Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 18th, 2006, 06:42 PM        Iraq's Economy is Booming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

Iraq's Economy is Booming

In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq's economy is growing strong, even booming in places.

By Silvia Spring
Newsweek International

Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue - It may sound unreal, given the daily images of carnage and chaos. But for a certain plucky breed of businessmen, there's good money to be made in Iraq. Consider Iraqna, the leading mobile-phone company. For sure, its quarterly reports seldom make for dull reading. Despite employees kidnapped, cell-phone towers bombed, storefronts shot up and a huge security budget—up to four guards for each employee—the company posted revenues of $333 million in 2005. This year, it's on track to take in $520 million. The U.S. State Department reports that there are now 7.1 million mobile-phone subscribers in Iraq, up from just 1.4 million two years ago. Says Wael Ziada, an analyst in Cairo who tracks Iraqna: "There will always be pockets of money and wealth, no matter how bad the situation gets."

Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it's doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

How? Iraq is a crippled nation growing on the financial equivalent of steroids, with money pouring in from abroad. National oil revenues and foreign grants look set to total $41 billion this year, according to the IMF. With security improving in one key spot—the southern oilfields—that figure could go up.

Not too shabby, all things considered. Yes, Iraq's problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country's future. Security, for instance, gobbles up as much as a third of most companies' operating budgets, whereas what Iraq really needs are hospitals, highways and power-generating plants.

Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."


Consider some less formal indicators. Perhaps the most pervasive is the horrendous Iraqi traffic jams. Roadside bombs account for fewer backups than the sheer number of secondhand cars that have crowded onto the nation's roads—five times as many in Baghdad as before the war. Cheap Chinese goods overflow from shop shelves, and store owners report quick turnover. Real-estate prices have risen several hundred percent, suggesting that Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are.

There's even a positive spin to be put on corruption. Money stolen from government coffers or siphoned from U.S. aid projects does not just disappear. Again, says Farid Abolfathi, a Global Insight analyst, it's the "trickledown" effect. Such "underground activity" is the most dynamic part of Iraq's economy, he says. "It might not be viewed as respectable. But in reality, that's what puts money in the hands of the little people."

Meanwhile, Iraq's official economic institutions are making progress, improbable as that might sound in the context of savage sectarian violence and a seemingly complete breakdown of leadership and law. Yet it's a fact. A government often accused of being no government at all has somehow managed to take its first steps to liberalize the highly centralized economy of the Saddam era. Iraq has a debt-relief deal with the IMF that requires Baghdad to end subsidies and open up its gas-import market. Earlier this year the government made the first hesitant steps, axing fuel subsidies—and sending prices from a few cents a liter to around 14. "This has become one important way of institutionally engaging with Iraq," says economist Colin Rowat at the University of Birmingham. "If you lose that engagement, then that means a lot more people have given up on Iraq."

It goes without saying: real progress won't be seen until the security situation clears up. Iraq still lacks a functioning banking system. Though there's an increasing awareness of Iraq as a potential emerging market, foreign investors won't make serious commitments until they are assured a measure of stability. Local moneymen are scarcely more bullish on the long term. In Iraq's nascent bond market, buyers have so far been willing to invest in local-currency Treasury bills with terms up to six months, max.

Iraqna isn't the only success story. There is also Nipal, a money-transfer service that is the backbone of Iraq's cash economy, as well as a slew of successful construction firms in Kurdistan. Such companies are not waiting for Iraq's political crisis to resolve itself. Yet imagine how they would prosper if it did, and how quickly they would be joined by others. As things stand, Iraqna faces extraordinary difficulties. It builds towers but lives in constant fear that they will be blown up. It has to be careful about whom it hires, or where it assigns people to work. Whether Sunni or Shia, it doesn't matter; criminal gangs and militias regularly try to kidnap employees to hold them hostage for ransom, regardless of ethnicity. As for long-range planning? Forget it, says Ziada, the Cairo analyst. "It's a terrible situation for any company."

But again, that's the remarkable thing. In a business climate that is inhospitable, to say the least, companies like Iraqna are thriving. The withdrawal of a certain great power could drastically reduce the foreign money flow, and knock the crippled economy flat.

With Michael Hastings in Baghdad

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2006, 01:37 AM       
I bring this up every few months, but I've had two of my more intelligent conservative acquaintances both explain the war on Iraq as the beginning of a total Coca-Colonization of the Middle East. I didn't want to argue with one because it would have been awkward, but I told the other than it would either fail and bankrupt the US, or it would work for a few years, collapse, and still bankrupt the US.

Hey college kids, remember back in 2003 when there was that official day of class walk-outs? Since I didn't even have a class that hour out of which to walk, I went and listened to some very good speakers. It kind of saddens me that I wasn't on the boards at that interval, because I should have posted everything that was said at the protest. Although she wasn't the most high-profile speaker, one of them was an Anglo-Saxon student who had spent a few years living in the heavily-sanctioned Iraq of Saddam. Her testimony had several points, and having written none of it down and drank much in the past four years, I don't remember it all. However, she was very insistent that the Iraqis comprise a remarkably frugal and productive culture. In an odd contrast to the reports of stockpiles of foreign aid material being found in abandoned warehouses, she spoke very highly of their ability to distribute humanitarian aid to one another. Stockpiles or not, she said that the only problem with people being left out was the post bello (of 1991) destruction of roads and such.

What this tells me, though, is that a booming economy in Iraq is absolutely nothing of which we can pat ourselves on the backs. You can't piss in someone's water for twelve years, then damn their rivers and blow up their wells, and then claim the moral high ground after selling them a bottle of Perrier.

Since I rarely post in Iraq topics, I'll just say now that I was heavily exposed to the Conservative Intelligentsia in their defense of attacking Iraq back when the whole thing was all speculation. I had a class taught personally by Jean Bethke-Elshtain, for fuck's sake. It was surreal for such convoluted logic to be used by such brilliant people, not because of their outright duplicity (claiming it was for the Iraqi's when it obviously wasn't) but because of the outright fiscal impossibility of the whole larger imperative behind Iraq.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2006, 11:11 PM       
That brings up a GREAT question: What is Peace?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2006, 11:19 PM       
What did you find unsatisfactory about my initial response to that question when it was asked months ago?
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2006, 11:44 PM       
I think a question like that should also be brought up every few months... maybe even every time somebody posts about Iraq, whether or not they do it often. You call it the Coca-Colonization of the Middle East, but I don't really think anybody that has positive hopes for the war is calling it that. Do your conservative friends call it that? Is that their PEACEful goal for all this death and suffering? What is it, actually?

I believe a booming economy in Iraq is a good thing. You seem to be claiming that it all would have happened anyway had we just stayed out of it altogether. Alright. What else might have happened? Had the lives of those poor roads and bridges not been so tragically cut short back in 91, what about Kuwait? What about whatever happened after nobody cared about Kuwait?

Armchair quarter-backing is fun and easy. Unfortunately, there are very real problems in the world that really need to be addressed in the present. Personally, I believe we have not done enough to make the world a better place, and I regret that the so-called "liberals" of the world raise Hell whenever anybody tries. I don't agree that consensus solves problems, just as insistence on it would have made America impossible.

That probably has nothing at all to do with your original response to that question, but I'm asking it again as it relates to your position on the war as your current post infers it to be.

I think this should be a Liberal War, not a Conservative one.

I want your opinion on this because I think you're a thoughtful guy.

Why do you think it isn't?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2006, 02:51 AM       
I wish I knew which cell phone carrier is being sold in iraq. I would have started investing my money in their stock long time ago and short sell it before the upcoming destablization of iraq.

Not to sound cynical, good news out of iraq once in a while is always good but I'm somewhat skeptical of this report. Couldn't it have been reported at a more convenient time when the public support for the war is at an all time low?
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2006, 05:22 PM       
Yes, because Newsweek is just a tool for the administration.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2006, 08:46 PM       
I never said that the 91 Iraq invasion wasn't merited, hence my specifying destruction of roads after that war. I don't know if "post bello" is a popular term anymore, probably not so much as antebellum but whatever. What I was saying, though, was that Iraq was dealt with poorly through the Clinton years, and Bush's idea of correcting that with nothing but war was brash for the publicized ends. I specify that last clause because I don't think that the war has anything to do about helping the Iraqi people. I'm not so naive as to call it a blood for oil exchange, but the sheer logistics of dealing with Hussein meant that you can get rid of him or you can win the hearts and minds of the people, but to do both in one fell swoop is unrealistic. If it was pertinent to deal with every humanitarian crisis related to dictatorships, you can't pretend like Hussein was at the top of the list.

To answer your question about why this isn't a liberal war, I'd have to say that it's in practice neither liberal nor conservative. It's just imbecility. Were it that the utilitarian equation of lives saved versus lives lost favored the humanitarian side, then I think there'd be a worthy imperative for liberals to take up that flag. But, no. I think that by 2003 Hussein was more than sufficiently castrated, and the invasion cost far more lives than it saved.

So, the question is whether or not a total sterilization of the Middle East, the real motive behind the war, is ethical or manageable. The answer is, of course, no to both. You can't ameliorate a situation contrary to the will of those you're "helping" without making them hate you, and the attempt thereof is sure to bankrupt anyone who tries. I mean, it'd be lovely if Uncle Sam helped those who help themselves, but raping a country and calling it a favor is not how that's done.

But really, if cellphone companies are making a killing there, it's worth it. Right?
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2006, 02:10 AM       
Utilities always prosper during war, it's one of the reasons why wars are traditionally considered good for a shakey economy.

Seth can you elaborate what you mean when you say "total sterilization of the Middle East" is the "real motive behind the war" ? Who are they trying to sterilize the land from exactly, and why do you believe they picked Iraq to achieve that goal over the rest of the Middle East?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2006, 05:15 AM       
The point of the Iraq war was to set an example and a standard in the Middle East, a sort of referendum that all Arab nations assume more Westernized governments and, subsequently, cultures. This will allow them to open up their markets more liberally to the West while posing less of a volatile threat.

As it was explained to me by two different conservatives, Iraq was chosen more or less at random. It simply made for the most convenient target in that the United States was already polarized strongly against Saddam Hussein, much more so than against any other Middle Eastern despot.

The strategy was intended to be psychological largely; brutalize a few countries at first with great pomp and circumstance ("Shock and Awe", remember that?, the staged set-ups like the toppling of the statue, the Hollywood styling of the Hussein trial) as an imperative for other countries to throw themselves into autonomous transitions toward the administration's goals. When the Cedar Revolution seemed to show the dominoes falling exactly as described, it was publicized much more than it would have been had there not been a war in Iraq.

It never clicked in before, but I once shared a hospital room with a man who had several degrees in Middle Eastern studies with special interests in Persian culture. He just said out of the blue that "...but NOW I don't think Bush is going to invade Iran anytime soon." That was a few days after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. I guess that makes more sense to me now.

So, when the Secretary of Chicago Republicans explained the whole thing to me back in 2004 (in direct contradiction of his explanations of February 2003) he basically threw out the hyperbole of wanting a Middle East full of McDonalds, Wal-Marts, and Coca-Cola. That really underscores the whole naiveté of the Neocon idealism that thinks that this all is really possible.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2006, 12:42 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
The point of the Iraq war was to set an example and a standard in the Middle East, a sort of referendum that all Arab nations assume more Westernized governments and, subsequently, cultures. This will allow them to open up their markets more liberally to the West while posing less of a volatile threat.
Okay, so let's start with that premise. Wether this is a perk of the very point of the war, I'm still not sure it addresses the "sanitization" thing. You say these new governments will pose less o a volatile threat - well, okay that's what Bush says, and the statement would imply these states are a threat to begin with. You say we want to open up their markets liberally, which of course we do, but where is the movement to stop this from happening? Have you bought the Al Qaeda propaganda hook line and sinker or what? I'm not certain you mean to say this is a war for or against globalization though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
quote Iraq was chosen more or less at random.
That just sounds like someone who can't sell their own attempt at arriving at a scenario which makes sense to them. It's a cop out to just say Iraq was random.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
When the Cedar Revolution seemed to show the dominoes falling exactly as described, it was publicized much more than it would have been had there not been a war in Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
It never clicked in before, but I once shared a hospital room with a man who had several degrees in Middle Eastern studies with special interests in Persian culture. He just said out of the blue that "...but NOW I don't think Bush is going to invade Iran anytime soon." That was a few days after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. I guess that makes more sense to me now.
Okay see, this is why I asked you to clarify things. You're hinting towards some ideas, but the dots aren't connecting here. Don't leave it to me to decipher this or I'll just figure all this time you've really just been Geggy's joke profile. Also, I think you have far more respect for academics then I do, because I'm instantly suspect of anyone with multiple degrees in Middle Eastern history. The majority of them are intellectually dishonest, and the proof of that is the way in which these people as a movement continue to abuse history by editing it for the sake of current events. That said, how did the Harriri assassination add security to Iran? The event has been used as a criticism of the puppet strings holding up Lebanon, and a pretense for why there must be intervention there. If we do take action against Iran, you can bet name Harriri will get tossed up in there somewhere. Anyone who believes the move strengthened Syria, or Iran and was a smart defensive measure which added protection sounds a little iffy to me. Remember, we're talking Lebanon with newly elected Iranian sanctioned officials in their goverment. Which side of the Cedar Revolution was this guy rooting for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
So, when the Secretary of Chicago Republicans explained the whole thing ...... he basically threw out the hyperbole of wanting a Middle East full of McDonalds, Wal-Marts, and Coca-Cola. That really underscores the whole naiveté of the Neocon idealism that thinks that this all is really possible.
It is possible. It already exists to some degree. Why you would think that's the big goal here is the part i'm a little worried by. I'm also not sure why oe guy from the Republican party going off about the Mid-east is some big admission? That's the perspective of the bloated American politician who probably has little know all or care of the region beyond his pork budget. Do you believe Western Culture is the new Communism? I just think you need to define what you think these operations are sanitizing. Islamic culture, or the Muslim Shari'a way of life? That's just another way of phrasing "war on terror", and there's Coke and Mcdonalds in Saudi Arabia last I heard. Arab people? Non-Christians? Who? Will we stop at colonizing the Mid-East, or is Africa next? So doelaborate otherwise you're just sounding like you got sucked up into some guest commentators off Al Jazeera.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:29 AM       
You say we want to open up their markets liberally, which of course we do, but where is the movement to stop this from happening?

huh?

Have you bought the Al Qaeda propaganda hook line and sinker or what?

I'm a terrorist, lolz.

It's a cop out to just say Iraq was random.

Not so much a cop-out as to ignore the fact that I substantiated it by saying that the country was already polarized against Iraq's regime, hence it being a move of convenience. It was "random" in the sense that, taken a priori Iraq posed no worse or greater threat than any other nation (which is pretty accurate), but it won out in the end as target of the decade because it would have been easiest to sell a war against them than someone else most American's can't find on a map.

What I was saying with the assassination in Lebanon was that an internal movement, id est a civil war instigated by the people themselves, would set a positive example for the Middle East and thus an invasion of Iran at that point would have been superfluous at that time.

Oh, and I'm not surprised that you have an irrational fear of anyone who's qualifications on a subject are something other than "I'm half Iraqi, dumbass".

That's the perspective of the bloated American politician who probably has little know all or care of the region beyond his pork budget.

Actually, that was the scary thing about it. He and I shared several mutual friends from Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, et cetera. He knew and respected Arab culture, he just had an impeccable ability to turn off that understanding when it came to following party boundaries.

Do you believe Western Culture is the new Communism?

Howso? Are you forgetting that a healthy majority of Western and Central European governments voted to take Communist governments after WWII, and were simply scared away from it by the United States, or is Communism synonymous with the Iron Curtain to you in this case?

I just think you need to define what you think these operations are sanitizing. Islamic culture, or the Muslim Shari'a way of life?

Well, one of the reasons I find the idea so impracticable is that those in power don't seem to know the answr to this question either.

And no, I don't really read Al Jazeera. I did learn about them that they tend to block off conspiracy theories into a special section of that very label, so maybe at least in that one respect Fox News could take a lesson from them.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:02 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.