LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman describes the poor choices remaining in the Middle East with Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Egypt, and the conflict in Libya. The last days of the election campaign in Israel have also worsened tensions in Israel with deep differences between the Likud and the Zionist Union.

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's prime minister David Cameron seeks a "better deal" for Britain before the planned referendum on Britain's membership in the union. Changes Britain is seeking are: restrictions on some social welfare benefits for European migrants for 4 years, guarantees that Britain and other countries using a currency other than the euro would not suffer economic discrimination, and more powers for national parliaments to block European laws. A less tangible change is one that relates to the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, the founding treaty for the bloc, which says: "Ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." This is similiar to the preample to the American Constitution: "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union." The euroskeptic wing of the Conservative Party objects to this term "ever closer union," and Cameron will seek a pledge to change the wording. Yet as experts point out the phrase was put in as a result of British requests from the John Major Conservative government in response to a stronger wording from the Dutch government suggesting a federal Europe. Veteran reporters and negotiators at the Maastricht talks, say it is strange that Britain is now objecting to the words. Stephen Wall, a British historian on Britain's relations with the European Union, and a former senior official in the British government, says Margaret Thatcher and other British prime ministers did not object to this. That this issue comes up now is a result says Wall, of Britain's sense of being on the sidelines, of being on the outside to a close partnership between the French and the Germans, and as a result of being outvoted on issues Britain considers important. The president of the European parliament, Martin Schulz, says the change would require the approval of all 28 EU members, and an alternative is for a declaration that states Britain is not included in the sense of the phrase....

LyrArc Article Gist
Keith Bradsher provides a detailed account of how the new high speed rail system is transforming China by making access to distant cities possible, sometimes in a few hours.

LyrArc Article Gist
The 50th anniversary of the Elysee Treay between Germany and France. Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle signed the treaty in 1963.

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions readers raise about Lewis Sorley's account of wins in the latter part of the war in Vietnam. The idea presented that had the country stood behind the war effort it could have been turned around. Here President Johnson's own deputy national security advisor, Francis Bator, who is Professor emeritus at the Harvard Kennedy School, refutes this notion by saying that: "in Vietnam the goal was clear but unattainable by any means not grossly disproportionate to the American stake." He goes on to say that false inferences from that failure will not help President Obama with the hard question of deciding what feasible goals and means in Afghnistan and Pakistan and other places will minimize chances of amajor terrorist attack on the United States, whaterver its origating location. And doing this in a cost-effective way. The wording is designed to first focus on what is the minimum that America wants- safety from another attack. Second, to focus on doing this in a cost-effective way. At some point resources added become disproportionate to the American stake in Afghanistan. An infantryman in the Vietnam war describes a people in villages that he was supposed to protect who would not even alert American soldiers of bombs when they knew exactly where they were placed. People in villages who were basically indifferent to the central government in South Vietnam. Are the Afghan people any different? See the links to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
Much of China's strong GDP growth year after year of 9-12% was generated through large fixed investments in manufacturing. More than 40% of GDP is from factory construction or fixed asset investment in housing and infrastructure. And this spawned suddenly on its own a whole generation of new small business bootstrap entrepreneurs, as if from nowhere, who were good at adapting and seeking out new opportunities as new factories and exports shot upwards. GDP multiplied 14 fold from 1980's. And created 5 million businesses of over 8 employees each, according to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In the processs creating 75 million jobs for university graduates, workers from state companies and fro migrants from the rural areas. These private companies and their investment spending make up half of the 2008 GDP of $4.42 trillion. But with the export model heavily dependent on overseas markets especially the USA, the collapsing export markets is shrinking production and investment. Industrial production which went up by 16% annually for 5 years, dropped to 3.8% for Jan-Feb 2009. Mr Yu and his company GenTech, profiled here, was an engineer who studied engineering in Beijing, then at Newcastle University in the UK, worked for Cargill in Iowa, and looked for opportunities away from agricultural engineering. Adapting to China's needs in first semiconductors and then solar equipment assembly lines, he provided the high tech tubing for the gases and chemicals used in manufacturing assembly lines, competing with the likes of Air Products and Chemicals of the USA....

LyrArc Article Gist
As exports and manufacturing decline, China is continuing to maintain high rates of fixed asset investment with the focus now away from factory construction to infastructure like roads, bridges and rails. The National BUreau of Statistics reported that urban fixed asset investment expanded 26.5% in Jan-Feb 2009, compared to 26.1% growth rate for 2008. Fixed asset investment was 42% of GDP in 2008, according to JP Morgan strategist Jing Ulrich. Now it could go up higher to 45%. China's growth has been off-balance say experts, now it is becoming even more so. As long as factory construction as fixed asset investment a lot of new jobs were being created in the manufacturing sector, now these jobs are not being created. China's small and mid sized companies that generated about half of the 4.42 trillion GDP, like GenTech of Mr Yu profiled in the other linked article in WSJ, and which created 90% of the new jobs, are now contracting. With smaller private consumption, and the efforts to improve the safety net and provide universal medical care inadequate and coming late, domestic demand will not help balance the economy and boost manufacturing. Private consumption is only 35% of GDP in China, a much lower percentage than India. The comparable figures for the US are 71%, UK 64%, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and Japan 57%. The balance is now heavily skewed towards government spending. Investment spending from HongKong and Taiwan, the home bases of industrialists with made for export industries inceased investment by 1% in Jan-Feb of 2009 from the year earlier, compared to 17% growth in all of 2008. And foriegn funded companies have comparable figures of 2% for Jan-Feb 2009 compared to 15% growth in all of 2008. Real estate investment growth also fell to 1% for Jan-Feb 2009 compared to 21% for all of 2008. In short the other pillars of growth in housing, and investments from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the West are declining. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sudhir Venkatesh, a Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, talks about how constructive expressions of anger that help us get out on the streets and talk to one another, to have stormy discussions in townhall meetings, and other constructive ways of expressing anger can help us overcome all those feelings bottled up inside us. Anger has a positive role to play in promoting catharsis and fostering real healing says Venkatesh. He even says we will recover our public life this way, by storming out onto the streets and then actually talking to one another. That is not so easy in a world of electronic devices and electronic communication like email and text messaging, and in a world where one tends to one's own little world with its daily frustrations and that credit card bill and the mortgage payment and the kid's tution payment. He actually invites the public to go out and do this rather than retreat each person into his own world of humiliation and struggles, or let the anger build up in an impersonal world of Internet, and with sporadic outbursts in small group protests. He doesn't see the Obama administration doing the broad and intensive campaign to shore up the housing, food and welfare safety nets which will be required, or the sustained committments from mayors, service providers and civic leaders. And he sees anger growing and its expression taking place only later on, as the public is patient for a long time, and then the anger just rushes out when it cannot be contained, as happened in the Great Depression. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out a couple of problems with Paul Ryan's budget proposal for Medicare. He says Medicare recipients, with the exception of the very affluent, currently haven't paid enough for the benefits they receive. He cites a study that shows Medicare pays out several hundreds of thousands of dollars for the average retiree more than they ever paid in. Medicare funds go for hospital expenses, the rest for doctors bills come from general government revenues. Government borrowing increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels so that current retirees do not have to pay higher taxes, is simply shifting the burden to the next generation. He says the Ryan plan shields those who will retire in the next 10 years because they are a powerful voting bloc, making this more of a political calculation than a bold reform step, as this means younger people will have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden. The other part of Ryan's calculus is that it has proven extremely difficult to reduce the volume of medical care that is consumed in terms of tests, lack of preventive care leading to graver problems, and surgeries. Simply by shifting a larger share of the cost to future retirees this will have an effect on the volume of medical care consumed and put a lid on costs. This is something that needs to happen says Leonhardt, but at the same time all Americans need to share in the higher taxes that are necessary to fund Medicare, exempting 75 million Americans only creates an imbalance in contributions. The other problem with this is that the costs of this exempted group will postpone serious deficit reduction for ten years....

LyrArc Article Gist
Charles Scwab points out what is really hurting seniors. In Feb 2006 the yield on a 1 year CD was 5.4%, with the fed funds target rate at 4.5%. In 2010 the 1 year CD yields only 1.3%. The $7.5 trillion in these low interest accounts are earning so little hurting seniors.

LyrArc Article Gist
Key points in Putin annexation speech are shown in the Washington Post. Putin presented an anti-western view that went over European history of colonialism in Africa and Asia. It presented a Russian nationalist view oof European powers and the US as trying to diminish Russia throughout history, that refers more to the British than for the country that emerged from British colonies in America with the idea that "all men are created equal." This was similar to a speech made at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that stated some of the same points. Putin referred also to the use of total bombing on Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne, by the US and Britain, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945, the US action in the Vietnam war. Putin's view- "I emphasize that one of the reasons for the centuries old Russophobia, the undisguised malice of these western elites toward Russia is precisely that we did not allow ourselves to be robbed during the period of colonial conquests. We forced the Europeans to trade for mutual benefit." About this version of history of European colonial powers - it is not entirely true, because as Cambridge historian Brendan Simms points out in his  book-  Europe- the Struggle for Supremacy  from 1453 to the Present,  Russia is itself throughout this period one of these European powers. Russia was also one of the powers present in China before the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and in 1901 when the concessions were drawn from China in that period. Of the military force of 19,000 that entered Beijing in 1900 and crushed the Boxer rebellion of local Chinese calling for ouster of foreigners from China, Britannica.com shows that most of the them came from Russian and Japan, with lesser numbers from Britain, France, the US and Austria Hungary.  After suppressing the Boxers the foreign powers including Russia, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and also the US asked for reparations and concessions on Chinese ports. Tsingtao went to Germany, The British and Russians getting concessions in Tianjin. Only America stated under president Woodrow Wilson that the reparations were excessive. Wilson converted American reparations into funding for Beijing's first modern university Tsinghua University, where  many of China's leaders were educated. During the period 1901 to 1945 the US opposed British colonialism in India and China. The US opposition with its Pacific fleet was strong enough to prevent further division of China among the colonial powers. In the 1940's the US under Franklin Roosevelt and his representative in China General Jospeh Stilwell carried out the campaign against the Japanese invasion of China so that the national integrity of China could be preserved. Stilwell called for reforms of the corrupt Chiang Kai Shek Koumintang government which rejected Stilwell's advice. Leading to its gradual collapse to the Communists under Mao-tse-tung, as the popular support shifted. It is now known what exchanges took place between Franklin Roosevelt and British governments including Churchill and Clement Attlee, and it can be said that the US under FDR was always putting pressure on the British Empire to free India from colonial rule. In 1942 there is the letter from Gandhi at Wardha to Roosevelt asking for help just before the Quit India movement, and Roosevelt's response is clear in the way he told Churchill by 1943 that America would never go along with Britain's unfair and impoverishing rule of India after winning the war. Roosevelt did not need Churchill's "growling" response, he had already put the British as a junior and much diminished partner. American help was crucial in convincing the British to quit India, which is also why it happened so quickly after 1945.  During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after defeating Germany in 1945, much of Eastern Europe came under Soviet and Russian domination. Poland was partitioned between Germany then called  Prussia, Austria and Russia, as colonial powers in 1772, followed by further partitions. The roots of the Ukraine crisis in some ways involve Poland and Polish history, as Lviv is only 70 kilometres from Poland. As the view on the Ukrainian side reflects this colonial history of Russia and of Germany in western parts of Ukraine. America under Abraham Lincoln fought a great war of Emancipation to live up to the document of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that "all men are created equal." The United States of America did not look to colonial possessions for its wealth because of the abundant land in a new continent and the early developments of the Industrial Revolution. Of rail, steamship, of mechanized agriculture and industrial production, in the period after 1850 that made America unrivaled in its industrial strength right upto the 1950's, and  which continues to the present day.  The industrial development of of Japan and South Korea, then of China, and now in India would not be possible without the  hand extended out by America to nations in Asia,  a benevolent hand in creating a tide that lifts all boats. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One in six dollars generated by the U.S. economy goes to pay for health care, almost twice the average for rich countries. It hurts America in many ways; by being a burden on the taxpayer when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid paying for the poor and the elderly, on companies being one reason GM went bankrupt, it eats up federal and state budgets, rising costs make any form of future coverage for all unsustainable, and it robs other priorities such as infrastructure building and other national scale investments. The Economist says that if it had to design a system from scratch, it would go for a system based mostly around publicly funded health care. For the uninsured the solution of an employer mandate is now well accepted, so this is not an issue. What is an issue is how to make the new system affordable? Here the Economist says that whether in stages or in one move, the tax deductability of employer paid health insurance, which is costing the U.S. government $250 billion ayear, has to go. It is necessary to remove this deduction, and its something all interests involved will have to swallow, as other savings are smaller and will not be adequate. The deductability of insurance makes the true cost of insurance transparent, so it supports gold plated insurance. This does not make cost control the pressing priority it needs to be. So the deducatability of employer paid health insurance hurts both ways. The other necessary action is in the area of moving out of the current culture where most doctors work on a fee-for-service basis, where the more tests they prescribe or procedures they perform the greater their incomes. This acts as a perverse incentive, and has aruinous effect in mushrooming health care costs in America. Cutting back on unnecessary tests and procedures, and prescriptions , would save 10% to 30% of health costs says the Economist. And it says this has been proven with the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and Kaiser Permanente in California showing that cutting back doesn't hurt care and outcomes., so much so that cutting back would occur along with improved outcomes. But Americans with employer paid insurance just take things for granted as its not much out of pocket expense for them. THis creates the lack of a force for controlling costs even as employers are shouldering abigger and bigger burden, and the employee who thinks he is doing fine actually is seeing more of his salary dollars going to pay for his health insurance. In a way the consumers of health care are stuck with the perception that they are not somehow paying for these mushrooming costs and too manytests, procedures and prescriptions. This perception leads them a false sense of comfort with the system they are in, and a fear of something new fanned by the medical lobbies, that any change will impact users negatively. This makes the whole discussion on health care or the process of finding solutions to become an exericize in which terms like "rationing" and "choice" play a distorting role. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Nouriel Roubini says nationalization is the right solution. Similiar to action taken in Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks, and then after fixing them privatized the banks. He thinks about six months from now would be good timing, as most of the banks will be insolvent by then. The government does not have the risk of disturbing other solvent banks, if at that time it just moved in and nationalized the banks. Obama has cover, because already Republicans like Graham are endorsing nationalization as an option. And Republicans would prefer nationalization over putting in trillions of dollars into banks, and letting good dollars go in after bad. Roubini says that between guarantees, liquidity support and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion to help the financial system. Defacto the government is already controlling a big chunk of the banking system he says. This would just make it official. Another reason for doing this, is that the earlier solution of taking one failed bank or financial institution and merging it with another, as was done for Merrill, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, WaMu, is like merging two zombie banks. The result is not a stronger institution but one that is just as weak as before. In his picturesque language he says its like having two drunks trying to keep each other standing. He would like to see the big bank split into three or four pieces, creating a number of regional or national banks that are stronger. Because nationalization has become the N-word he says, it could be referred to as temporary receivership. Has Roubini been more prescient than others? No, says Roubini, a number of other people got it right. Robert Shiller on the housing bubble, Steve Roach on asset and consumption bubbles, Ken Rogoff on global imbalances in the current account deficit. He says he put the dots together and gave a more fleshed out picture. This interview was conducted by a fellow Professor of Roubini's at the Stern School of Business of New York University, Tunku Varadarajan. What about Greenspan? I think he says, a belief in market economics led to an excessive ideological belief that there are no market failures and no issues of distortions of incentives. "Central banks were created to provide financial stability. Greenspan forgot this, and it was a mistake. I think there were ideological blinders, taking Ayn Rand's view of the world to an extreme." Did the media play its proper role as this situation developed with all its inherent dangers, asks Varadarajan. In the bubble years everybody became a cheerleader, and the media became a cheerleader. The tough questions were not asked, and there was a failure there says Roubini. They failed in one of the duties of good journalism. The Masters of the Universe were on the cover, the imperial CEO, private equity, and others, no one asked how is it that this guy is producing such high returns each year, is it because he is so smart, or because he is taking on so much risk that he may face bankruptcy in two years? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Rosenfeld, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and chief executive of an investment advisory firm, says the Public-Private Investment Program proposed by Secretary Geithner has serious flaws. It risks government money, and expects too little from private investors. The government will essentially finance the private investor's purchase of these toxic assets at an auction, with the private investors putting some money of their own, to buy these assets at prices emerging from the auction. It runs right smack into the problem that Secretary Paulson under President Bush faced when he suggested the auction plan as a way for these toxic assets to be sold off to buyers. It was never clear how shuch an auction would work, and whether it would work at all. Meantime the worsening credit crisis required direct injection of capital into banks. Now Secretary Paulson's abandoned effort has been essentially revived in the Geithner program, with the same problems but with the carrot of government taking up most of the risk with its financing. Rosenfeld argues that under this plan the government assumes all the risk of losses, and if private investors make too much money off of it it will create a public outcry and the risk of an AIG type situation. This might lead to lower bids and the money generated for the banks might end up being too small to make a difference. There is a better way he says, and this is for the government using existing authority to seize banks that look insolvent. Its fairer because the government will own the toxic asets, and the bank, and the proceeds for the sale of the bank, and these would be offsetting the cash that it would inject to recapitalize the bank. The way it would do it is to inject cash in the form of Treasury notes as equity in the bank, and at the same time remove the bank's toxic assets and place them in the basement of the Treasury building, while it waits to see what they turn out to be worth. Bank regulators would swap Treasury securties for the toxic assets "at par," which is at the amount of the original purchase price of assets removed. Within a short time, a month or a few months, the bank could be sold to private investors. This is sounder because it takes away the pricing problem which looks like its never going to be resolved, as banks and investors are never going to agree on toxic asset price. And the new bank could start clean and start lending flowing in the economy. If the bank turns out to be so badly managed and with so many bad bets that it cannnot be sold, its essentially insolvent and irrecoverable, so it should be liquidated. Nobel winner Krugman says some of the same things in his columns in the NYT. He has a sense of despair seeing the return of the failed Paulson solution of auctions with a new twist, even as the economy is flailing in the wind, with job loss numbers over 600,000 and jumping each month....