LyrArc Article Gist
The language and tone of the leaders says something about what is likely to be the outcome of the G20 summit. Its a first for significant participation, as countries as diverse as Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands are represented. The credible positions of both sides, the US, UK and Japan, and the European side of France, Germany and the Czech Republic, well presented, provide for some serious discussion and negotiations. France's Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel want to see a global regulator that would reach inside the borders of the US with stricter regulation. Sarkozy calls this "nonnegotiable." And he said that he would reject an agreement that puts off stringent new regulations on banks, tax havens, and hedge funds. He said "the compromise has to come from all countries around the world." US President Obama said that if there is going to be renewed growth it can't just be the US as the engine, everybody is going to have to pick up the pace," at the same time saying that the US had to be concerned about its own deficits. The fact is that the US stimulus will mostly help a severely impacted domestic economy recover with social safey net payments to local and state governments and unemployment insurance, as well as targeted investments in infrastructure, education, energy and health care. It will not mean anywhere near the kinds of imports the US made from other countries, especially China. And Obama made that clear when he said the US will never return to that situation, where the US had become a "voracious consumer market." For the Germans the major market for their middle companies is China, and China has its own stimulus spending on infrastructure spending, which should provide for continued imports of machinery from Germany at a much lower level. Thus Germany and France see a strong tendency to call the source of the crisis and repeat that call till the US listens, and refer to the failure of free market capitalism in its unregulated form. And to insist on fixing it through a global regulator with strict and systemwide rules. So you hear this in Merkel's words, "the foundation for this finacial architecture must be laid now, that is why we seem to be so tough." While the vivacious Sarkozy talks of compromise, and a US gesture in regulation in return for Franc's gesture of joining NATO, the mild mannered Merkel is clear and focussed about her concern. She rejects the idea of linking stimulus spending demands of the Anglo-Americans with the Franco-German demands for global systemwide regulation. "This is not a bargaining chip," she says. The media may mistakenly report lack of consensus as a failure of the summit. But in the long run in the presence of good positions on both sides, it could lead to some tough negotiations even if continued at another meeting. And result in something serious, credible and lasting in its impact, rather than something that was easy and did not in Andy Grove's useful words involve "constructive confrontation." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Huge losses sustained by sovereign wealth funds. Estimated $350 billion for Gulf foreign reserve funds and SWF's, according to RGE Monitor's Rachel Ziemba, or 27% of assets. Sovereign Wealth funds are either using their funds for supporting their local banks as in the Gulf areas, or buying back stakes of cash strapped western banks like RBS in the case of China. Russia, China and other countries are using their SWF's for stimulus spending. And Russia, Gulf economies that are dependent on oil prices, are looking at possible sale of foreign assets at oil prices between $50 and a deterioration to $25. Only China has a surplus that is sustained through the last quarter of 2008, but this is changing quickly as imports pick up after the stimulus kicks in, and exports drop precipitiously in 2010. South Korea and Russia have also learned of the need to have liquid safe investments preferably in dollars in the current crisis, as they have learned how large capital outflows can get in a short time. And the US is not looking at these large capital inflows from overseas as a benevolent thing, because it overvalues American assets, and leads to all sorts of distortions in liquidity and pricing of risk that contributed to the current crisis. In short the whole situation with SWF's has a suprising ending, as with everything in the current crisis, nothing worked out as expected or planned....

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial after the Senate passed a bill in October 2011 calling for action on the misaligned Chinese currency, points to ways a misaligned currrency is damaging for China. It cites the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate that this is costing China $240 billion a year. This is a result of accumulating huge dollar reserves that have a declining value against the renminbi. Higher import prices lead to higher inflation. And low interest rates on savings, to the point that they are lower than the inflation rate, hurt the vast majority of Chinese and reduce domestic consumption. And perversely this leads to money pouring into speculative uses such as real estate, creating unsustainable bubbles in housing. The Times editorial says China is not generating jobs from this strategy, as the export strategy is relying on use of advanced technology in manufacturing and not creating many jobs. It cites a statistic showing employment has increased by only 1 percent a year from 2004 even with GDP growth above 10%. China is beginning to realize the cost of this strategy, and is planning a shift in its five year economic plan. But this rebalancing has many obstacles. The current system dominated by state run companies, banks, local and federal government, is biassed in favor of the old export led strategy, and experts are pessimistic about the possibilities for change. The Times suggests China may be falling back on the export led strategy as the global economy is slowing. The whole system would have to change after three decades of this kind of development, and would require new leadership and major changes....

LyrArc Article Gist
To get a right grasp of the situation as a whole from the bigger picture than the headlines, is to know that even in the current chaotic immigration handling of both parties, the US comes out a winner in long term by 2034. That it gives for the younger generation a better future. Congress's Budget Office economic report shows GDP higher by 2% from the higher immigration of 5.2 million added to the US workforce by 2034. US productivity higher by 0.2% and residential investment including construction up by a whopping 10%. The younger profile of immigrants will help the US compete with India's younger population, and as China ages to have what it and Europe is aspiring to have- a younger population. The best way to look at the immigration issue is for the short term- manage it better by organized method of immigration without chaotic border crossings by allowing potential immigrants to apply from their home country, a step taken by the Biden administration. What it or any Republican administration could not control is the immigration that happens from countries the US is at war with or in conflict with. It is important to recognize that this is what happened with Venezuela the largest component of the immigration border crossings in 2023. It was made worse by actions of both parties Democrats and Republicans and made worse in 2017 by more severe sanctions on Venezuela under the Trump administration.  Also part of the problem is Venezuelan mismanagement- providing oil at pennies a gallon, hurting imports and spiralling inflation that only worsened under US sanctions after 2017. Long term- To reflect that US sanctions on top of mismanagement by Venezuela is a warning for all developing countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and for the US. It meant 7 million refugees a staggering quarter of Venezuela's population fleeing the country, that burdened neighbors Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile. By 2022-2023 many of these refugees were making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Yet within this tragic situation for Venezuelan people how could the US best respond is to close the border as president Biden has proposed with McConnell and the Lankford effort in the Senate, which was blocked by the House under Mike Johnson. This gives time to assess the situation, correct US laws on asylum and parole that allowed this chaotic way to proceed under actions of both parties.And not let this destabilize the US by understanding that while Venezuela has suffered for its role in the crisis the US will ultimately have come out a winner, as pointed out by the Congressional Budget Office projections. CBO projections of this immigration impact by 2034 of increasing the workforce population by 5.2 million will provide higher GDP, more tax revenues, and higher productivity than without this group of Venezuelan and other immigrants in this special situation of 2022-2023. For the Immigration projections discussion given by Phillip Swagel, Director of the Congressional Budget Office see page 51 of the Budget and Economic Outlook 2024 to 2034. For this search for term Congressional Budget Office or CBO which brings up the report on PDF and turn to page 51 or just click on Original Article on Lyrarc.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India decides not to join the China sponsored Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. India says it has significant issues in providing market access that would hurt Indian industry and agriculture. Prime minister Modi called it a question of conscience. All parties in India now oppose RCEP because of a fear of India being flooded with cheap Chinese imports. Japan and China, South Korea, all protected their local industry to give it catch up time to come up to western technological and production levels before allowing limited access to U.S. and Europe. The U.S. has reverted to protecting its industry from cheap Chinese imports by rejecting the Trans Pacific Agreement, showing that advanced industrial countries can also be hurt by cheap subsidized imports if they are not careful. Workers in less densely populated areas were worst affected statistics show. Lacking the voice of larger urban areas and tech industry they were ignored leading to the situation the U.S. and Britain face today of a working class set adrift. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The most alarming report is that from researchers at Peking University Health Sciences Center in Beijing, which shows 10 years of data on lead poisoning. Its conclusion: About 34% of children in China have blood levels that exceed the WHO limit of 100 micrograms per 1 litre of blood. A whole generation of children may be compromised. To avoid being noticed factories that have toxic byproducts or emissions are being setup in the countryside. Lead products are added to herbal products that are sold by weight to make them weigh more. It is regularly added to plastics and vinyl to make it temperature resistant. Once in the human bloodstream lead mimics other substances like calcium and zinc and iron and binds to sites in the brain intended for calcium disrupting brain cells leading to ireversible brain impairment. See the article in August 2, 2007 NYT, about the recall of 1 million Mattel toys, Elmos and Big Birds, for lead detected in them. Note that Mattel's monitoring system did not catch this, it was caught by a retailer....

LyrArc Article Gist
The US sees no contradiction to India looking for bargain priced oil from Russia to meet the growing needs of its economy and is actually furthering the goals of the G-7 by lowering the price Russia gets for its oil. It helps the economy of 1.2 billion people that like the rest of the world has struggled to fight the pandemic and has incurred the kind of heath costs that even China is now struggling to pay for. President Biden clearly understands and supports this. Democracies an only succeed if they fulfill the aspirations of their people. On this point Biden made clear in his State of the Union that he will generate what it takes from large corporations that paid no tax, to invest in America. Rather than fuel the profits of large oil companies India has increasingly chosen to use Russian discounted oil to invest in India. The Biden and Modi policies are identical generate savings and invest big time in trillions of dollars over the next few years to put democracies ahead in meeting rising aspirations that have been unfulfilled for far too long, which is where the real battles are being fought and will be won, and rightly so. US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources, Geoffrey Pyatt,  said during a visit to New Delhi on Feb. 16-17- "Our experts now assess that India right now is enjoying a discount of about USD 15 a barrel in the price that it is paying for its imports of Russian crude. So by acting in its own interest, by driving a hard bargain to get the lowest price possible, India is furthering the policy of our G7 coalition, our G7 plus partners in seeking to reduce Russian revenues."  Looking at the bigger picture the problem was created by Germany under Merkel who built Germany's over dependency on Russian oil to power a cheap fuel economy it thought was in Germany's interest. This is now being reversed by the hard work of Mr. Habeck of the Green party in the coalition government of Scholz in securing alternative supplies in record time for the EU to avoid a recession. In this sense the perception created early of India which has suffered itself from invasions in 1962 and incursions in the Himalayas more recently, it is not a problem India can solve by becoming energy short at a time when it has invested so much in fighting the pandemic. A similar problem was created by Republican and Democratic administrations of the past that concentrated the supply chain in one country. India lost much investment in the last 8 years as a result of the policies of Merkel's Germany and past Republican Democratic administrations in concentrating the supply chain in one country. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A second term Trump-Vance will face uphill risks and a mess in economics from a Trumpian Republican party and Congress, says WSJ. WSJ Editorial Board says a second Trump term is not without risks. Tariffs cost 1.1% in annual growth in the Trump first term says WSJ, and it did have an impact on inflation. It would have had greater impact on inflation with the supply chain crisis of Biden's first term, had this supply chain crisis happened in Trump's first term. A second term Trump-Vance support tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports which would have a bigger effect on inflation and economic growth than of the first term. The key difference is that with tax cuts a basic rule for Republican policies Trump-Vance second term would not invest in infrastructure the way Mr. Biden has done and Biden will do so in a second term. As a result the economic growth is likely to be greater and inflation smaller under a Biden administration. Trillions of dollars in investment in the economy and infrastructure under Biden in a second term will be missing in a Trump-Vance tax cuts administration policy. And with it hundreds of thousand of jobs created each quarter will be missing in Trump-Vance second term. Add to this the level of clarity of stable economic policy under a Biden second term and contrast it with some of the chaos in economic policy of a Trump-Vance second term. The basic contradiction between tax cuts policy and the nation's need for infrastructure spending/rebuilding under a Republican under Trump administration will not go away, present a huge stumbling block. Chaotic policy could come from Project 2025 that says consider abolishing the US central bank Federal Reserve. This kind of erratic and unwise policy proposals are clearly not happening under Biden and Yellen. Another key difference is the cost to the economy of delays of several years in doing nothing for climate in Trump-Vance 2024-2028. Severe effects on climate if nothing is done could cause acceleration of climate negative costs which a future economy under Democrats would face, in reality the Nation would face. America's Business has taken a short term approach to climate change, when the time comes to pay the costs of short term thinking it assumes it is somebody else's problem- this happened with supply chain concentration in China the burden falling on the middle and lower classes, it would happen again with missing climate change action under Trump-Vance second term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese negotiations at the WTO to protect its rice sugar and cotton farmers from imports. Both sides are trying to get concessions, the EU and the USA and China and India.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jeanne Whalen on the Two Speed Economy in the US September 2025- diverging paths of low and high income Americans. With the new administration in 2025 priorities shift to immigration and what to do about 14 million illegal migrants from Latin America and other places, war on fentanyl and drug trafficking gangs with hundreds of thousands of lives lost to fentanyl and drugs in the US, crime and safety which includes the unprecedented illegal movement of drug trafficking in the Nation, and to a bold posture on using US advantages of its huge market to get European Union, Japan, South Korea, and China to level the playing field on trade bring jobs home.The Biden administration had already conceded to DJT's approach in its one term presidency by shifting on uncontrolled illegal migration but not fast enough, by not removing DJT's tariffs, and failing to take an aggressive posture on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Of the DJT plan US has tariff based revenues of 10--15% for all countries imports into US can that it redirect to groups to soften any effects of tariffs. DJT administration oil transition policy of stretching out the transition to give middle class and lower classes cost of living relief was also accepted by the Biden administration and is now the policy of Democrat run California state government.  The US economy was slowing in 2024 under the Biden administration. What has changed in 2025 is that the US stock markets are responding to steps taken by the DJT Republican administration to lower the cost of doing business by softening regulations, and giving US business the upper hand in different industries, and rebuilding the manufacturing sector with calls for EU and Japan/South Korea to invest more in the US as a quid pro quo for market access. This has led to increase in the value of market portfolios of the income earners above 250,000, or 10% of American households. As this happens the process of trade renegotiation has introduced some uncertainty in 2025 and businesses are looking for more clarity before increasing investment and slowing job hiring which hurts younger people entering the job market and lower income Americans. Were things better under Biden? Government Covid assistance and payouts in the early years 2020-2021 helped lower income workers, as this faded and the cost of living autos, housing increased sharply under Biden in 2022-2024 the situation deteriorated. The situation today is similar to the situation in 2024 with the difference in 2025 that inflation is coming down just as government help is receding. And added factor is the DJT administration plan to tackle head on the increasing cost of Medicaid to about $1 trillion by adding new requirements and reducing subsidies. The federal workforce had a disproportionate share of black workers and the policy changes to reduce the federal workforce have increased black unemployment from 6.1% under Biden in August 2024 to 7.5 % a year later. Hispanics have seen slight improvement in unemployment to 5.3% in 2025, and the middle class incomes also have held up and are holding steady. Meantime Bloomberg points out that one third of people in the top 10% are living paycheck by paycheck because of high cost of housing, university education for children, and inflation.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After the Phase 1 trade deal with China led to cancellation of new tariffs on computers, mobile phones and the remaining products imported from China, tariffs are still in place on $370 billion of imports from China. President Trump says China agreed to import $32 billion of agricultural goods, with the figures reaching $50 billion in 2020. The prior high was $26 billion in 2012. This comes as a big relief for the agricultural farm sector which had 24% more bankruptcies in 2019. Farmers are now more likely to vote for president Trump as they did in the last election. In addition China agreed to buy $200 billion more of American goods over the next 2 years. This combined with the USMCA agreement to replace NAFTA, for North American trade, is good news for president Trump and for the U.S. economy for 2% annual growth. The S&P stock index went up by 29% in 2019. The big concession by China is its agreement to agree to penalties if it does not keep up its part of the bargain.  Intellectual property protection remains a challenge and Mr. Trump may have decided to take a tactical success and shore up his base of farmers and small business people before taking up these issues in the future. China for its part may have decided to make a tactical move of its own as it has nothing to lose in importing more farm products from the U.S. in exchange for being able to continue to make the computers, iPhones and tech products it manufactures, just like before. China has not conceded much in terms of its goals set  in "Made in China 2025." Both sides are taking a much needed pause to consolidate their positions, as the fundamental differences remain to be tackled. Huawei and Chinese technology issue remains as before with the U.S. wary of China's technological gains in 5G telecom equipment and keen on building and protecting America's technological advantage in future trade relations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Bank of Japan reduced interest rates by 0.2 %, from 0.5 % to 0.3%, lowering the overnight lending rate. Citing higher energy prices and lower export demand it lowered the growth forecast to zero for 2008. This is the first time in 7 years that the Bank of Japan is doing this. Japan has never recovered from the real estate and stock market bubbles of the 1980's and interest rates in Japan have been at levels near zero for many years. With low interest rates and a huge deficit Japn has few options left. The small nature of the rate cut is unlikely to increase borrowing or stimulate the economy say experts, but is more of a symbolic move that Japan will coordinate its efforts with other global economies. Even so half of the governing board voted for and half against this cut with central bank governor Maasaki Shirakawa casting the deciding yes vote. Upto now Japn's significant help has been in the form of suppplying yen and dollars to money markets to ease the global credit crisis. Another move is a $51 billion stimulus package that will give income tax rebates to households. Japan would like to pick up the slack in global growth from USA's weakness but is unable to do so because like other Asian economies its growth is export based with low consumption spending at home. This is true also of China and China's need for infrastructure spending is not as great as it once was leaving imports of machinery at lower levels, which gives less support to export driven growth from Germany or the USA....

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....

LyrArc Article Gist
Geithner in written testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, stated that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists- believes that China is manipulating its currency." What is noteworthy is that experts are generally in agreement that something should be done about this in cooperative fashion, from Obama's economic team, Obama's own views on this, The National Association of Maufacturers, Labor and so on. The trade deficit with China has continued at high levels even with the current economic slowdown, so this issue remains as one that the Bush administration never really addressed. Simon Johnson, a MIT Professor, and former IMF Chief economist says that even the IMF has not addressed it, and that the Obama administration needs to call China to account. He says this could lead to a spat with China, and if the US does not back down to a row. The concern has been that China would not buy up Treasury debt the way it has in the past, at the same time the question is whether there is some point where the deficit is so large and the US so dependent on foreign buyers of Treasury debt, that it needs to be addressed on a number of levels. Including addressing currency and fair trade issues, a more rational balanced consumption of everything from oil to goods from lowcost Asian countries, to reduce the toll on the overextended American consumer and on the extent of US borrowing needed. From China's perspective there may also be the same concern about export led growth, which may come to be seen as undependable anyway, because with or without some currency advantage the overextended US consumer is not buying anyway, holding off on purchases of everying from cars to flatscreen televisions. With growth at 6.8% in 4th quarter 2008, according to the Chinese Government Statistics Bureau, and expected to drop to 5% in 2009, the export growth model is no longer the panacea for China's unemployed as it once was at 12-13% growth rates in 2006-2007. In fact it may now look to be a better wiser policy if China had increased the value of its currency even more than its slow gradual approach to slow the growth rate from 12-13% to a more sustainable 9-10%, and lower American imports and lower the American trade deficit. Part of the problem in China was the difficulty of applying any sort of brakes once the local governments were set free to expand as much as they could, and prevented any controls from being effective. Steel production continued to grow even after there was evidence of large overcapacity, and government direction failed. Buy some time to shift to domestic consumption based recovery, is what the Chinese policy may be now. Indications of this are evident with its grappling at the issues it has not tackled like giving ownership of land to farmers in rural areas, and to building a healthcare system for the country, both of which are part of a host of issues to shift to domestic consumption based recovery. So unlike the way the media and some experts portray it its not a tough line that the US is taking against Chinese unwillingness. China may want to cooperate.That may be true if China was missing out on 10-13% growth rates, but these were unsustainable anyway and bad policy. At growth rates below 5% as projected by analysts China may want to jettison the export model of growth and build an alternative one. In that case as China shifts to domestic consumption, currency adjustments may be seen quite differently than they were in the past....

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's growth rate for GDP in 2016 was 1.9% compared to 2015. This is the highest growth rate in half a decade, and better than 2015 when the growth in GDP was 1.7%. Fiscal surplus was 0.6% of GDP in 2016. Germany's Economics and Technology Ministry says the economy is improving because of the positive labor situation, rising incomes and consumer spending. Real estate boom is also helping growth, and also the state spending including on refugees accomodation. Exports have surged and the economy has recovered from the Brexit effect. Exports surged to 1.1 trillion euros in 11 months of 2016.

LyrArc Article Gist
The yuan has gained 16% since the peg to the dollar ended in 2005. For years China has resisted letting its currency appreciate significantly, why the change of heart now? Its seen as a positive thing by China's leaders to let the yuan appreciate and its now part of Chinese policymaking. First it helps keep inflation down, keeps the rising prices of imports energy, commodities, and food under control as they are denominated in USA dollars. Second it sends a signal to manufacturers to move up to more sophisticated value added products that are not sensitive to pricing and can accomodate a stronger yuan, because its precisely the manufacturers who operate on thin margins and make lower end products who will go close down. They also cost the economy in terms of higher pollution and damage to the environment in a way that higher tech products do not. And China wants to undo or limit the damage to its environment. Third by lowering rebates or eliminating rebates and letting the curtrency appreciate its changing the emphasis from exports to domestic markets and domestic consumption. This combined with new laws on wages and benefits is designed to promote domestic consumption which can better carry the burden of economic growth than exports because of the slowing down of the developed western economies especially the USA which is going through what may be a severe and protracted downturn. It also helps that China need no longer be portrayed as taking advantage of free trade through huge surpluses. Its constructive as it will help rebalance the world trading system as the USA can improve its trade deficit and China can accelerate its growth by importing more western machinery and technology and not have to depend on precarious export markets for economic growth that it badly depends on to improve the living conditions of hundreds of millions of its people. By building a large middle class of consumers china can continue growth using its domestic markets at a pace that is still very healthy and not likely to build inflationary pressures which may be a welcome thing....

LyrArc Article Gist
The impact on stock markets around the world of the protests in Egypt. The Nikkei fell 1.5%, the Kospi index fell 1.5%, on Jan 31, and the Dow Jones average fell 166 points on Friday Jan 28, 2011. Oil prices increased by 3.7% to $89.34 during the week of protests in Egypt. The Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington estimates a 5% increase in the price of oil takes away $5 billion dollars from the US economy. Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor's Equity Research, says that a boxer rarely gets knocked out by a punch he is expecting, and this could be what starts a decline after the market fought off fears from sovereign debt crises in Europe and interest rate increases in China. What makes Egypt significant? The Suez Canal is ony a 1000 feet wide at the narrowest point. Supertankers carrying oil do not pass through the canal but rely on smaller vessels and on the Sumed pipeline. About 2.9 million barrels of oil a day, 2.6% of global oil production passed though the Suez Canal and the pipeline according to the US Energy Department. Because prices are determined at the margin this is a lot of oil, especially considering the global spare production capacity is only 2.5 millon barrels a day. The immediate impact would be on Europe which gets much of the oil refined in the Middle East and shipped using the canal and pipeline. Egypt is also a major importer of wheat, importing more wheat than any other country. Any increase in imports to placate consumers would increase wheat prices. Already wheat prices are impacted by floods in Australia, a long drought in Argentina, and forest fires in Russia. Inflationary impact of rising food prices has been felt in China, India and other countries....

LyrArc Article Gist
The new Australian budget is designed to generate a slight surplus from the A$44 billion deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30. This prepares the Australian government of Julia Gillard for elections in 2013. The budget depends on the mining boom to generate the tax revenues for planned economic growth of over 3% in 2012-2013. This is based on the large number of projects planned for investments in oil, gas and other energy projects, valued at US$456 billion. GE as supplier of turbines and other products to the Chevron-Total gas project and other projects in Australia, has sales in Australia match its sales level in China in 2012-2013. This gives an idea of the extent of the boom in the mining and energy sector. Even the widening trade deficit to A$1.59 in March 2012 reflects large imports for the mining sector. The weakness of this approach is that too much is dependent on the mining and offshore gas boom. Retail spending is weak and Australia is increasingly looking like a two tier economy, subject to the boom and bust cycles that its mining companies have experienced in the past. A bubble in Australia's housing markets and uncertainties in the global economy pose other risks....