LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman in the NYT describes the dangers of plutocratic power to American democracy. When exercized by the Murdochs, the Elon Musks, the Harlan Crows of this world. He cites presidents who are Republican and broke up the large oil companies in the 1900's, Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) who warned about "a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power." This is happening with the power of the so called Tech companies today and both parties seeking to break  up the Tech companies.  Then there is a Democratic president from this period Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) who followed Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson says- "If there are men in this country who are big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it." Theodore Roosevelt fought political machines such as Tammany Hall in New York as well as Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Wilson, a professor from Princeton, continued this tradition by protecting the working class of that time through his New Freedom campaign in 1913.  As a professor Wilson wrote the textbook The State used in colleges of that period, which set forth for the first time the basic idea of the state that we see today- "that forbids child labor, supervises the sanitary condition of factories, limits employment of women in occupations hurtful to their health, institutes official tests for the purity or quality of goods sold, that limits the hours of work in certain trades, and by a hundred and one limitations the power of unscrupulous or heartless men to outdo the scrupulous or merciful in trade or industry." Both were progressive Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Wilson under his New Freedom platform for the 1913 election, asserted that it was the task of government "to make those adjustments of life that will put every man in a position to claim his rights as a normal human being." What president Biden is doing today is closest to what Wilson and Roosevelt were trying to achieve, and what Modi is doing today in India is also closest to what Wilson and Roosevelt were trying to achieve. In 1913 Wilson won 42% of the vote, Roosevelt 27% because of a split within the Republican party with Robert Taft. Wilson proposed breakup of oil companies to provide a level playing field for all companies. Similar decisions are being considered by president Biden today for Tech Companies. The future of both the US and India is being decided in these difficult times after a pandemic and in the middle of a European war, and a supply chain overconcentrated in one country in Asia. Wilson's idea "to put every man in a position to claim his rights as a normal human being," is being set forth by president Biden through the word "dignity," by Modi in India as "sab ka vikas, sab ke sath" (development for all, with all). The Greens and SPD's Scholz also set forth this idea as "dignity" for the worker for Germany.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump outlines a plan for Afghanistan that increases the U.S. troop presence from about 8500 with an addition of 4000 more troops and advisors, in addition to a counter terrorism force. To war weary public in the U.S. he says: "I share your frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money- and most importantly, lives- trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations." About his criticism of the war when president Obama was in office as a huge costly waste of resources Trump said: My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts... I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk at the Oval Office." After resisting the advice of his own advisers Trump decided to fire Bannon who had supported use of American private security contractors for the war in Afghanistan, and used parts of the media to question national security advisor McMaster's views on this. Gen. Mattis, completed a strategy review that showed the mistake of creating a vacuum would repeat the situation of Iraq where president Obama withdrew forces in 2011, leading to a sequence of negative events- with Russia, Iran and Islamic State moving into the vacuum, making American intervention in the war necessary, increase in terrorist incidents worldwide, and a flood of refugees into Europe. Ironically clearing the path for an outsider's bid for the White House, with Brexit in which refugee fears and uncontrolled immigration played a part, and the news of terrorism and the war in Syria-Iraq creating a sense of insecurity. A key difference in the Trump approach with Obama's approach is that "conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables will guide our actions from now on," in line with Trump's criticism of Obama's approach. The military in the U.S. has long maintained that the best approach would have been to insist on U.S. presence in negotiations with the Iraqi government under the sectarian prime minister Nouri Maliki. Gen. Mattis was head of Central Command under the Obama administration and must have pushed the view of the military to president Obama to no avail. Failure to do so led to the growth of Shiite militias and the alienation of Sunnis in Mosul, leading to the fall of Mosul to Islamic State thus creating the current crisis. Gen. Mattis and Lt. Gen McMaster are intimately aware of the problem and must have convinced Trump that this is what really happened, that a repeat would waste the sacrifices of American soldiers in the twin wars. Trump gave this as his reason when he said in his televised speech to the nation- essentially a criticism of Bush that he expanded the conflict too quickly, and Obama exiting too quickly to create a void. Trump call his policy "principled realism."  The roots of the crisis are in the India-Pakistan conflict. Like the conflict in South East Asia the conflict in South Asia extending from Iran to India and Pakistan, may take a generation to overcome. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan, beginning with trade and economic relations, is not only in America's interest, it also provides the basis for a realistic American withdrawal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The treaty of handover by Britain of Hong Kong under one country, two systems was flawed in the way it was negotiated. French commentators looking at the problem say the city is caught between its past in the British Empire and the new monolithic state that China represents. Under the British French visitors looked at the city and wondered how there was freedom but no democracy, people were just selfishly just interested in making money. Chris Patten, Britain's administrator of the territory tried but failed to get democratic process, During the negotiations in 1984 for handover the chief British negotiator, Percy Cradock, a former ambassador to China, tells the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that - In Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, you go for the best you can get, I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread." Britain had very little leverage to secure a separate future for Hong Kong because it was small compared to much larger China resulting unequal negotiations. The same is true today as the best Britain could do is to get out a joint declaration with Australia and Canada saying that it did not approve the new security law, that it violated the treaty signed by Britain and China. The French view expressed by the editor of La Croix is that hasty poorly planned British exits- as happened in British India -have led to crises and conflicts for postcolonial generations, a legacy of British colonial rule. India and Pakistan still sorting out Kashmir, and India and China still fighting about the McMahon Line border area. The situation is very different for the U.S. which now has to respond in some way, and this comes as trade tensions and coronavirus tensions about its origins in China and the failure of Beijing to allow quick entry for an American team into Wuhan. This being for 7 weeks between Jan 6 request and February 16 permission. America sees this as losing 7 precious weeks to make up its own determination of the dangers when every week health experts say means saving or losing tens of thousands of lives. With loss of 100,000 lives the Trump administration has a sense of being misled. This French report in FR24 points out that the lack of a strong response from the U.S. would be something similar to letting the Berlin Wall happen without a response. Both sides in a situation where the territory of Hong Kong remained mostly about money and with a disproportionate influence of business interests similar to its founding under the unequal treaties of the 1850's. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bide meets British prime minister Starmer in Wasnhington as Britain is ready to approve use of its long range missile systems inside Russia. This comes as Russia is about to gain control of the Donetsk region. Republicans other than Mr. Trump and his supporters are for stronger support to Ukraine following US policy of opposing invasion to achieve military goals since 1900 against the Japanese in China and the Vietnam War was fought on the same basis in the 1960's considering the South Vietnamese state as an independent republic, just  invaded by the north, by North Vietnam, just as the US had done in the Korean War between North and South Korea. In the Vietnam War nationalism played apart with the Vietnamese nationalism prevailing by 1970. Russians see Kiev as the origin of the Russian State in the 9th century, and eastern region of Donetsk as Russian if western Ukraine seeks to join NATO and EU. Britain has opposed Russia since 1750 as it saw Russia as the threat to an Empire it was building in South Asia, in India that financially supported its Empire worldwide for 200 years till about 1950. Britain engaged in the Crimean War against Russia so that along with the French it could control Turkey and its Ottoman states in the Arab Middle East under the guise of trade. This effort was pushed back by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920's when he founded the modern state of Turkey in Ankara. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT was asked if China's celebration of Victory Day with Russia recently in Tianjin had any message for the US. He said he did not see it that way, that US has good relations with China. In this context the Smithsonian Museum exhibit on military history of the US shows a real aspect of the World War II in loss of life- Russia 17 million dead, China 11 million dead, Germany 10 million dead, Poland 5 million dead, Japan 2.5 million dead, US 1 million dead, UK 800,000 dead. Russian and Chinese losses of 28 million dead are 15 times the losses of US and UK combined of 1.8 million dead. With the scale of losses of such magnitude Victory Day celebrations in Tianjin can be seen in the context of this shared history and major losses overcome as much of the world knows with US help. A sobering view is that the colonial powers Imperial Japanese Army, French and British policies caused famines in World War II leading to 6-7 million deaths in India, Indonesia and Vietnam which is 4 times the 1.7 million US and UK deaths. Views of China in the Context of the Ukraine War and Russia are very different in US than in France and Europe and are widening in differences in 2025. In the US as in this report in the WSJ China is seen as a trade partner and competitor with certain issues, many of China's university leaders and experts question the prospect of a long term alliance with Russia, and for DJT Russia is a nuclear power with which US seeks good relations and a political settlement of the Ukraine War. In France as shown in the article in Le Monde adjacent to this the European attitudes towards Russia throughout European history since 1700 of regional rivalry between France and Russia, Germany and Russia since 1900, Britain and Russia since 1700. FDR led the alliance with Russia against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese in the 1930's and 1940's. Herbert Hoover led the effort to bring relief supplies and aid to Russian in the period of the Civil War after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. With China America kept the government in China functioning as it retreated from the invasion by the Imperial Japanese Army in the 1930's and 1940's and the only hope with Gen. Joe Stilwell in China alongside Chinese leaders. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even China has not campaigned the way Canada, Mexico and British, American media have against DJT Tariffs because China knows it is basically about getting an even playing field when it is the only country with $1 trillion in trade in its favor in 2024, 12 times the Japanese high of $82 billion trade surplus in 2007. But why should China campaign when the American and British, German media are going to do the job for China? A simple quiz to K-12 would ask school children when is the last time a country has a $1 trillion trade surplus? Answer: Never. Greg Ip has written a few years back that the devastation of China outshoring of American factories and jobs was unlike the 1980's Japan trade invasion because of first China's size, second by the speed with which it happened at 10-14% Chinese GDP growth. There is a third Japan was an ally needing US for security and backed down, China's case is different it is challenging the US for control of the world economy and will fight this one over the long haul. Greg Ip of WSJ on the 53 countries asking to negotiate US Liberation Day April 2, 2025 Tariffs. These countries include Allies of the US in full support asking to negotiate Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India Allies of the US in partial support asking to negotiate Britain Allies of the US not in full support asking to negotiate Germany, France Allies of the US in the past campaigning against the US, asking to negotiate Canada, Mexico Not Allies of the US, not in full support, not campaigning against the US China A look at his list tells one only one thing, mostly all trading partners except for the $146 billion exports of the US which represents exports to China are the exports that are at risk if things don't work out on tariffs. This is what the media today WSJ added this last week to the NYT, Wash. Post and the BBC, Guardian of UK, German media will not tell the reader.  The DJT Tariffs and Tariff negotiations are Lighthizer Tariff negotiations which won the fight with Japan in the 1980's over unfair trade and gaining a level playing field. Lighthizer as Deputy US Trade Representative conducted the tough negotiations with Japan. He was USTR in 2016-2020 and his Deputy Jamieson is now USTR in 2025       ...

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
This report in The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, gives insights into the Chinese position in trade war with the U.S.  China has its own internal groups which support China being able to take a leadership role in world affairs. Xi Jinping made giving China a prominent role in the world a feature of his presidency. China  has this internal audience and its own sense that China's resurgence was won with hard work and cooperation, plus dedication of the Chinese people. In the past Japan and South Korea also used state subsidized industries, and subsidies to gain leadership in key business sectors involving high technology. China would see this state subsidies model as its own model of development. From this standpoint the U.S. demands on subsidies as unfair competition could be seen as changing a key part of its economic model.  Asking China to put everything in writing and show tangible proof of enforcement as the U.S. insisted in talks, was too much for the Chinese side. China said trust us to do this, and lift the tariffs based on our verbal assurances. The U.S. having seen decades of no progress on this point, wanted tangible proof before tariffs were lifted. Added to the demands on subsidies were the demands for no more of what the U.S. calls stealing of U.S. technology through forced transfer of technology by U.S. firms as a condition to operate in Chinese markets. With the U.S. lagging in 5G technology and Huawei ahead the issue resonates on the U.S. side. Add to this Mr. Trump's key voter base includes the former Democratic party supporting workers who have shifted to him because of trade agreements and policies of Clinton and Obama that hurt American workers through seemingly endless closure of manufacturing plants from Chinese competition.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Merkel visits China in August 2012 with a large trade delegation including heads of SAP, Siemens, VW and BASF. Germany's largest export market is in the eurozone, at the same time growth in exports has surged to China and India. Between 2005 and 2011, German exports to the EU countries increased by 24%, to the U.S. by 6.3%, and to China by 206%, according to German government data. German investment in China was 26 billion euros in 2011. By contrast China's investment in Germany is small- only about 1.2 billion euros. The impression is that large firms such as VW and Siemens make up most of the investment. In actual fact the German Chamber of Commerce in China says 5000 German companies operate in China, employing 220,000 people, and three fourths of this is from the German "Mittelstand," midsize family owned companies. The Foundation for Family Businesses, representing 400 German Mittelstand companies says it needs more help regarding intellectual property protection in China and is not as well represented in the German trade delegation....

LyrArc Article Gist
A Joint Editorial by U.S. president Barack Obama and India's prime minister Narendra Modi in the Washington Post on September 30, 2014. Strobe Talbot, a former deputy Secretary of State says he does not remember a situation in which this type of joint editorial was put out by two heads of government. Speaking on Indian television "Times Now" with Arnab Goswami, Talbot says this is a result of intense advance preparation on both sides that he is personally aware of from his contacts in the two governments. The editorial says the two countries are "natural allies" using the words of former BJP Indian prime minister Vajpayee. It emphasizes the fact recognized by both sides that the true potential of the relationship has not been realized. It sees the election of a new government in India (with a decisive mandate) as a natural opportunity to move the relationship in line with India's rapid development agenda, and the U.S. own need to generate economic growth. Specifically Modi and Obama plan to discuss building up Indian manufacturing, and expanding affordable renewable energy including nuclear. The "Clean India" program is received with particular enthusiasm and an area of collaboration for improving sanitation and hygiene throughout the country. The relationship is viewed as bigger than projects and investment, in that it can add to helping build a more peaceful future for the global community- with the two countries tradition of interest in peaceful development that benefits all nations....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ report shows that on the morning of the 90 Day Pause in Tariffs announcement discussions took place with the Swiss prime minister, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and watching Fox News interview of JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon. Seeing the turmoil in financial markets and bond markets, US president DJT made the decision to give time to make the agreements with about 50 countries, and time for financial markets to understand the president's  policy and goals to reformulate the world trading system into one that offers a level playing field. The chart showing the Tariffs of 67% by China and US 34% imposed tariff in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, was say reports the result of the influence on the president of the advice of Peter Navarro.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's expertise is in financial markets as a protege of Soros, Navarro's is world trade. Bessent stepped in when financial markets appeared to reflect the uncertainty and convinced the president that the 90 day pause would be the best way to implement the policy on trade. There is a vigorous debate in the administration about how to get a level playing field for trade, and get the job done without disruptions in financial markets or a recession induced by uncertainty. On April 10 as part of the effort to talk to the American people US president DJT opened up his Cabinet meeting to the media and had Bessent, Borghum, RFK Jr and Marco Rubio talk about their plans and policies. Proper implementation, gaining confidence of the people of America and financial markets, is now as important as the goals and policies in the next 90 days. Getting the trade deals with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Britain and India would go a long way to reassure financial markets and set the right tone for the future.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this look at China's One Belt One Road Inititative, DW.com analyst Siegfried Wolf is critical of the way it was put together. It has no institutional structure, and is mostly based on bilateral not multilateral arrangement, and lacks transparency. He says its will complicate geopolitics in the region. This is already evident with Japanese foreign minister Kono calling for Japan, Australia, India and the U.S. to come up with an alternative to OBOR. Wolf says the EU has concerns about corruption, exclusion of regions inside countries such as Pakistan in economic arrangements, and seeks free trade guarantees. His biggest criticism of the Silk Road Initiative is that being based on Chinese loans it will pose a severe challenge in terms of debt buildup for weaker economies. This was already evident with the effort to convert part of about $6 billion in loans to Sri Lanka, through a $1.12 billion lease to China of the port of Hambantota. Wolf says many of the projects inside OBOR were already planned before it was setup, and now put under OBOR as part of president Jinping's initiative.  ...

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
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
The 2022 industrial trade fair in Hanover, Hanover Messe, is covered here in DW.com with 2500 exhibitors showing how they are responding to a changed world after the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine with support from China. Export oriented companies have to rethink their strategy says Thilo Brodtmann, the executive director of the German Engineering Federation, Supply chain disruptions and the pandemic have led to many German companies reexamining their reliance on Chinese suppliers. Human rights and democracy are now part of the reorienting of business in a new direction. The war in Ukraine is also having an impact. Reducing CO2 emissions is also a major part of the reexamination. Chancellor Scholz told the Hanover Fair at the opening ceremony -"We need to bring along with us emerging and developing countries, whose demographics and economic dynamics are turning them into new centers of power." Brodtmann says the solution is "to become independent and to have a completely different value chain." The head of the German Associaltion of Electrical and Electronics Industry Wolfgang Weber says "I'm quite sure that German companies are ready to invest in any of these countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa to diversify their supply chains." However such new markets are not very well represented at the Hanover Fair, so that policymakers and German business have a lot of work to do to open up new markets across the world in Asia, Latin America and Africa. India, Indonesia and Vietnam are considered to offer good prospects for diversifying Germany's supply chain and a lot of work needs to be done. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This opinion piece in DW.com says India's prime minister should not isolate prime minister Sharif of Pakistan, as he had no part in the escalation of tensions in Kashmir. Foreign and military affairs are now run by the Pakistan Army, and isolating Sharif only entrenches the Army it says, which has kept up tensions similar to the situation in 1999 with the Kargil crisis when the Pakistan Army initiated a conflict in Kargil region. At that time Indian premier Vajpayee and Pakistan premier Sharif were improving relations.