₦airaland Forum

Even legendary Bush basher,Paul Krugman,had to admit that Bush was right when Bush claimed that the war had some beneficial effects.

Paul Krugman says:
"In fact, I’d say that the sources of the economy’s expansion from 2003 to 2007 were, in order, the housing bubble, the war, and — very much in third place — tax cuts.

Of course, we could have gotten just as much or more stimulus by spending $10 billion a month on actually useful stuff– think how much domestic infrastructure could have been built or repaired for the cost of this miserable war. But the war was what we got."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/bush-is-right-about-something/

@Doyin13

You have to see the comments in the context of Stiglitz's role as a Clintonista. Its a bit like the Lancet study on Iraq civilian casualties by researchers who were prominent Democrats.

Beyond that,he claims the Fed intervened to pump in cheap cheap credit but Fed interest rates started rising,from a low of 1% in 2004,to around 5.25% as at 2007.That is hardly an expansionary monetary policy.

If he means that the Fed was lax in regulation,there is little evidence that the Fed was more lax post-Iraq than pre-Iraq.House price inflation and the consumption boom date back to the 90s bubble and were hardly recent phenomena.

His opinion goes against the consensus of economists,partisan and non-partisan,as to the root of the sub-prime mess.

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

Australia also faced a real bill much greater than the $2.2billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars.

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the

[url]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html[/url]

By the time Yar'Adua is done with Nigeria,Nigerians will be reminiscing over the era of OBJ with misty eyes.We'll be referring to it as the "good ol' days".

nuzo:
Only on this point, i declare you the winner of this argument. (will do some researches on this)

But i still maintain that it's even to our own advantage if we have people be incharge of what they studied.

The UK has had PMs who didn't go to Uni-John Major,Blair's predecessor,wasn't a graduate.

However,I agree with your second point.What works for the UK wouldn't necessarily work for us.We need the best technocrats we can find-I remember when Adamu Ciroma(a historian) was CBN Gov-compare and contrast his reign with that of Soludo.

We don't have a good structure of highly competent staff manning our various parastatals- - the best brains always prefer the private sector or to leave the country.In that scenario,only highly competent individuals specialised in the sector in question would be in the best position to head Nigerian Ministries.

In an ideal world,we should work on the staffing of our Ministries beyond the Ministerial level.I suspect ,that with the dysfunctional state of our Govt parastatals,just having a qualified Minister will be a token gesture, but better a technocrat than a "Jack of all trades".

@BigB1

You are a poor "Googlist" I know a very good source supporting your initial view point ,but I won't bother citing it.

The inability of the homeowners to meet mortgage payments are:

1. Recently increase in cost of living (high gas prices, high heating oil prices, high food prices etc)
2. High Unemployment rate
3. Unstable economy

1)Increase in gas and heating oil prices mirrors the increases we have seen in commodity prices:its the result of hundreds of millions of newly economically empowered people,coming into the market in China and India.Oil prices da already tripled before the Iraq war

2)There has been more job growth in the 5 years after the Iraq war than in the prior 5 years.

3)Again,GDP growth has been stronger over the past 5 years than in the 2 years before the Iraq war.

nuzo:
Most people who studied in nigerian universitties barely know what their courses were all about, not to talk of knowing other courses.
In the western world, it's not usually like that; people usually have general knowledge in other sectors.
It wont supprise me, if i found out that they had taken one or two courses in finance before getting into the post.

Are you talking of the Western world where many can't locate their country on a map? In my opinion,Nigerians are more knowledgeable about substantive issues than people who grew up here.

"One or 2 courses in finance" doesn't change much.There is nothing in their bio-data that indicates they took any such courses.

nuzo:
And to be fair; finance is not health.
Maybe, you should also find out if the UK health minister (past and present) is an architect or a law graduate.

Its even worse. . . . the current UK Sec of State for Health(equivalent to our Health Minister)didn't even attend University.Alan Johnson started his working career as a postman.

Patricia Hewitt,his predecessor,was a lawyer.There you go.

@Nuzo

The current and former UK Chancellors of the Exchequer(Finance Minister) studied law and history respectively.Alistair Darling is a lawyer while Gordon Brown did a PHD in history.

I think the most important thing is the "system" within which they work.If they have competent staff,the Minister's area of study won't matter.

Big B1:
These type of loans were made or allowed to be made with the assumption that it would revive the awful economy.

And I think, (Al Grenspan) was involved in making this decision; I'm currently working on finding a reliable information to support my statement.

Private financial institutions don't provide loans thinking,"lets revive the economy". They make business decisions based on their own self-interest.

As for Greenspan,like I noted,he cut interest rates aggressively to revive the economy following the last recession-the 2001 recession.However,by the time of the Iraq war in 2003,interest rates were already rising as the economy saw a strong resurgence.

I know there are leftist kooks out there who blame everything on Bush and the Iraq war but only the uninformed imbibe such nonsense.

@BigB1

All this your "copy and paste".Is it part of proving the link between the Iraq war and sub-prime?

Big B1:
The initiation of the bad mortgages was implemented to intercept the awful economy, The economists thought this implementation would revive the bad economy, but guess what, they were wrong.

My man, please do your homework before attacking Big B1

You make it sound like sub-prime mortgages were the product of a Govt policy.If you are saying low interest rates created a liquidity bubble that spun off the sub-prime market,interest rates reached their nadir in 2002,before the Iraq war.

The Iraq war on the other hand was parts of the factor that created bad economy in the first place.
The bad mortages were designed to create market boom to resolve the problem.

Sub-prime mortgages took off way before the Iraq war.As for the Iraq war "creating a bad economy". . . . . . .GDP growth was much stronger after the invasion,not prior.

Conclusion:You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Big B1:
FYI: War in Iraq is the main problem United States is facing today. Everything negative situation in America is directly linked to Iraq War (from president not following the constitution to corruption, to high gas price to high rate of unemployment to bad mortgages and many many more).
Osama predicted this nightmare, and it is sad to say that the bastard is right.

That is flat out wrong.How can you link things like sub-prime mortgages to the Iraq war?

High gas prices is as a result of high crude oil prices.The latter is mainly a result of the rise of the likes of China and India whose economic growth has created an unprecedented spurt in demand for oil.

CB - Breno (18) - (Sao Paulo - Bayern Munich)

You don see Breno photo? Real Madrid took one look at him and asked him to take medical tests to confirm that he is 18. That man no be teenager.

What about Ballotelli,Vela,Banega and Modric?

stillwater:
Osun is 19 years, Delta is 20 Lmao

You are saying this girl doesn't look 21?

http://mbgn.silverbirdgroup.com/contestant_details.php?c_id=9

nwando:
Ididn't know there were Igbo girls with Ogun,oyo and adamawa as states of origin

You haven't seen Uchechi from Nassarawa and Oforka from Taraba.

RichyBlacK:
But Wright accused the US government of something that was fundamentally true, even though he used a wrong example - that the United States has a history of treating Black people unfairly. Is that wrong? That is the real issue. Granted he used an unsuitable example, but that does not change the message - it is difficult living in a country like America as a Black man.

It is no defence to dishonesty to state that your dishonesty was for a larger more noble cause-the history of race relations in America.If anything,such attempts to "bend the truth" undermines the more noble cause.It brings up the old story about the man who cried "wolf".

This is the core problem with Rev Wright's diatribe.You can't advance a cause by blatantly straying away from the truth.I think most decent and sane people appreciate-albeit with varying degrees of understanding-the appalling history of race relations in America.Of course,there are always the "holdouts" who still fly the Confederate flag or simply don't give a toss.

However,whatever is the case,there are far better ways of addressing this issue than resorting to the incendiary remarks used by Wright.

It also goes back to his links with Obama.Obviously,there won't be this furore if Obama wasn't involved.Wright could have continued his rants in virtual anonymity.However,you had a candidate whose entire campaign was about how he was going to bring America together and transcend racial politics,yet he was closely associated with such a race baiter.

That Rev Wright had a fundamental truth which he was addressing is no justification for the manner in which he does so.The media frenzy isn't about whether Blacks have been treated fairly or not but the way in which Wright has conducted himself on this issue and Obama's relationship with such a controversial personality.

RichyBlacK:
I see your direction but you're still not getting the point. Wright's statement have not generated discussions about the origin of HIV but about race. Why is that so?

The reason is simple.Wright's comments about HIV are wholly baseless,so there is no point discussing what is generally considered as baseless.Instead,attention is turned to the overarching theme of Wright's sermons:race relations in America.

A newspaper in,I believe it was Morrocco,once ran a baseless story about African immigrants eating Morrocan babies.The story generated debates about immigration and race and not about the issue of Africans eating babies.Why? Because the story was baseless and inevitably attention turned to the overarching themes-immigration and race.

RichyBlacK:
You're mistaken. This is not about facts but about some Americans cringing to the reality of someone criticizing beautiful America from the pulpit. The tone and gesticulation (and of course the skin color) of Rev. Wright probably did more to offend some elements in White America than the veracity of what he said.

Then we descend into the realm of psychoanalysis for which we are neither qualified nor in a position to undertake.

Lets stick with the facts in the context of this thread.The facts are that Rev Wright has made a series of incendiary remarks for which the supporting evidence is scarce,often non-existent.Again,not even Obama condoned these comments and eloquently denounced them in a speech you were quick to hail as sublime.

If a white preacher had made such baseless remarks about black people,we will be quick-and rightly so-to condemn them.No amount of sophistry can justify Rev Wright's comments.

RichyBlacK:
You're still missing the point.

Based on the complexity HIV, saying the US government scientists invented it, will be giving US scientists too much credit.

However, how does making statements relating blacks, the US government and HIV make Rev. Wright racist, anymore than me making statements relating blacks, the US government, and Syphilis make me racist? What in Wright's statements makes him racist?

Surely,even you can see the glaring difference between Wright's comments about HIV(baseless,without an iota of truth) and making comments comments about Tuskegee(factual,with tons of evidence).

You are asking whether baseless comments about a plot to bring genocide(hardly a modest term to use)by means of HIV against people of color smacks of racism?

Let me ask you a question(and this is based on real life)Supposing a British newspaper ran an article about Africans engaging in ritual killing(a totally false story),would you try to excuse it on the basis that ritual killing has occurred before or does currently occur in many parts of Africa?

Wright fabricated his claims,moreover,he framed his rants from a racial perspective-what the US Govt(which he says is run by Whites)did to Blacks.Not only was the premise false,the way he framed it gives the impression of an all White Govt pouncing on "people of color". Wright himself has framed the issue from a racial perspective.

@RichyBlack

Even Obama,for whom you Obamaniacs have an almost homo-erotic passion for,has roundly criticised Wright's comments.There is no defence for the comments per se.

There won't be this furore if Rev Wright had done what you will expect of a Christian preacher-stick to the truth.If he was merely recounting Tuskegee,Jim Crow,slavery,e.t.c Obama wouldn't have faced all that trouble,where he erred was to embark on the wildest conspiracy theories without backing them up with evidence.

RichyBlacK:
@4 Play, defender of American atrocities,
Stop yarning dust and make a better attempt at answering my questions.

@RichyBlack a.k.a Arab Wannabe

I take it you have no justification for Rev Wright's actual comments.Thus,there was no issue to raise with texazpette's comments.

RichyBlacK:
@4 Play,

I have presented on example of the many evils of America directed against Black people post-slavery. Do you now understand my questions?
I posed my questions [b]without [/b]the constraints of the speeches made by Rev. Wright.

Can you now answer my questions?

Your questions will be pointless unless they were being posed in reference to Rev Wright's comments.I believed you posed those questions after texazpette's comments about the Wright issue.

Your question has already been answered:

You are free to speak up against the evils of your country but you shouldn't invent "evils" like the HIV rant,just to make your point.

Without the Wright context,your question is rendered redundant because I believe pretty much every sane individual will agree that merely speaking up against the evils of America doesn't necessarily constitute anti-Americanism.Both right-wing and left-wing do speak up against what they perceive as evil.

What is at issue is what constitutes this evil.Clearly,the "HIV invention" isn't one of them.

@RichyBlack

Stop insulting people's intelligence.Where is the justification for Wright's claim that the US Govt invented the HIV virus? If Wright was merely reciting known cases such as the Tuskegee experiment,there won't be this furore because he will be stating the truth.

Where is the evidence for the invention of HIV?Does he or his church have evidence to back up this claim?

RichyBlacK:
Some people seem to be ignorant of the many evils that America, as a country, has carried out against Blacks post-slavery. Let me give just one notable example:

[size=16pt]The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment[/size]
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the US. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Rev Wright spoke of,"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"

I might be wrong but unless the famed Tuskegee experiment amounted to "inventing of HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color",this is completely irrelevant.If Wright simply chronicled these known cases,there won't be this hoopla,what Wright did further was to fabricate conspiracies.

What has the Tuskegee experiment do to with the supposed invention of the HIV virus by the US Govt?

@Doyin

Where and when was the consensus reached?

Richy is asking a loaded question that assumes the presupposition to be true-like asking,"Have you stopped beating your wife"?

He will make a good PDP politician. He should come back to Nigeria instantly.

RichyBlacK:
@texazzpete,
1. How does speaking out against the evils that America has created, supported, sustained, and defended equivalent to being "anti-American"?

1) The first question is akin to phrasing a question in this manner:How does speaking out against the stupidity of RichyBlack . . . . . . . .,amount to being anti-RichyBlack? Unless we have a consensus as to the supposed stupidity of RichyBlack,the question is fundamentally flawed.

Lets take one instance of this evil America is supposed to have created according to Rev Wright-HIV/AIDS.In the absence of any evidence from Wright to validate his accusation,his comment must be taken as a manifestation of ill-will against his country.

2. Are you saying that America has not supported, perpetuated, sustained and defended evil?

Which country has "clean hands"? It depends on what these "evils" are.You are free to speak up against the evils of your country but you shouldn't invent "evils" like the HIV rant,just to make your point.

3. How does being "anti-American" equivalent to being "racist" or "anti-White"?4 If "anti-American" = "anti-White", does it then mean that "American" = "White"?

How do the 3rd and 4th questions arise when you have queried in the 1st,the notion that Wright's comments were anti-American?

When Wright said,"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color",he is referring to the US Govt from a racial perspective.Is the US Govt all white? Wright himself framed the issue from a color perspective by constantly referring to what White America has done to people of color.

When he says the US Govt is distributing drugs to African Americans,is he saying only the whites serving in the US Govt know about this plan.How come none of the Latinos,Blacks or Asians serving or who have served in various administrations know of this drug distribution?

In that list,only Veron was a major loss.

Are you talking of Stam who was voted best defender in the UCL for 2 seasons running?

Apart from Saha,none of the others cost more than £7m in transfer fees.Without Saha,Utd wouldn't have won the title last season,he was integral to our good start and was a key player till injuries got the better of him in the 2nd half of the season.

somze:
Oya forget your numerous modifications. For the last time before I show my proof - HOW MANY PENALTIES DID RONALDO TAKE LAST SEASON?

No more modification after now o

Na wetin dey do Nigerians.If someone errs,instead of being gracious enough to accept his error,he starts driveling endlessly about nothing.This is not the 1st time I have caught you making huge errors.

1 hour don pass,this buffoon who claimed Ronaldo scored half of his EPL goals from penalties hasn't been able to show proof of anything.Is there any evidence that he scored more than 5 penalties in total last season or that he scored more than 4 pens in the EPL?

Produce your proof or forever keep your ignorant comments to yourself.