Why Iraq is a success

World Net Daily is not pushing anything. Kevin McCullough is.

There are multiple ways of classifying GDP. You seem to be hung up on only one and only doing so because the numbers disagree with what McCullough has stated... But, for the sake of argument, lets use the Real GDP. Makes Iraq look that much more successful in regards to it's GDP. Though McCollough is probably comparing the current Dinar GDP so the numbers might be off if we use our Real GDP.

McCullough writes for World Net Daily. Those of us from Abuzz, (most of us, though the newcomers are welcome ), will remember that the owner of World Net Daily used to spam Abuzz. He would start a "question" on Abuzz, give a link to his World Net Daily site, then sign off as "World Net Daily". So much for this online rag's credibility.

Since McCullough wrote this for World Net Daily-at least, I didn't see any "reprinted" notices on the website-it is fair to say that this is World Net Daily's article. So this is World Net Daily's article, this article has their endorsement.

Those who deal with economics even on an amateur level such as myself notice that when it comes to GDP growth, the "real GDP" is universally quoted. Yes, the Bureau of Economic Analysis does publish your "current dollar" figure, but when it is used it is always clearly labelled as such. The current dollar figure is never used when one quotes GDP.

Reason? We just saw it-the "current dollar" GDP figures are always higher. To use the "current dollar" GDP figures when talking about GDP growth, without clearly labelling as such, will yield these wonderful rosy figures, because the "real GDP"-the figure always quoted-is much lower.

McCullough/World Net Daily said the GDP growth was coming onto 4 percent. The GDP growth in the never-quoted "current dollar" form is indeed 3.8 percent, but that only sounds good because the reader assumes World Net Daily is quoting the "real GDP" growth.

An annual GDP growth rate of 3.8 percent sounds great, because real GDP growth since 1950 is 3.3 percent a year.

However, an annual GDP growth rate of 3.8 percent in "current dollar" figures is pretty lousy, because the annual "current dollar" GDP growth rate since 1950 is 7.1 percent! That "current dollar" growth rate is not going to pay down any national debt at all, which World Net Daily claims.

That's why World Net Daily is being deceptive-it is pretending the figure from the never-quoted high chart is actually the figure is the universally quoted "low" chart.

And YOU, McGentrix, are part of this sham!

Re: Why Iraq is a success


Same source as above:

Walter, you are falling behind, catch up please.

Tell that my computer or my server or the www or whomever but not me.

Actually, Walter's headline is germane,
because it emphasizes that the 2.0 percent
figure IS the official figure one uses when
quoting GDP growth.

In other words, the Bureau Of
Economic Analysis makes it clear
that when quoting GDP growth,
the "real GDP" figure is the default figure
which everyone will assume you are
quoting. To quote other figures, such as
the "current dollar" figure without clearly
labelling it is to carry on a deception and a sham.

That's what Walter's graphic illustrates,
and it was germane. If a little large.....

Retraction:





I retract my statement that KevinMcCullough's piece
is to be considered necessarily the opinion of WorldNetDaily.

After looking at McCullough's piece on the
WorldNetDaily site, I see it is clearly
labelled "Commentary" in two places.
This makes it the equivalent of a guest columnist
in a newspaper's editorial section.

Everyone knows that newspapers frequently
carry columnists with varying points of view,
and that these columns are not to be considered necessarily
the view of the newspaper in question. McCullough's piece
is in a similar situation.

Therefore, McGentrix is correct in saying that
WorlNetDaily did not give these spurious figures, Kevin McCullough did.
And McCullough does not necessarily speak for WorldNetDaily.

Here's a question - how much is Iraq's economy being propped up by, oh, I don't know, maybe some part of the billions of dollars that we've been spending there every month?

I believe you are seeing a situation that isn't exactly indicative of fundamental growth...

Cycloptichorn

Why Iraq is a success!?!?!?!?

I just crapped my damn pants.

I agree with McG.

Iraq HAS been a success in ONE way..............



From the BBC......

"The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006. "

....snippet.....

"........They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New American Century" might work.

They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking in them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States just as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had transformed Europe and the Pacific.

Since so much was pinned on Iraq, it is inevitable that the problems there should have undermined the whole idea.

"Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever returns," says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton administration.

"Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says.

"The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy.

"Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration......."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6189793.stm