LyrArc Article Gist
It took 25 years for the US to recover from the 1929 stock market disaster and the Great Depression. It took Japan 25 years to recover from the 1989 stock market collapse and the lost decades since. It is finally emerging from that period with a healthier economy and business structures. China faces a situation today of a struggling economy after years of excessively rapid growth that hurt the environment and climate and health. And the uncertainty that faced Japan after 1989 also faces China in 2024- growth is never linear over very long periods and has pull backs that could stretch for decades much too familiar for Japan. For India there are lessons to be learned from Japan's and China's experience. In environment not to risk polluting the environment as China experienced with breakneck unchecked growth, to be mindful of bringing up all sectors and parts of the population, and to manage growth so that the basic instability that resulted from excessive shift to China of manufacturing and deindustrialization in US that led to worsening trade and people to people relations between US and China is not repeated. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT and Treasury's Scott Bessent taking a "call" not a "put" on the economy March 2025. Tariffs as short term bargaining chip, primarily domestic policy on CMC (Canada, Mexico and China) tolerance for fentanyl flows into the US. Taking fentanyl, drug trafficking, and migrant trafficking out of the Nation, will revive the spirit of America's neighborhoods across America's vast landscape. It is incumbent on CMC countries, Canada, Mexico and China, to stop fentanyl flows into the US across their borders that have caused hundreds of thousands of American deaths. Tariffs are a last resort for America to get action and save America's neighborhoods from this scourge. Investment in the US manufacturing in the private sector as the long term policies shape the economy, the cutting of waste in spending, have the potential of reviving the economy and leading a second stage of growth led now by the private sector investment after the government led spending under the Biden administration on restoring American infrastructure. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach after Liberation Day- soon to be relics from the China Trade of yesterday. On April 9 US responded to China's 34% tariff with another 50% tariff of its own on China. The US tariff now stands at 104% to China's 84%. China says it won't back down and "will fight to the end." The US president DJT is now certain to restore world trade to the days before China entered the World Trade Organization and upended the world trade order leading to the deindustrialization of the US when US corporations followed Apple in 1998. With Tim  Cook in charge of Apple manufacturing in 1998 doing the first major act of outshoring the whole manufacturing base of a company to China. It was a strategy- to use the huge profits of a three punch approach- brand the product at the high end to command high price in the US through innovation and design (punch 1), followed by making using Chinese labor at low cost in China (punch 2), to generate the huge profits to create a virtuous cycle of investment from these profits to generate new cycle of growth (punch 3). What Apple gained, America's workers lost. This was sold by economists at the service of corporate narrative that it was good for America in the face of the facts showing just the reverse for 25 years 2000-2025. Soon almost the entire manufacturing base of the US was shipped out to China, or Chinese supply bases Vietnam. Japan fell in line and became a supplier to this China Manufacturing for the World. What started out as Microsoft demolishing Apple by 1998 and Apple using this 1-2-3 punch strategy turned into first a disaster for American workers, a loss of the working class leading to the loss of the middle class backbone of America, replaced by Silicon Valley and financial interests in New York City and disproportionate rewards to capital, the rural and small towns, cities across America's heartland thrown into decay and neglect.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under Mette Frederiksen immigration which reached 21,000 in 2015 was down to a little over 1000 a year. She is a strong fighter for workers and families and labor rights and yet tough on illegal immigration. She has been proven right about this as Britain and the US under Biden are seeing illegal immigration as a threat to workers and labour, are seeing the risks of distraction from illegal immigration doing a serious disservice to workers and families by making it hard to fight for workers and families on wages, cost of living and other issues.  Even with a strong record of fighting for workers and families, Frederiksen was one of the first European leaders to see the dangers of illegal immigration to society. It gave parts of the political spectrum that had no interest all along in workers and families doing well, an issue to run on that would come to cause grave harm to workers and families. This turned out to be the error of Angela Merkel a CDU leader brought up in Communist East Germany, who had no idea of the risks of her approach for open immigration. As Merkel let this chapter unfold it created fissures in Europe, with Tories and Nigel Farage taking Britain out of the EU and laying waste to its economy for 5 years till Labour's Starmer adopted a tough immigration policy and became prime minister in 2024. That danger then spread to the US in 2016 which also suffered as Republicans and Trump did the same in the US around rhetoric but without serious action on immigration till the Lankford- Biden legislation.  That bill would have closed the border with Mexico and ended immigration as an issue forever if passed into law in December 2023, as Senator Lankford says would have happened. Ending immigration as an issue forever alongside foreign wars as an issue, so that a concentrated effort could be made on improving badly damaged lives of workers and families. And on rebuilding badly damaged manufacturing in the US, rebuilding collapsing infrastructure, and competing with better education and healthcare with the large Asian countries China, Japan/ South Korea, India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A Phase 1 trial of over a thousand volunteers shows the Oxford vaccine works well with minimum side effects that can be handled with acetaminophen. Phase 2 trial is underway with volunteers in UK, Brazil and South Africa. Participants given the vaccine had significant increase in antibodies to neutralize the disease, and T cells for long term protection. About 70% reported fatigue or headaches which can be handled with acetaminophen. After the Ebola crisis of 2014 in West Africa the British government invested 120 million pounds to form a group to develop vaccines for top 10 likely threats dubbed "Disease X." On this list was the coronavirus. Scientists at the Jenner Institute at Oxford formed a team as part of this effort. Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill led the scientists at Jenner and pioneered research for  a new way to do this- to first replace a part of the virus with a component of the new virus. Then to remove the part of the virus that allows it to replicate in humans. This method is called recombinant adenovirus vector. The Oxford scientists used existing technology in new ways to increase the chances of getting a good vaccine early.  The first vaccine could be developed and tested for mass production by September. A 30,000 participant trial begins in U.S. in August. About 1 billion doses could be manufactured by end of 2020. India's Serum Institute has the manufacturing facilities to do this near Pune, India.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Climate change study from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published in Nature magazine retracted in December 2025. The study is an example of how such research when not done right can misrepresent situations leading to policy errors. Policy error under such misrepresentation can lead to errors such as a policy that excludes adjustments and a dual response to climate change and cost of living crisis attacking both on two fronts necessary today so soon after a disastrous pandemic and people living in scarcity not able to meet heating bills. What happened is that the study made predictions for 2100- which is impossible to do. Studied 1600 regions in the world. Showed decline of economic output by 62% in 2100. Did not mention that excluding Uzbekistan would make the reduction in growth 23%. It shows how overzealous work in one direction or the other can actually hurt the fight to address climate change and also tackle everday concerns like cost of living crisis. Recent reports in WSJ show how the approach of single focus has hurt economic growth in Germany and hobbled its industries. Other reports show how deprived and less deprived areas in the UK (also in the US) sit by side showing how decades of neglect of manufacturing and outshoring of factories have destroyed jobs and destroyed communities across Europe and the US, making them open to scourge such as fentanyl in the Nation's neighborhoods, and creating a climate of despair that feeds into other fears. Such as the fears of the surge of illegal migration promoted by traffickers and the influx of drug trafficking gangs in the Nation's neighborhoods. Such reports are then used by the World Bank and the Congressional Budget Office and central banks of 90 counties in the coalition Network for Greening of the Financial System, leading to distortions in policy actions, destroying the social consensus needed among wide sectors of the population in democracies in the EU and US and worldwide to address climate change and cost of living crises.  Leonie Wenz, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany says-“We broadly agree with the issues raised, and have made corrections to the underlying economic data and to our methodology to address them. These changes are too substantial for a correction of the original article in Nature.”   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Viewing people as "pass throughs for units of fiscal stimulus" that is no longer an option, no longer wise, no longer possible. Brian Deese, US president Biden's economic adviser, uses this sentence as he describes the approach of president Biden in putting together a $2 trillion plan to invest in infrastructure and in the people of America. He compares 2009 to 2021 and talks about the differences then and now after the pandemic. The coronavirus pandemic exposed all the weak spots in the American fabric and society and in the way national life was organized. Today the pain is felt in socio economic groups throughout the country.    US president Biden wants to make a decisive impact with large investments in infrastructure, education, health and jobs. In American manufacturing competitiveness and in America's technological advancement. The investments made in 2009 were in simple recovery mode, this time the investments are intended to bring America back to its position in the world after 1945, the hope and the optimism for a better future. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
On the eve of 2024 elections on a scale never seen in the world from Rajasthan desert to Himalayan mountains to the sea, PM's site looks at the themes for development that have evolved into slogans and captured the imagination of India. Development For All, Development With All, is the "Sabka Vikas, Sabka Sath" slogan that has captured the imagination and vision of the young generation of Indians. For development at speed and scale to reach 2047 with the transformation of India into a modern nation with infrastructure and per capita incomes similar to the US, EU, China or Japan. 2047 is the centenary year marking 100 years of India as an independent nation. In the interview with ANI shown alongside PM Modi discusses the problems of modernization of a region of immense diversity, history, and cultures. 2047 providing a point of focus for achieving the transformation, a transformation that is being taken up with the cooperation and support of the US and the European Union that are building a new supply chain which integrates India as a major manufacturing nation . ...

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
This analysis in The Guardian says US president Biden is reversing 3 decades of policy since president Reagan that looked with skepticism at government intervention in the economy. The $1.9 trillion aid package Biden has pushed through Congress is a big game changer in the way government operates to help rebuild America after the pandemic. The 2009 response by the government under president Obama was done without conviction that the government response was the best way to help the economy. By 2016 voters turned to a Republican, Mr. Trump, to help working class voters with a USA first policy, after decades of presidents from both parties Republican and Democrat failed to protect American interests in manufacturing, jobs and incomes.  US president Biden is continuing Trump's policies to protect working class Americans. And bringing new conviction that government not only has a positive role, but has an essential and vital role to play in protecting workers and households struggling to make ends meet. President Reagan had introduced such a deep skepticism of government, that it took so long for people to remember FDR and the role of government before the second world war and afterwards under the Truman administration.  What changed? The health care crisis exposed the weak areas in the governance and policy mindset in America. China had advanced mainly through strong government role of the Communist Party  in steering the economy and business to gain competitive advantage. The health crisis from the pandemic further devastated America's lower middle and working class following the banking and financial sector mismanagement by 2009. The pharmaceutical and health care sector similar to other sectors had shipped manufacturing overseas. In 2021 there is a deep sense that theories don't work, one has to act based on the needs and the situation the country is facing. The way competitor nations such as China are building new infrastructure, gaining manufacturing advantage, dominating key sectors and industries, and creating jobs, requires America to respond. In this situation posing the threat America faces as well as the social dislocation of decades of misguided policies, the US government is the only one capable and having the resources and capacity to respond.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China has two ports in Panama and significant investments in port and maritime activity that give it an advantage over the US in its own backyard. The Panama Canal was one of the bold endeavors of the twentieth century. In Path Between the Seas, David McCoullough describes this feat of engineering, the lives lost to malaria, the efforts it generated to find a cure for malaria, and the indomitable spirit of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt that every American can rightly be proud of.  It was handed over by president Carter to Panama, in the way Clinton handed over entry into the World Trade Organization without protections and written agreement for level playing field in trade in the 1970's and in the 1990's when US had no idea that American business would create from these beginnings in phases supply chain partner, competitor, and adversary for America.  In 2025 Americans can look back and see that American interests were not protected in a period of so called "American triumphalism" under Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama that has since disappeared with the loss of American manufacturing and destroying the small factory towns across America- and also France and EU nations- that depended on manufacturing for jobs and standard of living.  DJT is simply charting the long road back for America to the Bold Endeavours and Spirit of American adventure that Americans see in themselves as a nation founded on the frontier since Washington's days in the Pennsylvania country in the 1750's. The Spirit the led to the founding of the new nation through a protracted war on the frontier with the British. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What has happened that makes it so hard for Democrats Biden who stood on a picket line for the UAW autoworkers union, Harris fighting for workers, that they cannot easily convince workers that they are on their side? It is because compared to 1980 not the lowest income groups but the "downwardly mobile" white and other groups without college degrees have taken the brunt of the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is why the "zero-sum" stories of the former president have appeal to some workers who have lost the most from deindustrialization of the US. Even though Biden, and Harris, have fought hard and are putting in place the policies for the fight to reindustrialize America by taking old plants and modernizing them one by one across the country. No one has ever done this before including years in which the former president was in office. In these visual graphs it is easy to see the sharp decline in incomes and status in society of workers without college degrees as the economy changed after 1980 sending steel, auto and other industries to Asia. By 2024 these workers lives had been upended by the loss of these industries and the hope for income and place in society that existed in 1980. Every US president from Reagan through Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump had failed to address this. Biden was the first president to take this up but too much has happened with to reverse this in 4 years, the pandemic, inflation from loss of supply chains to Asia, and wages not keeping up with cost of living.  NYT's Badger, Gebeloff and Bhatia show analysis of the economy, incomes and jobs in 1980 vs the economy, incomes and jobs in 2024 for persons with a college degree and without a college degree.It shows the sharp differences in the eastern Midwestern states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania over 4 decades of job losses, loss of income status and self worth for men without college degrees. With their jobs in manufacturing disappearing also disappearing was the middle class lifestyle- of owning a house, having a cottage or boat in the countryside, and sending kids to college. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Republicans have supported less regulation. After the 2009 financial crisis with faulty mortgages and excessive leveraging one would expect that there would be a shift among Republicans favoring necessary regulation of banks. This did not happen after the Obama administration failed to articulate a new culture after 2009 and lost control of Congress in 2010 by as much as 64 seats in the House 6 in the Senate, and in all demographic and income groups. The result was that the 2009 crisis changed some laws but not the culture of laissez faire that less regulation was better for the economy. It is left to president Biden to tackle this problem of culture and the Silicon Valley Bank clearly shows that the parts of the Republican and Democratic parties that support less regulation even where the regulation is essential for a good economy for workers and families, are self serving. No where is this culture of laissez fairre in its other manifestation in not planning for the US manufacturing base to be strengthened by government action more evident than in the way it has prevailed to turn a blind eye to not just sending manufacturing overseas, but over concentrating it in one country China with additional supply base from Japan into China. This is the challenge that the country faces- only if the culture or mindset changes will laws have the needed impact.  This report in the NYT shows that when president Trump appointed Randall Quarles to vice chair of banking supervision in 2017, Congressmen both Republicans and Democrats believed that less supervision was better for the economy. Democrats such as Congressmen Barney Frank were themselves part of the new culture when Frank joined Signature Bank's board in 2015, one of the banks that along with SVB bank caused the banking crisis of 2023. Its association with risky crypto assets is considered by the WSJ as being one reason the government decided to close it. Frank did not see this aspect of its risk insisting that the bank was in sound condition.  This culture is also manifested in its approach to the cost of living crisis and support for workers and families. The Biden administration sees the problem of culture and of clearly making the changes that create a new culture, and a new understanding of what is right for America, for its economy and for its role in the world, and best for its people.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
New legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress by Senators Orrin Hatch and Ron Wyden giving fast track and trade promotion authority to president Obama faces intense opposition from Democratic Party members of Congress. Only about a dozen House Democrats are considered to be supporting the legislation. Senator Schumer says "I don't believe in these agreements anymore, I've changed." Senator Warren on the left opposes the legislation. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania says the legislation "as paving the way for another Nafta style deal that costs jobs." The deal if it passes the Senate, would face Republican opposition in the House where 50 or more Republicans are reported to be against the fast track approach and giving too much authority to president Obama without Congressional input. Fast track legislation would allow free trade pacts such as TPP to pass Congress without amendments or procedural delays. Labor groups and auto, other manufacturing companies, oppose the legislation because of the impact on manufacturing, West Coast groups in IT industries favor the legislation. Projections made by Petri, Plummer and Zhao at the Peterson Institute of International Economics, show the impact of Trans Pacific Pact (TPP) free trade pact would be $109 billion in added manufacturing imports to the U.S. to 2025 and $ 53 billion in exports, a net U.S. unfavorable of $56 billion. For IT and services sector the added U.S. exports to 2025 are projected at $42 billion and imports at $8 billion, for net $34 billion. U.S. favorable. Because of the dominant position of the U.S. in IT how much of this $42 billion might still happen without TPP. Other societal impacts also figure in the discussion, such as which sector needs the largest help and impacts the largest number of Americans for a sustained economic recovery in the future. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Researchers David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, in independent research, studied the impact of trade on 722 clusters of interrelated counties in the U.S. They focussed on the surge in Chinese imports and found a pattern. Counties with higher exposure to Chinese import growth showed higher unemployment and higher expenditures by the government for unemployment benefits, food stamps and disability benefits. Their calculations show the increased government payments amount to one to two thirds of the gains from trade with China. This does not include the losses suffered by people losing jobs who deplete savings as they look for new jobs. Hanson studied the effects of trade and Chinese imports in the 1990's and found the effects were relatively small. This time the effects are large and show counties that lacked local investments in industrial machinery and technologies in which China was still playing catchup such as Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, and Boeing in Everett, Washington, were most susceptible to higher jobless rates and in need of government support payments. Autor and Hanson found that from 2000-2007, communities in the 75th percentile- ones with greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities- saw a manufacturing jobless rate of about one-third more than communities in the 25th percentile. The government payments mean higher taxes or larger deficits are needed to support these communities, and long periods of unemployment reduce the incentive to work. Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist from New York University, says the world has never seen such a rapid pace of growth as China experienced between 2000-2011, with rates approaching 12% in some years, making past experience and prevailing theories on trade an insufficient guide to what is happening....

LyrArc Article Gist
A sharp drop of over 6 points. 57.9 in March 2025 from 64.7 in Feb. the University of Michigan's index of consumer sentiment shows the effects of the uncertainty generated in tackling fentanyl flows by imposing tariffs on CMC countries Canada, Mexico and China. And the result of the uncertainty from reciprocal tariffs imposed to correct the loss of manufacturing in the US as a result of unfair trade by China, EU, Canada and Mexico. Some of this comes from the unfair coverage in the press and internet that these tariffs are economic tariffs to gain advantage when they are designed to correct huge trade imbalances that other countries had no incentive to correct when previous administrations, corporations and America's Ivy League economists- stuck to textbook economics divorced from reality- turned their back on the workers and communities in the Nation whose communities were destroyed with the loss of factories and plants shipped overseas. ...

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
Issues raised by the huge mismatch between revenues and investment for AI. $400 billion estimated investment by 5 Tech firms in 2025 alone with revenue of about $40 billion and huge uncertainty about when AI will produce returns. Articles seen this week of November 17 in the WSJ and NYT on this issue, podcasts, discussions in other media outlets. Could this lead to a dot com bubble type economic crisis? Could that lead to a recession? Alongside these articles another article in the WSJ on Nov 17 shows the benefits small firms get by using AI, benefits which are on the fringes of their business, not essential but with some experimenting firm owners/managers able to tweak AI information for use in business. Nothing significant which firms will pay much money for. The uncertainty is a major factor. Should geopolitics trump all these concerns? Is the competition with China require this scale of investment, and is China following a more utilitarian approach as reported in a WSJ article this month, of investing in AI in a utilitarian way targeting its use in improving manufacturing, improving infrastructure, and not wildly throwing money at experimental uses that are unlikely to yield much result. In geopolitical sense would the country that not only promoted AI but used it efficiently and cost effectively, used it in ways that promote the overall public good, get the WIN. In short it behooves everyone of us to ask hard questions of AI, to dehype the hype, to look for the public good that comes out of this from it's efficient use. To ask the tough questions when $400 billion generates only $40 billion in 2025 and the $3 trillion planned investment over 5 years is half unfunded, is it going to crowd out energy needs for homes and business, push renewable energy targets back, crowd out essential investments in the crumbling aging infrastructure of the US and Europe, crowd out essential investments in education, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, that hold better promise for our People. Will it also put retirees at risk when corporate bonds from retirees money fund the unfunded portion of AI? This means making the political dimension not about migration, settling the illegal migration issue that was meant to be settled a long time back, or about cultural issues that have little day to day impact on our lives which are about groceries, childcare, housing that are non ideological. Making the political dimension not about remote countries that one knows little about except when it affects public safety and health as with fentanyl. Capital allocation decisions to the vital needs of America can then be free of politically induced error, so that it can be subjected to the test of how best it serves the public interest and the people of the Nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How quickly the wind's direction has changed. For decades since 2000 American companies moved operations to China for manufacturing upto a point where there was over concentration and risks in the supply chain seen during the pandemic and as US- China relations diverged on issues such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Ukraine. This report looks at the US companies shift to looking for ways to shift operations to India, Vietnam and other locations.

In an annual survey 30% of American Chamber of Commerce in China companies out of 360 respondents are shifting their operations for manufacturing to other countries from China. About 25% of tech and R&D companies said they had already begun moving their supply chains out of China.

LyrArc Article Gist
How did it come to this the 125% US tariff on China? China thinks it is it's success. American companies have deindustrialized the US taking out it's manufacturing by shipping it overseas destroying the American middle class and working class.  An insult to the American worker whose pride and dignity and efforts rebuilt the world after the Second World War helping Europe and Japan, China, rebuild. Pouille and Thibault of Le Monde of France look at how China advanced in the years 2004 to 2024 and surged from 9% of industrial production in the world to 29% more than US, Japan, Germany and India combined.   This is also the period of three wars Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and two presidents Bush and Obama 16 years in which the US took its eyes of the ball and let this situation take hold, which would inevitably lead to a response from the US which started with US president DJT in 2016 and is now in its 10th year. Having failed to limit the China 2025 Plan so that there is no overconcentration of manufacturing in the world disproportionately affecting the rest of the world. The consequences for the rest of the world are clear to see with the 1.7 billion people in India and Indonesia who were late in industrialization by 10-15 years compared to China, the deindustrialization of Europe and the US as this enters its final stages leading to the fissures in the societies of Europe and the US, the destruction of the middle class. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
See these pictures of the Yangtze River and the Poyang Lake in BBC to understand how the decades of hyper growth in China with use of coal and fossil fuels unprecedented in history were not good for China and the world. The Yangtze river has never recorded less rainfall than this year since records began in 1961. That hyper growth is being followed by slight or flat growth both situations China and the world could have avoided if a steady growth pattern was put in its place. Common sense and wisdom would have done better than economists and business  in the US and local governments in China that dictated a self-interested pattern of hyper growth that led to ravaging communities in the US and the EU by shipping all manufacturing to China, then starting to reverse this process as the same ravaged communities in the US and EU responded in elections in the US and EU. None of the participants in this now take responsibility for their role in the changing climate and natural disasters one sees in 2022. China now faces the task of rebuilding its entire fossil fuel driven industry along renewable energy lines, when it is at the end of a property driven, land sale driven boom, with local governments finances precarious.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT's Landon Thomas gives this exceptional report on how Deutsche Bank changed from a lender to the German auto industry and safe banking practices to enter the derivatives business and other opaque financial products that led to taking on huge risks. Deutsche Bank has agreed on Dec. 22, 2016 to settle with the U.S. Justice Department paying a fine of $7.2 billion for practices relating to faulty mortgage securities. This report says the problems started in 1995 with Deutsche Bank's leadership hiring Edson Mitchell of Merrill Lynch to promote the investment banking business at Deutsche Bank. Mitchell hired two derivatives traders Broeksmit and Anshu Jain. Mr. Mitchell died in plane crash in 2000 when he was 47 years age, Mr. Broeksmit committed suicide in 2014, 58 years in age, Mr. Anshu Jain, 53 years old, is the only surviving person of the three. Under Mr. Jain Deutsche Bank assumed more and more risk, and was involved in complex and opaque financial products leading to the toxic mortgage crisis, and manipulation of the lending rate for London banks.  It also lent $300 million to Donald Trump's businesses. Most of the profits generated from this venture have evaporated, with analysts estimating $15 billion in fines and penalties owed of the $20 billion that these ventures generated. Not counting the serious damage to the bank's reputation in Germany and the U.S. This report points out the role played by the CEO from 2002 to 2012 of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, in encouraging these ventures converting the bank from its original loan as a contintental lender to business to a bank selling opaque financial products for most of its profits. Landon Thomas also describes the events and days leading up to the suicide by Broeksmit, including a visit to a psychiatrist and Broeksmit's facing enormous stress about the investigations underway in Germany and the U.S. looking into the opaque financial products and practices of Deutsche Bank. This is also a cautionary tale about what happened in banking from the late 1990's leading to the collapse in 2008, leading to the problems of today- the need to rescue the economy in 2008-2009 and the low rate world that ensued damaging the savings of ordinary people, the infrastructure that was never built, the parallel crisis of the hollowing out in manufacturing as a false prosperity boomed in banking and finance. In a sense it is also a story of everyday lives that were damaged in the high flying boardrooms of finance in New York, London and Frankfurt. The revolving door between regulators and the banks made it harder to monitor and control banking risk letting this story unfold over decades, damaging the credibility of governments and the established political parties without clear alternatives from outside; as the dominance of Wall Street executives in the new outsider Trump administration shows.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Meyerson points to Germany's success in manufacturing with labor costs that are higher than in the USA. Hourly manufacturing compensation in Germany (wages plus benefits) was $48 in Germany in 2008, and $32 in the USA, according to the most recent year surveyed by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Meyerson says American companies are sitting on $1.9 trillion in cash at a time when companies are creating jobs at a crawling pace. Only 50,000 net jobs were created in November 2010. He suggests a new economic advisor for the Obama administration, someone who brings experience and also believes in the US role in manufacturing- Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel Corporation. See Grove's article on US manufacturing and its special role in keeping the American economy strong. He would replace Larry Summers.

LyrArc Article Gist
Indian PM Modi to visit US on Feb 12-13 2025 to hold talks with DJT at the White House. India accepts the 18,000 undocumented migrants as DJT says he is confident that India will do the right thing on this issue. Talks will centre on the new supply chain and reducing overdependence on China for manufacturing, bringing jobs and factories back to the US and how Vikshit Bharat 2047 fits into the US plan for a diversified supply chain in Asia.