the US hadn't destabilized the Cambodian Government and bombed the living crap out of the Cambodian country side, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would have never of gotten into power.

In Cambodia we see the unforseen consequences of intervention. As 9-11 was carried out by the same machine the US created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, so the anti-communist efforts in Cambodia spawned genocide.

playing "who want's to be a totalitarian nightmare?" is fun. but hussein is just a second-rate playground bully compared to pol pot.
That's why I said arguably. There were many toltalitarian wackos out there, but there is no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein was one of the worse, and the only difference between him and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung is that Hussein had no real ideaology. He just liked the power.
Now can we get back to the economic debate?

bump

That's why I said arguably. There were many toltalitarian wackos out there...yeah Hussein should make it in to my top 50 worst leaders list

yeah Hussein should make it in to my top 50 worst leaders list
More like the top ten. Now stop diverting my attention and stay on topic.

sucked to live in Iraq before US bombing...and now it sux even more
geo areas?.... most of Iraq is worst off....

economy areas...
unemployement? nope
security? nope
health? nope
education? nope
water? nope
electricity? nope

just in what service area are they better off than before the US Bombed the shit out of their Country?
BTW...more like top 50

It's not my day today, is it?

bump

Nothing really much to argue about I guess. It's great their having phenomenal growth. I would be worried if they aren't. And I agree they really could use a debt clearance. Imo, we've wasted too much time and money on Saddam and his oil for food and other nonsense programs.

Nothing really much to argue about I guess. It's great their having phenomenal growth. I would be worried if they aren't. And I agree they really could use a debt clearance. Imo, we've wasted too much time and money on Saddam and his oil for food and other nonsense programs.
Yes we have. I believe that Oil for Food still exists, though in a much different form and under a different name. The Iraqis now have the money and the ability to feed themselves. Food aid will still be needed, but with the government becoming flushed with cash, it can buy food for those that need it.

Now obviously, it is currently very dangerous to get into Iraq. Insurgents have targeted planes in Iraq, and are suspected to have shot down a British plane in January. The landing at Baghdad Internation is, let's just say, uncomfortable. The road to Baghdad is probably the least secure in the world. Entering by land is even more dangerous, as ambushes are frequent. No one except the best paid civilian will even think of going to Iraq right now.
Yet I wonder if any of the airports are open to foreign civilian flights. Obviously, military flights land daily, and it's probably the best way to hitch a ride for civilians. Yet I wonder if civilian flights are possible.
If they are, it can't be many. Iraq's official carrier wasn't much before the invasion, and its grand total of two planes were destroyed on the tarmac during it. I know American Airlines thought of an airline route between Detroit and Baghdad, yet that may have been postponed.

better tahn before the US bombers visit?
better in what? how?

unemployement? nope
security? nope
health? nope
education? nope
water? nope
electricity? nope

are they better off than before the US Bombed the shit out of their Country?
I dont think so.

better tahn before the US bombers visit?
better in what? how?

unemployement? nope
security? nope
health? nope
education? nope
water? nope
electricity? nope

are they better off than before the US Bombed the shit out of their Country?
I dont think so.
You're so redundant.

Why are we in Iraq anyway? Saddam would have died of natural causes anyway, like Castro will. And I think we already fought a war over Saddam gassing the kurds and everything. Keep immersing yourself in FOX News and knock yourself into 1984.

Remember, War is Peace.

"When we're talkin' about war, we're really talkin' about peace"--Donald Rumsfeld."

We have a duty in your government to protect the American people. So the second big task at hand is to make sure we do everything we can to protect our homeland. And I will assure you I will continue to work to spread freedom and democracy, and therefore, peace, in parts of the world that are desperate for freedom, democracy, and peace."
-- And how will he be spreading freedom, democracy and therefore, peace? That's right. Through armed conflict. George W. Bush. Collinsville, Illinois, Jan. 5, 2005

Think haaaaappy thoouughts. Yeesssssss, everything is perfect in pleasantville.

Oh, Bush just said this in his latest speech:
2+2=5
better believe it people, he loves you and you love him.