LyrArc Article Gist
Simon Nixon of the Econmist on the report's findings for the future of the world economy. He points to the heavy debt overhang for individuals and banks that will take years to overcome resulting in entrenched unemployment and sluggish growth, somewhat reminiscent of Japan's years of stagnation after its bubble. The entrenched unemployment he argues will permanently lower the economic potential of developed countries of US and Europe. Public debt will rise so that private debt can fall. Bank lending that is cautious will only slow any recovery for a long time. And the grim facts he presents are that about 25 million jobs will be lost in the 30 rich countries of the OECD before all this is over during the coming decade, and several million jobs probably will never come back. Auto manufacturing and manufacturing in general is an example where some jobs lost may never be regained. There is no room for complacency here.

LyrArc Article Gist
Reserve bank of India's Governor Dr. V.Y. Reddy, who was a strong regulaor and did not allow mortgage securitizations, derivatives, and increased the reserves banks had to hold in case things went wrong. He had strict rules for bank lending in the real estate industry even as a real estate bubble developed in India, all of which is keeping India's banking system in good shape as it faces the global credit crisis. Criticized at the time by bank executives for his strict no nonsense rules, he is now regarded highly by Bank CEO's in India. One of this no nonsense rules was that banks had to hold on to loans they made on their books as banks all over the world have always done in the past, because it made good sense as banks were likely to police themselves for loans they were responsible for. Vague and possibly dangerous experimentation in the name of productive change was frowned upon and the tried and tested rules were followed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nirmala Sitharaman brings together France, Japan, and India to bring attention to resolution of debt issues of Sri Lanka, Ghana and other countries during the annual spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in Washington D.C.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Guardian in its Editorial on Keir Starmer on February 10, 2026, says Labour was in the political wilderness for 18 years, and yet it has taken only 14 months for the project which put it into power to implode. It is referring to the project of McSweeney from County Cork, Ireland, and others to put a centrist to replace Corbyn, and selecting Keir Starmer. This was a weakness from the start as a candidate has to emerge on his own merits not be put in place by handlers like McSweeney, as he would not be able to govern on his own thinking and make his own decisions.  McSweeney was a campaign organizer and not successful at that as portrayed as Labour could have taken more than the 34% of the vote it received after 18 years of Tory rule without the likes of McSweeney. The Guardian says "excessive power and influence" was given by Starmer to McSweeney, and that the outsourcing of Britain's direction served neither the prime minister or the country well.  This is aserious flaw. McSweeney did not have the long experience of advisers that backed up Biden in the White House. And even the long experience of Biden group of advisers failed Biden when it came to immigration policy and the Border. And yet the question remains why was there such a lack in the talent pool for good governance for Labour, as it was for the Conservatives, for 3 decades since the 1990's? Similar to the situation with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama governance in the US, why is there not a good talent pool for effective governance in the UK and the US? The Guardian goes on to question the judgement of Starmer and the clique around him including McSweeney for their attitude towards helping the working class in support payments during a cost of living crisis- what it calls a contempt filled approach of the cliques to the normal priorities of a Labour party. The Editorial concludes that Labour has lost control of the trajectory of events- as more Mandelson emails are expected- and that it is hard to see how this trust can be won back. For Britain having 5 prime ministers over 4 years is a shocking lack of the talent, of confidence, that once prevailed in the nation that once led the world with the Industrial Revolution, and in science and technology. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though U.S. president Trump has singled out countries such as Mexico, South Korea and China for trade practices, the U.S. today faces stronger competition in trade from Germany. The trade surplus with Germany for 2016 was $297 billion for Germany compared to $245 billion for China, according to Ifo economic institute. China's trade surplus according to the World Bank was down from 10% of gross domestic product or GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2016, while Germany's has gone up to 8.5%. The Chinese currency is seen as not being undervalued by some experts, while the euro has lost a quarter of its value in the last 3 years, giving Geman exporters an edge. The U.S. also competes with Germany in nine of the 10 export categories such as machinery and electronic equipment, according to the Peterson Institute. Then why is the focus under U.S. president Trump not including Germany? One reason is that China's products have put a downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages, and the the speed with the Chinese manufacturing has grown in certain industries. Germany has very few of the manufacturing subsidies that China provides to its industries. And the depreciation in the euro is not favored by the German government as it opposes the policies of the European Central Bank. Germany also has a higher propensity to save about 10% of GDP compared to about 3% for the U.S., according to OECD. As a result Germany is accumulating foreign assets at a faster rate than any other nation, while the U.S. is borrowing capital from overseas. Ways to change this are minimum wage regulations introduced by the government, but larger measures such as increasing government investment in the economy are not supported as the country prepares for the future with an aging population.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Too big to run is where the banks are today. Excellence in management would help, but banks have just grown too big, bigger than even before the crisis. Bank of America's 2.3 trillion dollars in assets is 10 times the size of Exxon says the Econmist, and they need to shrink and simplify things. And even with the deities at Goldman Sachs the bank remains a black box.

LyrArc Article Gist
Harris was on the Oprah Winfrey Show yesterday where she reminded television viewers about the values America needs going forward, values that stretch back to the days of previous leaders FDR, TR and Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson who penned the words in the Declaration of Independence. "I think a lot boils down to values. I just read values on the line here. It does. I mean, think about it, Oprah. The idea that some would suggest and that my opponent suggests, which is that the measure of the strength of a leader based on who you beat down. Come on. The real measure of the strength of a leader. You don’t know who you lift up." Harris and members of the audience were visibly shaken as they heard the story of a girl Amber Thurman  who died in Georgia after seeking help following an abortion ban in Georgia. Harris said- "Amber’s story highlights the fact that, among everything that is wrong with these bans and what has happened in terms of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it’s a health-care crisis. It’s a health-care crisis that affects the patient and the profession.” ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Big changes are expected in energy markets after 2026 following the end of the war with Iran, the naval blockade and the Hormuz straits closure. Even when the Shipping returns to Hormuz there will be continued uncertainty and prospect of conflict. As a result China, India, Japan and the US and EU will look for new sources of supply in Latin America for oil and gas including in Guyana, Brazil, Argentina, and in Venezuela. This NYT Analysis  confirms the shift to renewables will accelerate after 2026 with 2-3 years return on investment for renewables, and in 2026 wind+solar+nuclear now generating more electricity worldwide than gas. OPEC stranglehold on oil prices is weakening with UAE's exit from OPEC, and the US+ Venezuela+UAE expanding production. This will benefit poorer countries in the world in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Middle Income countries like China and India, as well as US and EU through lower prices for the new overall energy mix, with a higher component of renewables from every year 2027-2030. Lower priced component for oil possibly at $50 a barrel holding steady to 2030. From this perspective Hormuz's importance will decline over this period to the point that the world's wealth sucked up for far too long in the Middle East through the twin mechanisms of  high oil prices and decades of wars will be shifted back to infrastructure in the EU, US, India and China, Brazil and Indonesia. For the poor countries like Pakistan, India, Indonesia, China and others this is a big deal because instead of the wealth going to princes in the Persian Gulf  it will benefit people in Egypt, Arab countries such as Morocco and Tunisia,Turkey, Pakistan and India, China. Long delayed infrastructure rebuilding in US and European Union can now take place.The shift and trend to renewable energy as a major component of the energy mix of over 50%-60% in India could be expected by 2030 and have a major impact on climate change. (India has already crossed 50% of its energy from renewable sources). China will have installed half of the new renewable energy capacity added by 2030 and this too will add to the fight against climate change. Overall this combination of events and changes underway are overwhelmingly constructive and are not anticipated in this way by most of the world's media including the NY, which see slower growth when the opposite is now the case with accelerating and steady growth expected 2027-2030, and 2030-2035. For the US and EU it could not come at a more opportune time with the determination to invest at home and reindustrialize, build new infrastructure, for India to build a modern country by 2040, and for China or Japan not to get stuck in middle income status with continued modernization to 2040. For the poorest countries to work with these major nations to improve standards of living. For the US it also means the end of the border migrations flows that happened in 2025 taken to the next stage in 2026 and 2027 ending all drug flows across its borders with Mexico- as more lives are lost to fentanyl and other illegal drugs substances (1.25 million since 1999) than were lost in the Korean War (36,000 deaths), Vietnam  War (58,000 deaths) and World War 1 (116,000 deaths) World War II (418,000) all 4 wars combined. Issues of unfair trade deindustrialized the US. This coupled with drugs destroyed small towns and communities (that were based on manufacturing and lost factories) across the US for over 3 decades. The tackling of these issues will also add to the general sense of well being of the people in the US- and also in the European Union. The modernization underway in China and India+Indonesia+Brazil is also part of these changes, promise a rising tide that will lift all boats if we continue together to carefully select the right path ahead and chart the course clear eyed and clear on purpose. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Over the weekend June 25-26, 2011, the Basel Committee made the decision to raise bank capital reserve requirements from 7% to 9.5%. Wall Street Journal and analyst estimates show that Bank of America, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan Chase will have to together raise $150 billon in additional capital. The rule gives the banks time till 2019 to reach the new goal. Banks that get even bigger could face an additional one percentage point increase to 10.5%. As of the end of the 1st quarter of 2011, J.P. Morgan had an estimated 7.3% ratio and would need $35 billion to meet the 9.5% capital reserve requirement. Bank of America would need $68 billion and Citigroup $48 billion to reach the 9.5% target.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in The Lancet published in February 2018 throws much light on how the ban on gain of function research on virus was lifted -research that carries with it the danger of increasing transmission of virus if something unexpected happens in the manipulation of a virus. It was lifted in 2018 in the US by officials in the US Health Ministry, NIH and HHS. The Cambridge group of scientists and experts opposed lifting the ban on such dangerous research that could make the virus more contagious through manipulation. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of Harvard School of Public Health wrote at the time that the lab research to create a more lethal strain of virus could lead to "an accidental pandemic" yet he was ignored. The public in America and in the world is unaware of how this created serious risks for public health in the world through the coronavirus.  Did US health officials lift the ban on such research without consulting other countries such as India, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, and the EU on its ramifications. Were public health experts and the publics themselves in the US and around the world not drawn into the discussion of public health and the dangers that existed. Not only did officials in HHS and NIH restart the research by lifting the ban but also sent funds overseas for such research- was this a proper or thoughtful action considering the risks involved.  Is enhanced surveillance of virus- a dubious benefit from manipulation of a virus- something a few health officials can decide for the whole world in addition to the US. How are health officials in one or two countries responsible to the people in India, Brazil, Europe and the poorest populations in the world in the world in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, people who have suffered devastating consequences from transmissibility of the virus, including children and older people with health problems. India, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, UK, and other countries worst hit by the coronavirus must ask serious questions about how they can protect their people if institutions in the US and international institutions are seen as failing to protect world public health. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Rachel Reeves is Shadow Chancellor in Britain, that is a way of saying Finance Minister when Labor currently in the Opposition forms a new government. Speaking at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC she says how Labour will bring about a transformation of Britain's economy with ambitions that borrows from and matches what Biden is doing in the US, and Scholz in Germany. This is very different from anything Britain has seen in its history. The Labour government of Clement Attlee made some institutional changes such as setting up the Bank of England as Britain's central bank in 1946, creating the structures that would help workers and families and the British economy recover from the war, and declaring in parliament that Britain would leave India by June 1948. Blair's response to the Thatcher government did not rival the changes brought by Attlee by any comparison. What Britain following the US is facing today is an FDR or Attlee moment because of the scale of changes needed to create an American or British economy that matches the aspirations of the people, and creating a meaningful role in the world economy and supply chains. Investments have to be made in public goods such as renewable energy, health, education and transportation infrastructure that have no parallel in history including that of FDR or Attlee. Biden is investing on a scale that is designed to overcome two decades of neglect of infrastructure and public goods such as education, health care, and public services. The same is true for Britain. The same is true for Germany and for the European Union.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Indian finance minister Sitharaman discusses Gati Shakti master plan for India's infrastructure development with CEO's of American companies including IBM's Arvind Krishna, and the head of Fedex, after discussions at the IMF, World Bank meetings in the US.

LyrArc Article Gist
World Bank forecasts show China's GDP growth rate in 2015 to be 7.9%, exceeding investment growth of 7%. In 2009, the situation was the opposite, with the investment growth of 18% driving an 8.9% growth rate. The World Bank expects China's growth rate to drop to about 7% between 2016 and 2020. It was 9.6% from 1995-2009. What this implies is China is shifting away from commodity intensity and wasteful use of energy, capital, and other resources. This means many of the existing forecasts based on continued commodity intensity will have to be revised drastically downward. Growth could be down to 6% annually by 2020, says Peaple, and half of the expected commodity demand would disappear in some forecasts. John Makin in an interview with Wessel of the WSJ, Dec. 30, 2010, says there is a 40% probability China will not make a soft landing in 2011-2012 from the excessive bank lending and inflation that is underway in China. This would mean slower growth much earlier than the World Bank forecasts....

LyrArc Article Gist
Thucydides, Greek historian on the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens 431 BC, cited by Xi Jinping of China during DJT visit to China, May 2026. “Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?” "Thucydides Trap," is about one established power being threatened by another rising power, as Sparta felt threatened by a rising Athens in the Greek world around 431 BC, leading to a long over 30 years war.  “The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,” Xi said, of Taiwan, an island near China's coast where ChiangKaishek set up his government after the fall of his government in Beijing in 1949 to Communist People's Army of Mao Zedong. “If mishandled, the two nations could collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation."  What China sees is a future of strong economic growth based on China having built its industrial strength and world trade to exceed 1.2 trillion dollars of trade surplus in 2026. Yet this is only the beginning. US and European Union, and India+Japan are three economic regions compared to the situation in Greek history. The combined three economic regions potential for scientific and industrial advances in the future till 2045 in a synergistic fashion one building on top of the other's advances, far exceed the potential of the Chinese economy and industry by itself. This is why any such conflict may over time fizzle away as three economic regions of EU, US and India advance, particularly the 1.4 billion people of India, which will see growth rates of 20% annually for 10 years to 2035 in Eastern Indian region of the size of the EU. That region extends from Lucknow and Patna to Vizag and Chennai. Another aspect of this concerns China itself which sees slowing growth of 5% in 2026. Growth could slow further as US, European Union and India/Japan push back on Chinese exports during a period of reindustrialization in US, EU, Japan and rapid industrial development in India to 2040. China's development is only midway in terms of per capita GNP which lags most of Europe and the US, Japan. Thus the main concern in China is that China will not be able top go beyond middle income country as its demographics and aging population look more like Japan's over the period 2026-2040. China needs the US EU trade and markets for it to meet the needs and aspirations of its 1.4 billon people as the other engines of development such as housing construction, infrastructure building, have lost momentum. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Liz Truss decides to appoint only loyalists to her cabinet after a leadership contest for the Tory party. Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor, Susana Braverman as Home Secretary, and James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary. All conservatives lining up for positions in the new government were told in no uncertain terms not to criticize a plan first suggested by the Labour party to freeze energy bills at the current level. This could cost 100 billion pounds. Kwasi Kwarteng, Truss's nominee for finance minister says there will be need for some fiscal loosening. Under the 100 billion pound plan to help households with bills the energy bills would be frozen at current level of 1975 pounds per year. Under the plan, commercial banks would deposit money in a state backed fund, which suppliers could then draw on to freeze customer's bills. The government would pay this back over 10-15 years through taxation or a surcharge on bills. By making such quick moves to help households Truss would be putting Britons in a position similar to that in France where energy prices have been capped and Germany where cash payments help households cope with higher energy bills.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
19 percent of China's exports went to the US in 2017, in 2024 this is 15%, but wait, the difference of 4 percent it is simply coming back to the US but through Southeast Asia. As a result some of the same issues that puzzled Trump negotiators exist today. China's exports surged 12.7% in October 2024 over the prior year. Biden was facing this situation and had yet to respond to the surge in exports to US. These exports were sent to Mexico and to Southeast Asia to circumvent the tariffs. It is the same situation revisited in 2024 with two other aspects of the Chinese economy-economic stimulus gets smaller and the housing and construction industry has imploded, the economy has slower growth. The overall price level in the US with a 60% tariff plus 10% for all countries would be 0.72 addition to the price level of 1.10 percent today- that is when including the depreciation of China's yuan by 10%. as it did last time. The result would be price level in the US at 1.82%, according to J.P. Morgan. Drag on China's GDP of the Trump tariffs in first term was 0.65% according to one investment bank GS, with 60% tariffs it would be 2%. Trump secured a return of $116 billion or 58% of the $200 billion China said it would buy of US exports. The other 42%- the deal was not completed in the end. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Keith Bradsher's NYT interview with Raghuram Rajan, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, comes when Rajan has come under criticism from the business sector and the small business support base of prime minister Modi's party. The criticism centers on the drop in oil prices since Nov. 2014, and Rajan's failure to drop interest rates at the Dec. 2, 2014 central bank meeting. Rajan says it was not clear whether oil prices would remain low for an extended period at the Dec. 2, 2014 meeting. Since then new inventory data, EIA estimates and OPEC policy guidance have confirmed low prices will remain for an extended period. Rajan lowered interest rates on Jan. 14, 2015, by one quarter of a percentage point. Under India's setup the central bank chief makes decisions on interest rates, compared to the decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee at the U.S. Federal Reserve. Rajan says there is full understanding between the central bank and the Modi government economic team led by finance minister Arun Jaitley, Jayan Sinha, deputy minister of state for finance, and chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanium. Modi and Jaitley prefer to rely on the advice and policy direction of economic policymakers with long experience in the U.S. and international circles. Both Subramanium and Rajan bring this level of experience and expertise. Subramanium brings experience from his years at the GATT which preceded the WTO, the IMF, and the Peterson Institute of International Economics, and Rajan brings experience at the University of Chicago, and as chief economist of the IMF. Modi is a dilgent listener and policymaker giving careful attention to the best advice, making it unlikely that Rajan would be seen as a holdover from the administration of Manmohan Singh. Other criticism that the business sector has made of Rajan are as financial regulator in asking state banks to increase collateral required from large business firms for large bank loans. Rajan points out the need for business to bear the costs as well as the benefits of taking risks. Under previous governments the state banks allowed large firms to keep their holdings at companies even when the risk taking resulted in losses. Rajan has also not tried to reverse the sharp decline in the rupee, which hurts business firms which took on dollar denominated loans. Rajan has instead followed policy of building up the reserves by buying dollars. The reserves were depleted in 2013 by a policy of currency interventions to reverse that decline. Inflation in India reached 9.9% in Dec. 2013, with policy of the central bank under Rajan set to bring it down to 8% in 2014, and below 6% in 2015, so that India could get out of the trap of persistently high inflation with slow growth. This is critical for a new Indian success story. A goal set by Rajan in Oct. 2012 when he was appointed as central bank chief, was to increase foreign investment and encourage new business so that India was no longer dependent on large companies for growth. This is also critical for a new Indian success story, as the Modi administration and the central bank are both keenly aware. Just as Bernanke and now Yellen at the U.S. Fed face criticism for quantitative easing monetary policy, focus on the high long term unemployed, and not focussing on inflation- with their focus on the long term economic recovery in an environment of low inflation below 2% in the U.S.- India's Reserve Bank faces a different kind of criticism for careful and prudent policies to ensure long term growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
In a complete reversal of Chavez socialist Venezuela oil policy that led to underinvestment in oil industry and its gradual collapse with mismanagement corruption- the new oil law sets 15% tax and 30% royalty fees . This encourages US investment other than Chevron which is already in the country. Rodriguez, the interim president says "We're talking about the future. We are talking about the country that we are going to give to our children."  US Secretary of State Rubio cited this achievement in the interests of the Venezuelan people in the Senate hearing yesterday. Rubio is from Latin America, has a deep knowledge of the region and is interested in its future for the next generation, he knows what went wrong and what can be corrected for a better future for the region. For this reason the Monroe Doctrine is not about US alone, but the US helping the region prosper and improve the lives of people in the region. A very important point when there is misrepresentation of US policy in the region and the world, something Rubio never tired of pointing out in the Senate hearing yesterday. Once again in a country that was one of the best in Latin America Venezuelan oil can help Venezuela get back on its feet as a reliable and successful partner for America in the western hemisphere, a model for the rest of the region after so much suffering and mismanagement acting as a lesson for future generations in the western hemisphere. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How Obama's new selection for Fed governor, Daniel Tarullo- who taught banking law at Georgetown University- is shaking things up at the Fed. He is in charge of regulation of the banking system at the Fed. He has instituted a review of bank review practices and supervision at all of the regional Federal Reserve banks. With many banks failures in the south, the Atlanta Fed came in for serious review, and regulators from outside the area were sent to the Atlanta Fed. Tarullo did not hesitate to make new appointments for serious oversight, as regulators had simply become lax. Tarullo has brough in economists to take a fresh look at how the banking system would perform in the event of another crisis, and what action needs to be taken. This compares to individual bank examiners having alimited perspective what damage the overall banking system could do with lax regulation. He has also asked the Fed regulatory staff to look closely and hard at the troubled commercial real estate loans and toughen regulatory measures. Welcome and overdue as this is, in another banking crisis this could be too little too late. Congress has weakened regulatory reforms proposed by the Obama administration, and the Obama administration itself has not the will to address the tough issues raised by the banking crisis. Both have buckled under pressure from the lobbying of the banking industry, and the close connections between some banking executives and the administration. This has raised the level of urgency felt by Tarullo, Volcker, Mervyn King and some in the financial industry itself, with the issue of "too big to fail" and breaking up the larger banks into smaller ones, moving to the top of everyone's agenda. With the simple fact that if banks were "too big to fail" before the crisis, then they are much bigger now, and the question of what action must be taken shoved aside as too big to tackle....

LyrArc Article Gist
The cost of fixing the nation's financial system could be around $2.5 trillion with an additional $350 of the second TARP funding and the rest of the money coming from the Federal Reserve through the Fed's ability to print money and from private investors. About $1 trillion of this is to compensate for the lack of issuance of securities backed by consumer loans of $1.2 trillion between 2006 and 2008, so that credit markets can function again like they used to. Another component of the plan is to give banks more government money which they will now be expected to lend to consumers and businesses. But a key feature of the plan much awaited by markets was the bad bank or aggregator bank solution which would enable banks to transfer bad assets to this bank. And on this one Geithner said very little so it was adisappointment for financial markets. Also the plan lacked details and was more broad brush and small on specifics. Another area on which Geithner said little is how the government will tackle rising forecolosures and keep people in their homes, which in turn would help stabilize housing prices. But by building up expectations and offering little of specifics on the bad bank solution Geithner earned withering criticism from Senators Kerry, Shelby, Frank, and others. A former managing director at Morgan Stanley Frank Pallotta, now aconsultant to buyers and sellers of distressed mortgages, says the fundamental problem still is the pricing and the gap between what abank like Chase thinks its mortgage is worth of 75 cents to the dollar and aprospective buyer who thinks its worth 45 cents or 25 cents. This is a huge gap and would be expensive to fill in. A bad bank one analyst says could be very expensive and this is why Geithner acknowledges the goal of setting up a fund of some $1 trillion. ...