Iraq smoking gun

[Shady]

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan

Washington Post

[TokyoTakarazuka]

The two decades from 1980 to 2000 in Britain, Canada, and the USA saw slower groth in GDP than the two previous decades. Incomes declined in all 3 for much of the 1980's and 90's. Growth did not keep up woth population growth.

In regards to both Great Britain and the United States I can verify that your statement is false using the official economic statistics tabulated by Angus Maddison, one of the OECD’s most esteemed economic historians (see, for instance, his recent book The World Economy). Between 1950 and 1998 the Gross Domestic Product per capita of the United States grew at an average rate of 2.24% annually. Under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Truman (1950-1952) the United States saw above-average growth rates of 2.5% annually. The immediate post-war years under Truman saw particularly high economic growth. Under Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton (1992-1998) annual GDP per capita growth was 2.23%, about average by recent historical standards. The period of history which has pulled down the 1950-1998 average so much are the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter between 1969 and 1981. During each of these years, GDP per capita grew at a rate of only 1.85%. Although America had inherited a dismal economic legacy from the 1970’s when Reagan became president in 1981, his administration nonetheless oversaw per capita growth rates of 2.57% annually. Although falling birth rates have caused a recent slowdown in GDP growth for Great Britain, per capita growth in recent years has actually been slightly higher than it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Between 1950 and 1998, Britain’s GDP per capita expanded at a rate of 2.12% annually, including annual growth of 2.27% between 1950 and 1968, 2.3% between 1981 and 1998, and a disastrously low 1.62% between 1969 and 1980. Thatcher’s administration saw 2.13% annual growth. Although this figure is admittedly barely above recent historical norms, I want to stress that Thatcher inherited an economy in shambles thanks to union activism during the Winter of Discontent combined with the 1979-1980 oil crisis. Britain suffered far worse from the economic stagnation of the 1970’s than the United States did, and I think that should be taken into consideration when assessing Thatcher’s economic legacy. In fact, from 1983 to 1989 Britain’s economy grew faster than at any time since at least 1950 (the earliest date that I have statistics for) an during this period, average GDP per capita growth exceeded 4% on three occasions, a feat which was achieved only three other times between 1950 and 1982. In terms of per capita GDP growth, your statement holds true only of Canada, which has indeed seen startling lower growth rates from 1980 to present.

In addition to per capita GDP growth, the Reagan years saw good figures for other economic indicators as well. According to www.miseryindex.us, when Reagan took office in 1981, the combined ‘misery index’ (price inflation+unemployment) of the United States was 19.33 (7.5% unemployment and 11.83% inflation). The misery index for 1980 was the highest ever seen in the United States between 1948 and 2004. By the time Reagan left office, however, the misery index had been reduced startlingly to only 9.72 (5.3% unemployment and 4.42% inflation). The article I cited in my previous post demonstrates that another of Reagan’s economic achievements was rapidly growing real income amongst all social classes; “For all U.S. households, the mean average of real income rose b 15.2 per cent from 1980 to 1989 (from $33,409 to $38,493, in 1990 dollars), compared with a 0.8 per cent decline from 1970 to 1980.” Although I have yet to find comprehensive and reliable data on real income growth in Great Britain, the statistic I cited in my previous post regarding a strong rise in income growth during the Thatcher years comes from the book, “Margaret Thatcher: Prime Minister Indomitable”. Although Thatcher’s performance in combating inflation was spectacular, unemployment rates actually worsened for most of the 1980’s. From 1970 to 1981 Great Britain saw average annual inflation rates of 12%, but from 1981 to present the inflation rate has been only 4%. When Thatcher took office Britain’s total misery index was 24.4, with an 18% inflation rate and unemployment of 6.4% (according to “Public Policy and The Economy). When she left office in 1990 it was 13, with a 7% inflation rate and 6% unemployment (although these last two figures may be slightly off since I extrapolated them from a line graph found in the book, “Major Recessions: Britain and the World, 1920-1995”).

Hogwash. Reagan spent his country into unprecedented defecits, and it continues unabated to this day. The US dollar should, by now, be virtually worthless, and only foreign investors parking their money in the US supports this 'unnatural levitation act'.

Although budget and balance-of-payments deficits are certainly undesirable for any country, they are not a determinant of the country's present economic health. To measure that, the most important indicators are per capita GDP growth, real income growth, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate. Opinions among economists, however, vary greatly regarding what effect budget and balance-of-payments deficits have on these indicators; a nation can certainly experience such deficits while still enjoying a strong economy. For instance, in 1930 Britain had a balanced budget and its pound was worth comparatively more than today due to a decent balance-of-payments surplus (see “Public Policy and The Economy” for these figures). In 2003, however, Britain experienced a budget deficit totaling 3% of its GDP, as well as a balance-of-payments deficit of 1.7% of the GDP. Of course, no one would argue that Britain’s economy was better in 1930 than it was in 2003. On the contrary, due to the Great Depression 1930 was one of Great Britain’s worst years. Although I don’t deny that the high budget and balance-of-payments deficits of the 1980’s somewhat tarnish Reagan’s otherwise excellent domestic record, these unfortunate statistics in no way denigrate my point that that the Reagan years were characterized by “strong economic growth”.

Whether the 1980’s economic booms of Great Britain and the United States can appropriately be attributed to the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations is an issue that will probably not be resolved in the near future. There is no doubt that dozens of other factors, including many outside of domestic control (such as an improving global economic climate and lower oil prices), contributed greatly to the period’s economic growth. What I hope my economic statistics have amply demonstrated, however, is that during most of the 1980’s (for whatever reason) Great Britain and the United States experienced a time of considerable economic prosperity. This basic fact seems to me to be virtually indisputable.

[Guest eureka]

My figures, Tokyo, are not false, unless you can call the World Bank's authorship to be deliberate falsification. They come from the comparison of economic growth in all nations. Almost all did badly in the post-1980 period.

I did not look for the tortured manipulations of one economic historian.

[BHS]

Good work, Tokyo. Spot on and a comprehensive rebuttal to the counter argument.

[Toro]

Well done Tokyo, especially your synopsis of facism. The Left confuses facism with free enterprise, yet they are totally different.

I posted a thread here which gives annualized real growth rates in US dollars from 1970-2003.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...t=0entry65617

It may be a more appropriate thread to debate economic growth than one about a smoking gun in Iraq.

[Guest eureka]

The synopsis of Fascism is pure nonsense. Tokyo is another blind ideologue of the Right. The similarities between the US protectionism of today in the form of "Free Trade when it benefits me, but not free trade for itself" is not so different. And it applies to the Rightists everywhere. Look to the points of similarity that have been drawn.

What if unions in the US have had racist tendencies. How is that an exoneration of the Fascist tendencies of the "New Right."

The section on unions is taken straight from the ant- union propaganda. Tokyo has a habit of ignoring everything that is posted and simply posting screeds of Right Wing propaganda.

I am not that interested in what Friedman and Von Mises say without reference to the other views. Those have been given.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear TokyoTakarazuka,

I echo the other's sentiments, yours are always valuable and well presented posts.

However,

during most of the 1980’s (for whatever reason) Great Britain and the United States experienced a time of considerable economic prosperity. This basic fact seems to me to be virtually indisputable.

I am not disputing the result, just the cause. It is as though the US simply prints more money to make up for overspending. It should devalue the currency, and it will work for a while, but only as long as foreign investment (which covers the chronic shortfall) continues to believe, and reinforce, that "The Emporer's New Clothes are not only beautiful, but also valuable".

[Guest eureka]

This is the point. During the 1980's, the United States and Britain did not experience a time of considerable economic prosperity. That is, not unless one considers sputtering along at a rate that barely coped with population growth to be considerable economic prosperity.

And that assertion is why I criticize Tokyo's posts. They are extremely well written and give the appearance of being rational analysis but they are not. They are assertions of a Right Winger supported only by vague refernces to an authority that makes him comfortable.