LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Journal provides reflections on U.S. foreign policy in the Obama years and advice for U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney before the third presidential debate on foreign policy on Oct. 22, 2012. It says the U.S. has always done better from a position of economic strength and defense preparedness in addressing foreign policy issues. It also points to the failure of president Obama to support the freedom struggle of the peoples of the Middle East, and a withdrawal from Iraq without securing an agreement that failed to consolidate the gains of the long conflict and resources spent in that region.

LyrArc Article Gist
Anger in Greece at the austerity measures was evident in the results of the April 2012 elections. The two major parties polled even less than the low poll numbers that they expected. The Socialist Pasok party of former premier Papandreou received only 13% of the vote and not the 15-18% expected, the New Democracy party of Antonio Samaras received only 18.8% and not the 25% expected. As a result the two main parties that have ruled Greece received less than one third of the vote combined. The second largest party after New Democracy is now the Coalition of the Radical Left or Syriza, which received 16.78% of the vote. It is led by young Alexis Tsipras, 38, who has said the bailout treaties witht the EU and the IMF were "not salvation, but a tragedy." Syriza opposes the austerity measures and prefers to exit the eurozone. A extremist far right anti-immigrant party New Dawn received 7% of the vote showing the desperate situation. New Democracy's Samaras tried hard but failed to form a government, and under the Greek constitution each party gets a few days to form a government. The outcome is likely to be new elections in June 2012 and a caretaker government appointed by the president....

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Portugal in 2012-2013 stands as a good case study of what is good and what is bad about austerity measures, about what makes sense and is needed and what does not make sense and is bad both in a fiscal sense and for growth. Patricia Knowsmann does a good job of bringing this out, from the hundreds of stories written about austerity vs growth in the media. During 2011-2012, the elected government of Passos Coelho has supported an EU-IMF-ECB program that reduced wages, raised taxes, privatized state owned companies and changed labor laws that reduced hiring by businesses. During this time the Portuguese have patiently accepted the program compared to other countries and the budget deficit is shrinking from 9.8% in 2010 to an expected 5% in 2012. The unemployment rate has gone up to 15%. Now a new plan by prime minister Coelho in September has created an uproar and sparked popular opposition to the austerity measures threatening what has been achieved in deficit reduction, including the credibility of the austerity program. The plan is to reduce the portion of salaries that employers contribute to the social security system from 23.5% to 18%, in the hope that employers would increase hiring. At the same time it increases the portion of salaries employees pay from 11% to 18%. Coelho was looking at Germany and Slovenia where employees pay more than 20% of salaries to Social Security. What he failed to look at was the situation in Portugal where workers and pensioners have lost about 24% of their income through wage cuts and tax increases. The new plan would reduce incomes even further. Portugal's small business owners expressed strong disapproval for the plan because it would mean a drastic drop in consumer spending. The president of a Portuguese shoe maker, Kyaia, with 600 employees, says it makes no sense to reduce companies contribution if the company can't sell enough shoes to keep its workers. Kyaia has already experienced a 25% decline in demand and its CEO Fortunato Frederico, says he cannot understand how a company can hire workers if demand declines. This impact on consumer demand and sentiment is a fact that policymakers cannot ignore throughout the eurozone as austerity measures are implemented, especially when demand has already declined to an unacceptable point. The move by Coelho ignored a study by Portugal's finance ministry and central bank that showed export businesses may be induced to hire from the savings in contributions, but the businesses serving the domestic market would simply take in the savings. The EU-IMF-ECB recognized this and suggested increasing taxes to pay for the reduction in employer contributions, which would also depress demand by reducing incomes further. Portugal's economy and business is not focussed on exports, small business makes up 97% of Portugal's companies and most of them do not export. The introduction of such a plan gives credibility to the idea that there is a transfer of wealth from workers to business under the austerity programs, which affects the credibility of the entire deficit reduction and competitiveness improvement programs. For Coelho it also means the strong opposition of a minority party in his coalition government and from members of his Social Democratic Party. Large demonstrations were held on Sept 15 in 40 cities in Portugal in the first large scale opposition to further austerity measures and the Coelho social security contribution plan. Capital markets in Europe also see a problem with such plans because it removes the essential element of popular acceptance of deficit reduction plans jeopardizing the entire program. After the failure to win popular acceptance in Greece capital markets see additional risks and failures as one too many for the eurozone. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chile's experience in Latin America stands out for the painful experience of the dictatorship years and the mismanagement of the economy by the government preceding it. The governments of the last 20 years of the Concertacion have studied the mistakes of these years and corrected them to aremarkable degree, like no other country in Latin America. The new politicians decided that the economy had to be managed so that inflation was under control and these Concertacion administrations produced budget surpluses in all but 4 years says Finance Minister Velasco. Velasco himself was 13 years old when the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet was set up, and his father a law professor had to leave the country for criticizing human rights abuses. He studied economics at Columbia University, and his principal focus there was he says, " to understand how did this happen to Chile and how do we make sure it will nhot happen again." His finding was that runaway inflation had created so much unrest among the people that coup plots could take place, and that political stability could not be maintained without good management of the economy. It also meant that Chile must avoid extremes, try to take amoderate position, which meant preserving the free market reforms that had taken place, and introducing policy measures, projects and investment which helped to bring up the vast majority of the people including the least well off of society. Velasco also studied the history of Latin American economies with their boom and bust cycle, the situation in countries especially Argentina and sometimes in Brazil and other countries since the fifties. He found as he says that when " a country seems very creditworthy, everyone wants to lend to you, capital flows in and consumption booms." At some point excessive amounts of capital flow in which cannot be absorbed and is wasted in unproductive ways, which becomes adebt burden as the bust part of the cycle takes hold. So Chile has been careful to control speculative inflows of capital. But Velaco went further. In 2006 he left a Professorship at Harvard University to become finance minister of Chile under President Ms. Bachelet. Copper prices were surging and Velasco insisted on caution. In 2006 he pushed through a law requiring the annual budget to be based on an independedt committtee's estimate of the average price of copper in the next 10 years. Any copper income above the budgeted price goes into a savings fund maintained outside the country. In 2007 the copper price used in the calculation was $1.21 a pound, while the market price was $3.23 a pound. The profits $6 billion for 2007 went into the rainy day fund, which is invested conservatively in government bonds or money market instruments denominated in dollars, euros and yen. This fund is now at$20 billion. What is remarkable for Velasco is the way this was executed. The price used was conservative, the political pressures from unions and students and other groups was resisted effectively, and the whole exercize was carried out to successful conclusion even as popular support for the government dropped. When the crisi hit in December 2007 copper prices plummeted. Velasco announced a stimulus package, getting the $4 billion stimulus package through both Houses of Congress in January 2009. Chile expects only adrop of 0.5% in GDP in 2009 year over year. $500 million was given to stae owned bank BancoEstado, which reduced consumer lending rates by half. The package offers subsidies for businesses to hire younger workers, $700 million for large infrastructure program designed to create 60,000 jobs in road paving, airport upgrades and housing construction. And 1.7 million families, the poorest 40% of the population received cash stipends from the government equivalent to $70, with another stipend due in August....

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...

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
The Bush administration's and Paulson's thinking that letting the government buy parts of the banking system was unthinkable, as recently as late September, may have led to squandering of valuable time. Now Paulson is following Gordon Brown's lead in planning an injection of capital in banks in return for equity stakes, using much of the $700 billion Congress has authorized, and Paulson says the package that passed Congress gives Treasury all the authority it needs to do so. The failure to be open to this thinking earlier may have cost valuable time in addressing this crisis. And now there are second thoughts on whether it was wise to let Lehman fall into bankruptcy, because the Administration had not correctly anticipated or calculated the true cost of the Lehmann bankruptcy in terms of the way it created a crisis in the rest of the financial system. Paulson has still not taken Gordon Brown's lead in guaranteeing lending between the banks which the British are doing as part of their plan. Is the administration too slow in its response and a bit wrongheaded or stubborn headed as each step of the crisis has moved faster than its ability to respond, and its response being one step behind. Frederic Mishkin of Columbia University a former Fed Governor says, "if you delay and create uncertainty, the amount of money you have to put up goes up." It appears from Paulson's remarks over time first turning down proposals for capital injection into banks for equity stakes, and now in making that route central to his plan, that Paulson and Bernanke simply did not anticipate the shutting down of credit markets and the collapse of stock market prices that occurred, and they had no backup plan prepared for a situation such as this. And on top of this the backup plan they went out to sell to Congress turned out to be short on details and in this sense naive for the amount requested. And then by refusing to consider alternatives such as capital injection for equity stakes, it was wrong headed, if not closed minded. William Poole who retired in August as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, says that " I am not aware that Treasury presented any evidence on auctions that have been successful when they are used for assets that are so heterogenous", referring to the reverse auctions that would take weeks to set up and would be terribly complicated to buy up troubled assets, as part of the plan presented to Congress in but 3 pages. Now the plan appears to be to let Fannie and Freddie, which were given $100 billion by the Treasury as authorized by Congress, to move ahead with the purchase of troubled mortgage securities, something for which Fannie and Freddie have the capabilities. In the end the crisis in confidence and near panic generated in the markets and the climate of fear may go way beyond the actual losses incurred from debt securities, and some of this may be the result of a clumsy and poorly thought out approach by Bernanke and Paulson. The cost of fixing the problem will be higher and the recession more prolonged because of this. It is a situation of capable people blinded by ideological reasons to see what is happening and in Bernanke's case not making enough of a case to Treasury about his reservations and his own thinking that capital injection was the right approach, as people familiar with the early planning say Bernanke argued that it would be easier and more efficient to inject capital directly into banks. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greenspan testifes before the House Oversight Committee headed by Congressman Henry Waxman (D., California). Congressmen read back quotations from Greenspan where he talked about the resilience and efficiency of American free markets and defended derivatives and complex financial instruments. Some referred to the comments he made saying that housing markets would not collapse and the worst may well be over. Almost by 10 to 1 the readers responding to a WSJ poll say Greenspan was responsible for easy money for most of the decade and his lack of the most elementary safeguards for the economy instead defending derivatives and complex financial instruments, and considering the bubble in house prices as not the Fed's concern. Many used expletives deleted or the words "clowns" or "illiterates" for Greenspan and associates at Treasury. A congresswoman from Minnesota asked pointed questions about state effforts to stop predatory lending that were nixed by the federal authorites under Greenspan and Treasury's watch. She thensuggested that they the stewards of the economy try pragmatism and commonsense for policy decisions. Describing the present crisis he seemed so out of touch that when asked about rising foreclosures and need to stabilize home prices, he still was trapped in his libertarian ideology and impulses. He said transfer payments should be tried instead as modifying the mortgages would not be good in the long run when markets return to normal. He said this crisis has still some months to go. In these observations he showed that he has still not grasped the full extent of the crisis, as a realistic assessment of the economy suggests that the economic downturn has not really hit in terms of unemployment and drops in consumption, which will hit in 2009 and 2010 and years beyond. He looked old and worn out showing every bit of his 81 years, which begs the question how could he have been chairman for 17 years till he was nearly 80, as he was still Fed chairman just 2 years ago. There are term limits for mayors, and for President, how is it that there are no term limits for Fed chairman? Should'nt the Clinton administration or the Bush administration have made a new appointment to get fresh blood, fresh thinking, just as corporations do. Wells Fargo chairman Kovacevich is supposed to retire, even though he has good skills for accomplishing the merger of Wachovia having done this for Norwest. Bloomberg is fighting the term limits to stay on for another term and will need a special vote. Doesn't senility hit the best of us, and isn't there an age when people should have to retire from these positions, long before they get close to 80. An assessment of Greenspan watching him over the years would show that he loved data and data analysis, and trusted data as almost carrying infallible weight. As most of the data he looked at was for the postwar expansion of the USA economy, he saw as he himself testified this week data that showed the economy with small setbacks to be sure but on a constant upward trend. The way down he said in response to a question the data looks completely different, with fear and lack of trust and other things making this pattern have no relationship whatsoever with the way up. Greenspan and the nation's misfortune maybe that for too long the country's political leaders trusted over two decades a man who did not have the healthy skepticism of data even when it appeared to reflect certainty, and did not have the healthy impulses for safety and safeguards that surpass all ideological thinking, and a respect for basic ethics and common sense that goes beyond everything and puts it above everything else. This is a misfortune because these are qualities required for good leadership especially leadership entrusted with such huge responsibilities which can never be taken lightly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The British House of Commons voted on December 7, 2016, to commit the UK to trigger Article 50 for leaving the European Union by end of March 2017. The vote was 461 for and 89 against.

LyrArc Article Gist
Blinder cites the reasons why the stock market declines are showing a disconnect with the economy in the U.S. which benefits from low oil prices, and the small impact of a slowdown in China on the U.S. economy. Yet other reasons may account for nervousness of investors, as Grep Ip points out in the WSJ, the lack of support from the Fed with its gradual rate hike path, and lack of support from the Chinese government with its policy of reducing debt and no significant stimulus.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Leonhardt on the policy errors of the Obama administration in managing the economy. Why he asks did the Obama administration not take the risks it took for "undeserving" recipients in the auto industry to provide significant help to GM and Chrysler and at the same not provide large scale and situation changing help to millions of mortgage holders who were under water? The housing crisis with millons of foreclosures depressing home prices has played a significant part in the lagging economic recovery. He points out that Obama economic advisors had read Rogoff and Reinhart's book "This Time Its Different," about the longer times it takes for a economic recovery after a housing bubble, and still made the mistake of believing economists who suggested that the stimulus by itself would be sufficient and that recovery was underway in 2010. Others in the Democratic party had pointed to the lack of focus on unemployment by the Obama administration. Why were such voices not heard?

LyrArc Article Gist
A leader of the Syrian moderate democratic opposition to the Assad regime calls for help from the Obama administration for the moderates and Free Syrian Army. The request for Manpads to counteract Assad's air attacks and the deteriorating situation around the city of Aleppo and in Northern Syrian areas controlled by the Free Syrian Army. The collaboration between the Hezbollah, Assad's forces, and the ISIS as each attempt to increase the areas under their control pushing out the Free Syrian Army and moderate forces fighting the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton comes out against the Obama administration's policies in August 2014, saying "don't do stupid stuff" basis of Obama policies is not the basis for a sound foreign policy. Obama comes out with a $500 million aid plan for the Free Syrian Army but the approach is vacillating and slow, leading to a rapidly deteriorating situation, and a complete breakdown of what was a period of hope called the Arab Spring.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...