GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) in the world, 2007

Purchasing power parity adjustment for the world (2003). The economy of the United States is used as a reference and is set at 100. Bermuda has the highest index value at 154; this means that goods sold there are more expensive than in the US.

In economics, purchasing power parity (PPP) asks how much money would be needed to purchase the same goods and services in two countries, and uses that to calculate an implicit foreign exchange rate. Using that PPP rate, an amount of money thus has the same purchasing power in different countries. Among other uses, PPP rates facilitate international comparisons of income, as market exchange rates are often volatile, are affected by political and financial factors that do not lead to immediate changes in income and tend to systematically understate the standard of living in poor countries, due to the Balassa–Samuelson effect.

The idea originated with the School of Salamanca in the 16th century and was developed in its modern form by Gustav Cassel in 1918.^[1][2] The concept is based on the law of one price, where in the absence of transaction costs and official trade barriers, identical goods will have the same price in different markets when the prices are expressed in the same currency.^[3]

Another interpretation is that the difference in the rate of change in prices at home and abroad—the difference in the inflation rates—is equal to the percentage depreciation or appreciation of the exchange rate.

Deviations from parity imply differences in purchasing power of a "basket of goods" across countries, which means that for the purposes of many international comparisons, countries' GDPs or other national income statistics need to be "PPP-adjusted" and converted into common units. The best-known purchasing power adjustment is the Geary–Khamis dollar (the "international dollar"). The real exchange rate is then equal to the nominal exchange rate, adjusted for differences in price levels. If purchasing power parity held exactly, then the real exchange rate would always equal one. However, in practice the real exchange rates exhibit both short run and long run deviations from this value, for example due to reasons illuminated in the Balassa–Samuelson theorem.

There can be marked differences between purchasing power adjusted incomes and those converted via market exchange rates.^[4] For example, the World Bank's World Development Indicators 2005 estimated that in 2003, one Geary-Khamis dollar was equivalent to about 1.8 Chinese yuan by purchasing power parity^[5]—considerably different from the nominal exchange rate. This discrepancy has large implications; for instance, when converted via the nominal exchange rates GDP per capita in India is about US$1,704.063^[6] while on a PPP basis it is about US$3,608.196.^[7] At the other extreme, Denmark's nominal GDP per capita is around US$62,100, but its PPP figure is US$37,304.

Measurement[link]

The PPP exchange-rate calculation is controversial because of the difficulties of finding comparable baskets of goods to compare purchasing power across countries.^{[citation needed]}

Estimation of purchasing power parity is complicated by the fact that countries do not simply differ in a uniform price level; rather, the difference in food prices may be greater than the difference in housing prices, while also less than the difference in entertainment prices. People in different countries typically consume different baskets of goods. It is necessary to compare the cost of baskets of goods and services using a price index. This is a difficult task because purchasing patterns and even the goods available to purchase differ across countries. Thus, it is necessary to make adjustments for differences in the quality of goods and services. Furthermore, the basket of goods representative of one economy will vary from that of another; Americans eat more bread, Chinese more rice. Hence a PPP calculated using the US consumption as a base will differ from that calculated using China as a base. Additional statistical difficulties arise with multilateral comparisons when (as is usually the case) more than two countries are to be compared. Various ways of averaging bilateral PPPs can provide a more stabile multilateral comparison, but at the cost of distorting bilateral ones. These are all general issues of indexing; as with other price indices there is no way to reduce complexity to a single number that is equally satisfying for all purposes. Nevertheless, PPPs are typically robust in the face of the many problems that arise in using market exchange rates to make comparisons.

For example, in 2005 the price of a gallon of gasoline in Saudi Arabia was $0.91 US, and in Norway the price was $6.27 US.^[8] The significant differences in price wouldn't contribute to accuracy in a PPP analysis, despite all of the variables that contribute to the significant differences in price. More comparisons have to be made and used as variables in the overall formulation of the PPP.

When PPP comparisons are to be made over some interval of time, proper account needs to be made of inflationary effects.

Relationship between PPP and law of one price[link]

Although it may seem as if PPP and the law of one price are the same, there is a difference: the law of one price applies to individual commodities whereas PPP applies to the general price level. If the law of one price is true for all commodities then PPP is also therefore true; however, when discussing the validity of PPP, some argue that the law of one price does not need to be true exactly for PPP to be valid. If the law of one price is not true for a certain commodity, the price levels will not differ enough from the level predicted by PPP.^[3]

The purchasing power parity theory states that the exchange rate between one currency and another currency is in equlibirium when their domestic purchasing powers at that rate of exchange are equivalent.

Big Mac Index[link]

Big Mac hamburgers, like this one from Japan, are similar worldwide.

An example of one measure of law of one price, which underlies purchasing power parity, is the Big Mac Index, popularized by The Economist, which looks at the prices of a Big Mac burger in McDonald's restaurants in different countries. By determining whether a currency is undervalued or overvalued, the index should give a guide to the direction in which currencies should move. The Big Mac Index is presumably useful because it is based on a well-known food whose final price, easily tracked in many countries, includes input costs from a wide range of sectors in the local economy, such as agricultural commodities (beef, bread, lettuce, cheese), labor (blue and white collar), advertising, rent and real estate costs, transportation, etc.

This index provides a test of the law of one price, but the dollar prices of Big Macs are actually different in different countries. This can be explained by a number of factors: transportation costs and government regulations, product differentiation, and prices of nonfood inputs.^{[3] [9]}. Furthermore, in some emerging economies, western fast food represents an expensive niche product price well above the price of traditional staples—i.e. the Big Mac is not a mainstream 'cheap' meal as it is in the West, but a luxury import for the middle classes and foreigners. This relates back to the idea of product differentiation: few substitutes for the Big Mac allows McDonald's to have market power. Countries like Argentina that have abundant beef resources see a structural underpricing in the Big Mac.

Starbucks tall latte index[link]

The Starbucks tall latte index is a variant of the Big Mac Index; it can give information regarding exchange rates similar to the Big Mac Index. The tall latte index was compiled in 2004, during which time both a Big Mac and tall latte cost $2.80. The measures told the same story in most cases with the notable exception of Asia. According to the Big Mac index, the yen was 12% undervalued against the dollar, whereas it was 13% overvalued according to the tall latte index. Furthermore, the Chinese yuan was 56% undervalued based on the Big Mac index but neither significantly undervalued nor overvalued according to the Starbucks index.^[10]

The following table, based on data from The Economist's 2004 calculations, shows the under (-) and over (+) valuation of the local currency against the dollar in %, according to the Starbucks tall latte index and the Big Mac index.

OECD comparative price levels[link]

Each month, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development measures the difference in price levels between its member countries by calculating the ratios of PPPs for private final consumption expenditure to exchange rates. The OECD table below indicates the number of US dollars needed, as of March 2012, in each of the countries listed to buy the same representative basket of consumer goods and services that would cost 100 USD in the United States. According to the table, an American living in Switzerland on an income denominated in US dollars would find that country (in March 2012) to be one of the most expensive in world, having to spend almost double the US dollars to maintain a standard of living comparable to the USA in terms of consumption.

Measurement issues[link]

In addition to methodological issues presented by the selection of a basket of goods, PPP estimates can also vary based on the statistical capacity of participating countries. The International Comparison Program, which PPP estimates are based on, require the disaggregation of national accounts into production, expenditure or (in some cases) income, and not all participating countries routinely disaggregate their data into such categories.

Some aspects of PPP comparison are theoretically impossible or unclear. For example, there is no basis for comparison between the Ethiopian laborer who lives on teff with the Thai laborer who lives on rice, because teff is not commercially available in Thailand and rice is not in Ethiopia, so the price of rice in Ethiopia or teff in Thailand cannot be determined. As a general rule, the more similar the price structure between countries, the more valid the PPP comparison.

PPP levels will also vary based on the formula used to calculate price matrices. Different possible formulas include GEKS-Fisher, Geary-Khamis, IDB, and the superlative method. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

Linking regions presents another methodological difficulty. In the 2005 ICP round, regions were compared by using a list of some 1,000 identical items for which a price could be found for 18 countries, selected so that at least two countries would be in each region. While this was superior to earlier "bridging" methods, which is not fully take into account differing quality between goods, it may serve to overstate the PPP basis of poorer countries, because the price indexing on which PPP is based will assign to poorer countries the greater weight of goods consumed in greater shares in richer countries.

Need for PPP adjustments to GDP[link]

Gross domestic product (by purchasing power parity) in 2006

The exchange rate reflects transaction values for traded goods between countries in contrast to non-traded goods, that is, goods produced for home-country use. Also, currencies are traded for purposes other than trade in goods and services, e.g., to buy capital assets whose prices vary more than those of physical goods. Also, different interest rates, speculation, hedging or interventions by central banks can influence the foreign-exchange market.

The PPP method is used as an alternative to correct for possible statistical bias. The Penn World Table is a widely cited source of PPP adjustments, and the so-called Penn effect reflects such a systematic bias in using exchange rates to outputs among countries.

For example, if the value of the Mexican peso falls by half compared to the US dollar, the Mexican Gross Domestic Product measured in dollars will also halve. However, this exchange rate results from international trade and financial markets. It does not necessarily mean that Mexicans are poorer by a half; if incomes and prices measured in pesos stay the same, they will be no worse off assuming that imported goods are not essential to the quality of life of individuals. Measuring income in different countries using PPP exchange rates helps to avoid this problem.

PPP exchange rates are especially useful when official exchange rates are artificially manipulated by governments. Countries with strong government control of the economy sometimes enforce official exchange rates that make their own currency artificially strong. By contrast, the currency's black market exchange rate is artificially weak. In such cases, a PPP exchange rate is likely the most realistic basis for economic comparison.

Difficulties[link]

There are a number of reasons that different measures do not perfectly reflect standards of living.

Range and quality of goods[link]

The goods that the currency has the "power" to purchase are a basket of goods of different types:

1. Local, non-tradable goods and services (like electric power) that are produced and sold domestically.
2. Tradable goods such as non-perishable commodities that can be sold on the international market (like diamonds).

The more that a product falls into category 1, the more that its price will be from the currency exchange rate, moving towards the PPP exchange rate. Conversely, category 2 products tend to trade close to the currency exchange rate. (See also Penn effect).

More processed and expensive products are likely to be tradable, falling into the second category, and drifting from the PPP exchange rate to the currency exchange rate. Even if the PPP "value" of the Ethiopian currency is three times stronger than the currency exchange rate, it won't buy three times as much of internationally traded goods like steel, cars and microchips, but non-traded goods like housing, services ("haircuts"), and domestically produced crops. The relative price differential between tradables and non-tradables from high-income to low-income countries is a consequence of the Balassa-Samuelson effect and gives a big cost advantage to labour intensive production of tradable goods in low income countries (like Ethiopia), as against high income countries (like Switzerland).

The corporate cost advantage is nothing more sophisticated than access to cheaper workers, but because the pay of those workers goes farther in low-income countries than high, the relative pay differentials (inter-country) can be sustained for longer than would be the case otherwise. (This is another way of saying that the wage rate is based on average local productivity and that this is below the per capita productivity that factories selling tradable goods to international markets can achieve.) An equivalent cost benefit comes from non-traded goods that can be sourced locally (nearer the PPP-exchange rate than the nominal exchange rate in which receipts are paid). These act as a cheaper factor of production than is available to factories in richer countries.

The Bhagwati-Kravis-Lipsey view provides a somewhat different explanation from the Balassa-Samuelson theory. This view states that price levels for nontradables are lower in poorer countries because of differences in endowment of labor and capital, not because of lower levels of productivity. Poor countries have more labor relative to capital, so marginal productivity of labor is greater in rich countries than in poor countries. Nontradables tend to be labor-intensive; therefore, because labor is less expensive in poor countries and is used mostly for nontradables, nontradables are cheaper in poor countries. Wages are high in rich countries, so nontradables are relatively more expensive.^[3]

PPP calculations tend to overemphasise the primary sectoral contribution, and underemphasise the industrial and service sectoral contributions to the economy of a nation.

Trade barriers and nontradables[link]

The law of one price, the underlying mechanism behind PPP, is weakened by transport costs and governmental trade restrictions, which make it expensive to move goods between markets located in different countries. Transport costs sever the link between exchange rates and the prices of goods implied by the law of one price. As transport costs increase, the larger the range of exchange rate fluctuations. The same is true for official trade restrictions because the customs fees affect importers' profits in the same way as shipping fees. According to Krugman and Obstfeld, "Either type of trade impediment weakens the basis of PPP by allowing the purchasing power of a given currency to differ more widely from country to country."^[3] They cite the example that a dollar in London should purchase the same goods as a dollar in Chicago, which is certainly not the case.

Nontradables are primarily services and the output of the construction industry. Nontradables also lead to deviations in PPP because the prices of nontradables are not linked internationally. The prices are determined by domestic supply and demand, and shifts in those curves lead to changes in the market basket of some goods relative to the foreign price of the same basket. If the prices of nontradables rise, the purchasing power of any given currency will fall in that country.^[3]

Departures from free competition[link]

Linkages between national price levels are also weakened when trade barriers and imperfectly competitive market structures occur together. Pricing to market occurs when a firm sells the same product for different prices in different markets. This is a reflection of inter-country differences in conditions on both the demand side (e.g., virtually no demand for pork or alcohol in Islamic states) and the supply side (e.g., whether the existing market for a prospective entrant's product features few suppliers or instead is already near-saturated). According to Krugman and Obstfeld, this occurrence of product differentiation and segmented markets results in violations of the law of one price and absolute PPP. Overtime, shifts in market structure and demand will occur, which may invalidate relative PPP.^[3]

Differences in consumption patterns and price level measurement[link]

Measurement of price levels differ from country to country. Inflation data from different countries are based on different commodity baskets; therefore, exchange rate changes do not offset official measures of inflation differences. Because it makes predictions about price changes rather than price levels, relative PPP is still a useful concept. However, change in the relative prices of basket components can cause relative PPP to fail tests that are based on official price indexes.^[3]

PPP and global poverty line[link]

The global poverty line is a worldwide count of people who live below an international poverty line, referred to as the dollar-a-day line. This line represents an average of the national poverty lines of the world's poorest countries, expressed in international dollars. These national poverty lines are converted to international currency and the global line is converted back to local currency using the PPP exchange rates from the ICP.

See also[link]

Business and economics portal

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• Penn World Table
• Explanations from the U. of British Columbia (also provides daily updated PPP charts)
• OECD Purchasing Power Parity estimates updated annually by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
• Purchasing power parities as example of international statistical cooperation from Eurostat - Statistics Explained
• World Bank International Comparison Project provides PPP estimates for a large number of countries
• UBS's "Prices and Earnings" Report 2006 Good report on purchasing power containing a Big Mac index as well as for staples such as bread and rice for 71 world cities.
• "Understanding PPPs and PPP based national accounts" provides an overview of methodological issues in calculating PPP and in designing the ICP under which the main PPP tables (Maddison, Penn World Tables, and World Bank WDI) are based

Purchasing power is the number of goods/services that can be purchased with a unit of currency. For example, if you had taken one dollar to a store in the 1950s, you would have been able to buy a greater number of items than you would today, indicating that you would have had a greater purchasing power in the 1950s. Currency can be either a commodity money, like gold or silver, or fiat currency, or free-floating market-valued currency like US dollars. As Adam Smith noted, having money gives one the ability to "command" others' labor, so purchasing power to some extent is power over other people, to the extent that they are willing to trade their labor or goods for money or currency.

If one's monetary income stays the same, but the price level increases, the purchasing power of that income falls. Inflation does not always imply falling purchasing power of one's money income since it may rise faster than the price level. A higher real income means a higher purchasing power since real income refers to the income adjusted for inflation.

For a price index, its value in the base year is usually normalized to a value of 100. The purchasing power of a unit of currency, say a dollar, in a given year, expressed in dollars of the base year, is 100/P, where P is the price index in that year. So, by definition the purchasing power of a dollar decreases as the price level rises. The purchasing power in today's money of an amount C of money, t years into the future, can be computed with the formula for the present value:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): C_t = C(1 + i)^{-t}\, = \frac{C}{(1+i)^t} \,

where in this case i is an assumed future annual inflation rate.

See also[link]

• Group purchasing organization
• Purchasing power parity
• Consumer Price Index
• Fair trade
• Free trade
• Group buy
• Collective buying power
• Constant Purchasing Power Accounting
• Oil burden
• Inflation
• Sustainability
• Carrying capacity
• Consumption (economics)
• Consumerism

External links[link]

• MeasuringWorth.com has a [1] with different measures for bringing values in UK Pounds from 1264 to the present and in US Dollars from 1774 up to any year until the present. The Measures of Worth page discusses which would be the most appropriate for different things.
• Purchasing Power Calculator by Fiona Maclachlan, The Wolfram Demonstrations Project.

This economics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.^[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service who has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

Roberts is a critic of Israel, calling Gaza "the world's largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land." Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Although Roberts praised Ronald Reagan, he has compared supporters of George W. Bush to "brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters." He has opposed the War on Drugs and the War on Terror stating it has "made widows and orphans of millions of Muslims". He believes the official explanation for the events on 9/11 is a "scientific impossibility".

Publication[link]

He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship.

His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews, Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.com, Antiwar.com, the web site VDARE.com. LewRockwell.com, CounterPunch. He is a contributor to the American Free Press which is critical of the New World Order and Israel. Roberts has been featured as a guest on the Political Cesspool radio show.^[2]

In order to create a coherent uncensored and unedited archive of Robert's writings, paulcraigroberts.org ^[3] was created by the The Institute For Political Economy and appeared in January 2012. His articles continue to appear in other venues, but are first available on this website along with links to relevant videos and books.

Biography[link]

Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University.^[4] His first scholarly article (Classica et Mediaevalia) was a reformulation of "The Pirenne Thesis."

In Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), Roberts explained the Soviet economy as the outcome of a struggle between inordinate aspirations and a refractory reality. He argued that the Soviet economy was not centrally planned, but that its institutions, such as material supply, reflected the original Marxist aspirations to establish a non-market mode of production. In Marx's Theory of Exchange (1973), Roberts argued that Marx was an organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out good will as an effective force for change.

From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff. As economic counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp^[5] he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which became the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.^[4] His influential 1978 article for Harper's,^[6] while economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch,^[7] had Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley give him an editorial slot, which he had until 1980.^[8] He was a senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.^[5]

From early 1981 to January 1982 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy."^[4] Roberts resigned in January 1982 to become the first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, then part of Georgetown University.^[9] He held this position until 1993. He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution (1984), in which he explained the reformulation of macroeconomic theory and policy that he had helped to create.

He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.^[4]

In The New Color Line (1995), Roberts argued that the Civil Rights Act was subverted by the bureaucrats who applied it and, by being used to create status-based privileges, became a threat to the Fourteenth Amendment in whose name it was passed. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Roberts documented what he saw as the erosion of the Blackstonian legal principles that ensure that law is a shield of the innocent and not a weapon in the hands of government.

Recognition[link]

In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor on March 20, 1987. The French Minister of Economics and Finance, Edouard Balladur, came from France to present the medal to Roberts at a ceremony at the French Ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C. President Reagan sent OMB Director Jim Miller to the ceremony with a letter of congratulation.^[4]

In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism from the American Legislative Exchange Council. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.^[4]

Views[link]

Criticism of Bush[link]

Roberts opposed the Iraq War and writes frequently on the subject. On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war.

Roberts was also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran. In an August 15, 2005 article, he states "Bush...dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia."

Although his criticisms of Bush often seem to align him with the political left, Roberts continues to praise Ronald Reagan and to endorse many of Reagan's policies, arguing that "true conservatives" were the "first victims" of the neoconized Bush administration.^[10] He has said that supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."^[11]

Israel[link]

In an article for Counterpunch magazine titled "Pirates of the Mediterranean", Roberts wrote that for 60 years, Israel has replicated "the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers." Roberts repeated charges that Gaza is "the world largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land." He called the U.S. State Department a "puppet" of the Israelis and the U.S. itself a "puppet state" of the Israelis. He concludes the article by claiming that "there’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it."^[12]

The pro-Jewish [Anti-Defamation League] has criticized Dr. Roberts as promoting anti-semitism for his increasing focus on "criticism of Israel and Jews" making his writings "popular with fringe publications on both the left and the right".^[13] However, Dr. Roberts nominated Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper for the Nobel Peace Prize and he cautions against confusing a right-wing Zionist government with world Jewry. In one of his classic columns, "What Became of Western Morality?" (January 2005), he noted that it is Israeli newspapers, not American ones, that protest the Israeli government's atrocities against Palestinians:

"It is the goyim moralists who are silent, not the Jews. It is the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, not the goyim media, that provides reports of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians. Gideon Levy’s “The Neighborhood Bully Strikes Again” was published in Haaretz on Dec. 29, not in the goyim press. Levy’s words—”Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom”—are not words that can appear in American print or TV media. Such words, printed in Israeli newspapers, never reach the goyim."

Dr. Roberts cautions against blaming all Jews for crimes of a right-wing government:

"The world will need to remember that although Israel is a Jewish state, it is a state whose policies many Jews find objectionable, just as a majority of American Jews oppose President Bush’s wars of aggression in the Middle East and his unconstitutional policies at home. We must not confuse Israel’s Zionist government with world Jewry, just as we must not confuse the American people with the war criminals in the Bush regime.

"Consider, who do you trust with your civil liberties, the U.S. Department of Justice or the ACLU’s phalanx of Jewish attorneys? [Dr. Roberts according to Who's Who In America is a member of the ACLU, a Jewish organization.]

"We must avoid the mistake that was made by blaming the German people for Adolf Hitler. It was the aristocratic German military that tried to remove Hitler. In contrast, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blocked the attempt to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Pelosi is a discredit to California, but shall we blame all of America for Pelosi’s defense of war criminals? How can we do so when U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich courageously read out the articles of impeachment on the House floor?

"Are all Americans guilty because Kucinich did not prevail?" ^[14]

Neoconservatives and the South Ossetia War[link]

In an interview on August 27, 2008, on a broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, Roberts stated that he believed that influential neoconservatives affiliated with the Bush administration were leading the United States into a nuclear confrontation with Russia over the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia. Roberts gave the conflict “almost total certainty if John McCain gets in office" and stated that the conflict would be in a timeframe of about two or three years.^[15]

2009–2010 Iranian election protests[link]

In a June 19–21, 2009 article in CounterPunch about the protests following the re-election of Ahmadinejad, Robert stated that while "the protests ... no doubt have many sincere participants," they "also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this."^[16]

September 11, 2001 attacks[link]

Of the 9/11 Commission Report he wrote in 2006, "One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations." (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report). He has reported what he says are findings by experts that conclude there is a large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, and says that this deficit remains unexplained.

Roberts comments on the "scientific impossibility" of the official explanation for the events on 9/11 and says those engineers and physicists who accept this theory are wrong. On August 18, 2006, he wrote:

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.^[17]

On the (back) cover of Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007) he is quoted:

Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics.Book Cover Quote

Roberts adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party. "The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."

When Anwar al-Awlaki, who was linked to some of the hijackers was killed by a drone attack, Roberts objected, calling it "The Day America Died". He wrote that although Awlaki was critical of "indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples" and "told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression", the US lacked evidence that either Awlaki was a real threat or an Al Qaeda operative^[18]

US media[link]

• "Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda."^[19]
• "The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives—not by journalists—whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home."^[20]

Society[link]

"If I had time to research my writings over the past 30 years, I could find examples of partisan articles in behalf of Republicans and against Democrats. However, political partisanship is not the corpus of my writings. I had a 16-year stint as Business Week's first outside columnist, despite hostility within the magazine and from the editor's New York social set, because the editor regarded me as the most trenchant critic of the George H.W. Bush administration in the business. The White House felt the same way and lobbied to have me removed from the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies... In their hatred of "the rich," the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history."^[19]

Outsourcing jobs[link]

Roberts has testified before the US–China Commission and written many articles pointing out that the offshoring of high productivity, high value-added jobs in manufacturing and professional services is dismantling the ladders of upward mobility that made the U.S. an opportunity society. Consequently, he is an opponent of Global Labor Arbitrage.

War on Drugs[link]

Though Roberts worked for the Reagan administration, which implemented a "zero tolerance" and "Just Say No" policy on illegal drugs and increased spending to combat drugs, in 2007, he penned an article on the web site VDare.com criticizing the excess of the War on Drugs which he termed the "militarization of local police".^[21]

War on Terror[link]

Roberts asked "Is the War on Terror a Hoax", and claims it has "killed, maimed, dislocated, and made widows and orphans of millions of Muslims in six countries". Roberts called the attacks "naked aggression" on civilian populations and infrastructure which constitute war crimes.]]".^[21]

Republican Party[link]

Roberts is seriously dismayed by what he considers the Republican Party's disregard for the U.S. Constitution. He has even voiced his regret that he ever worked for it, avowing that, had he known what it would become, he would never have contributed to the Reagan Revolution.^[22]

American democracy and oligarchy[link]

Roberts has been increasingly critical of what he deems as the lessening of democracy in the U.S.; instead accusing it of being run by oligarchs by stating:

"The west prides itself that it is the standard for the world, that it is a democracy. But nowhere do you see democratic outcomes: not in Greece, not in Ireland, not in the UK, not here, the outcomes are always to punish the innocent and reward the guilty. And that's what the Greeks are in the streets, protesting. We see this all over the west. There is no democracy, there are oligarchies, some of these smaller European countries are not even run by their own governments, they are run by Wall Street... There is probably more democracy in China than there is in the west. Revolution is the only answer... We are confronted with a curious situation. Throughout the west we think we have democracy, we hold ourselves up high, we demonize China, we talk about the mafia state of Russia, we talk about the Arabs and so on, but where is the democracy here?" ^[23]

Cessation and resumption of journalism[link]

On March 26, 2010, Roberts announced he was "signing off" as a journalist in a column titled "Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It".^[24] However two months later another article by Roberts had appeared in counterpunch.org.^[25]

On March 26, 2010, in a farewell column titled, "Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It,"^[26] Roberts effectively announced his journalistic retirement. The article, published at Counterpunch.org, begins: "There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest." It proceeds to a bitter chronicle of the demise of American intellectual integrity, particularly that of financial journalists and economists. These have been thoroughly corrupted by monetary inducements to misrepresent and ignore what has been, in effect, the systematic dismantling of the nation's productive life, in the name of globalization. He holds the members of his own journalistic profession largely responsible for abetting relentless outsourcing of American industry, thereby gutting the American middle class and effectively dooming the nation's future. He describes his own ostracism from mainstream media access, the consequence of his relentless and unflinching criticism of the demolition process over the past decade. His column ends, "The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off."

Published works[link]

Books[link]

• Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971, 1990) ISBN 0-8419-1247-5
• Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation, and Crisis (1973, 1983) ISBN 0-03-069791-3
• The Supply Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington (1984) ISBN 0-674-85620-1
• Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy (1990) ISBN 0-932790-80-1
• The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (1997) ISBN 0-19-511176-1
• The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy (1995) ISBN 0-89526-423-4
• The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice (2008) ISBN 0-7615-2553-X
• How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds (2009) ISBN 978-1-84935-007-5

Articles[link]

• CounterPunch
• Creators Syndicate
• LewRockwell.com
• Antiwar.com
• VDARE
• World News Daily Information Clearing House

References[link]

1. ^ Roberts, Paul Craig (June 10, 2004). The Real Reagan Record (August 31, 1992). National Review. Retrieved on February 27, 2010.
2. ^ "GUEST LIST". http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php. Retrieved November 29, 2009. 
3. ^ www.paulcraigroberts.org
4. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Biography - Paul Craig Roberts
5. ^ ^{a b} The Bulletin, 30 January 1981, "Roberts nominated"
6. ^ Paul Craig Roberts, "Disguising the tax burden: Little-known facts beneath the rhetoric of reform", Harper's, March 1978
7. ^ Bruce Bartlett, Human Events, 28 January 2002, "'Rich' Pay More Than What's Fair.", 58(4), p14
8. ^ Paul Craig Roberts, Washington Times, 17 December 2003, "Two who made a difference"
9. ^ Toledo Blade, 19 January 1982, Treasury Dept. Economist Quits Post: Advocate of Tax-Cut Plan Going To Georgetown U
10. ^ Paul Craig Roberts: Who Will Save America?
11. ^ The Reality Beneath the Flag-Waving
12. ^ Counterpunch
13. ^ Syndicated Columnist Paul Craig Roberts Promotes Anti-Semitism Syndicated Columnist Paul Craig Roberts Promotes Anti-Semitism
14. ^ 09-01- 2009 article
15. ^ Infowars
16. ^ Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated "Color Revolution?" Is This the Culmination of Two Years of Destabilization by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS]
17. ^ Roberts, Paul Craig (2006-08-16). "What we know and don’t know about 9/11". Information Clearing House. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-06. 
18. ^ "the day america died". lewrockwell (London). October 3, 2011. http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts328.html. 
19. ^ ^{a b} Paul Craig Roberts: Who Will Save America?
20. ^ VDARE.com: 08/16/06 - What We Know And Don’t Know About 9/11
21. ^ ^{a b} Paul Craig Roberts, Drug War Has Militarized Your Local Police
22. ^ The mother of all messes
23. ^ Video Interview: Co-Founder Of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts, "There Is Probably More Democracy In China Than There Is In The West" May 2011
24. ^ "Good-Bye: Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It" (counterpunch.org March 24, 2010)
25. ^ Progressives Want "Direct Action" But a Disarmed Public by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS counterpunch.org June 18–20, 2010
26. ^ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html | Good-Bye: Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It (March 24, 2010)

External links[link]

• paulcraigroberts
• Column archive (2003-2009) at Antiwar.com
• Column archive (2006-2010) at Creators Syndicate
• Column archive (1995-present) at LewRockwell.com
• Column archive (1995-2009) at Vdare.com
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Works by or about Paul Craig Roberts in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Profile at SourceWatch
• Nomination of Paul Craig Roberts To Be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, President Ronald Reagan, January 30, 1981

Interviews and articles

• Paul Craig Roberts interviewed on Alex Jones Show regarding active nuclear threat within next 2-3 years
• Paul Craig Roberts interviewed by Webster Tarpley^{[dead link]}
• Roberts' first article calling for Bush's impeachment^{[dead link]}
• Chuck Harder Interviews Paul Craig Roberts
• A Brief Interview with Paul Craig Roberts
• Downloadable audio interview with Scott Horton

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2012)

Craig Roberts (born 25 January 1991) is a Welsh actor. He is best known for playing the lead role of Oliver Tate in the coming-of-age comedy-drama film Submarine, and for playing the character Rio in The Story of Tracy Beaker.

Life and career[link]

Roberts was born in Maesycwmmer, Caerphilly, Wales.

He has appeared as the vampire fanatic Robin Branagh, in two seasons of the television show Young Dracula. He has also appeared in Care and Casualty.

Roberts appeared in the pantomime 'Snow White' in Worthing, where he played the evil queen's sidekick 'Drax' in January 2009. In 2008 he worked with Y Touring Theatre Company where he played the part of 'Ryan' in a UK national tour of 'Full Time' which was a play that explores issues of racism, sexism and homophobia in football. He also appeared in the BBC Three television show Being Human and the online spin-off series Becoming Human as Adam.^[1]

Roberts starred in the 2010 film Submarine^[2] which also stars Paddy Considine and Yasmin Paige.^[3][4]

Filmography[link]

References[link]

1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5m86
2. ^ Henry Barnes (2011-03-15). "'I love deadpan': Richard Ayoade and Craig Roberts on Submarine | Film | guardian.co.uk". Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/mar/15/richard-ayoade-craig-roberts-submarine. Retrieved 2012-03-15. 
3. ^ White, James (2009-11-06). "Paddy Considine starring in Submarine". TotalFilm.com. http://www.totalfilm.com/news/paddy-considine-starring-in-submarine. Retrieved 2012-03-15. 
4. ^ "Submarine stars Craig Roberts and Yasmin Paige: Q&A". Film4. http://www.film4.com/features/article/submarine-craig-roberts-yasmin-paige-interview. Retrieved 2012-03-15. 

External links[link]

• Craig Roberts at the Internet Movie Database

This article about a television actor or actress is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012)

Abdul Qayyum Khan (16 July 1901 – 22 October 1981) was a major figure in Pakistan politics, in particular in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province where he served as deputy speaker, Chief Minister and Minister in the Central Government and as Federal Interior Minister.

Early life[link]

His father Khan Abdul Hakim was a Tehsildar in the North-West Frontier Province of British Indianow Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Qayyum Khan, a barrister by profession, was of Kashmiri origin.One of his brothers Abdul Hamid Khan was a prime minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.Abdul Qayum Khan was one of the eminent lawyers of N.W.F.P.During his professional career he conducted some very important cases. He used to practice in criminal law. Mirza Shams ul Haq was his most trustworthy colleague, who remained always close to him during profession and politics.Abdul Qayum was also assisted in his chambers by Muhammad Nazirullah Khan advocate, who later served as a provincial Secretary General and senior vice president of Pakistan Muslim League.

Political career[link]

Formerly a member of the Indian National Congress, Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan had served as an elected member of the Central Legislative Assembly (1937-38) as well as the deputy leader of the Congress in the Assembly. He was an ardent admirer of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, so much so that he authored a book: Gold and Guns, in which he praised the leadership of Bacha Khan and his political vision and mission. ^[1]

He joined the Muslim League in the mid 1940s and became a key figure in the Pakistan movement in N.W.F.P now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. An honest man, but a strict ruler, he was known for his development work in the province, especially for the construction of Peshawar University, primary education, hydro-electric projects like the Warsak dam and his deep dislike as well as brutal suppression of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement.^[2] His role in ordering the Babra Sharif massacre is one which he faces much criticism for, that in combination with the brutal crackdown against his former colleagues in the Congress party earned him their lasting hatred. He led the Muslim League to a landslide victory in the controversial 1951 elections, despite opposition from the Khudai Khidmatgar movement and opposition from Federally backed fellow Muslim league opponents like Yusuf Khattak.^[3]

He served as Central Minister for Industries, Food and Agriculture Minister in 1953.

Arrested by the Ayub Khan regime, he was disqualified from politics and imprisoned for two years before finally being released.

Contesting the 1970 elections from three seats as leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Qayyum faction he won two National Assembly seats one provincial seat and in 1973 entered into alliance with the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) after East Pakistan broke away in the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Appointed Federal interior Minister by Zulfiqar Bhutto he served in that post till the 1977 elections when his party suffered a near total rout. After Zia-ul-Haqs assumption of power, Qayyum Khan tried to unify all the disparate Muslim League factions. His efforts were inconclusive and he died on 22 October 1981.^[4]

He was always opposed by Khan Habibullah Khan; they were life-long rivals since they were young class-mates at Islamia College, Peshawar.

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Hassan, Syed Minhaj-ul. NWFP Administration under Abdul Qaiyum Khan, 1947-53.
• Qaiyum, Abdul, Gold and Guns on the Pathan Frontier, Bombay, 1945

See also[link]

• Sardar Abdur Rashid Khan
• Yusuf Khattak

v t e Pakistan Movement History East India Company Indian Rebellion of 1857 Aligarh Movement Urdu movement Partition of Bengal Lucknow Pact Khilafat Movement Nehru Report Fourteen Points of Jinnah Allahabad Address Now or Never pamphlet Two-Nation Theory Round Table Conferences Lahore Resolution Direct Action Day Indian Muslim nationalism Cabinet Mission Indian Independence Act Partition of India Radcliffe Line Pakistan Objectives Resolution Independence Republic Day Kashmir Freedom Movement Pakistani nationalism Osmanistan Noakhali genocide Organisations Muslim League Unionist Muslim League All India Muslim Students Federation Khaksars Leaders Syed Ahmed Khan Muhammad Iqbal Aga Khan III Muhammad Ali Jinnah Ghulam Bhik Nairang Liaquat Ali Khan Bahadur Yar Jung G. M. Syed Abdur Rab Nishtar Fatima Jinnah Choudhary Rahmat Ali Muhammad Ali Jouhar Shaukat Ali A.K. Fazlul Huq Sikandar Hayat Khan Zafar Ali Khan Khawaja Nazimuddin Abdul Qayyum Khan Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan Jogendra Nath Mandal more Activists Z.A. Suleri Hameed Nizami M.A. Zuberi Altaf Husain Yusuf Khattak Shaukat Hayat Khan Muhammad Asad Ziauddin Ahmed more