World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade pact led by Japan and the U.S. moves to the next stage with legislation introduced by Orrin Hatch and Ron Wyden in the U.S. Congress for granting trade promotion authority to the U.S. president. This would facilitate the negotiation of an agreement leading to concessions by different countries. Talks between Japan and the U.S. intensified with the U.S. president Obama saying in his 2015 State of the Union message that China wanted to write the rules for trade in Asia, and asking why the U.S. should not work to write its own rules. Defense Secretary, Aston Carter, called it more important than another aircraft carrier. Support from Europe, India and other countries for the China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as a rival to the U.S. dominated World Bank and IMF, also give urgency to the TPP. The TPP countries, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Peru and Chile, make up over $400 billion of about $4 trillion in U.S. trade, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The TPP is now seen not just a free trade pact, but also as away to counter China's influence in Asia. Experts see the Obama administration as having bungled its handling of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which the U.S. did not join, and its allies in Europe, other Asian countries including India, decided to join as founding members. Democrats in Congress led by Senator Schumer, Warren, oppose the legislation granting fast track for free trade pacts citing the loss of jobs and lowering of wages for workers in manufacturing in the U.S., with only about a dozen Democrats favoring the legislation, leading to a split in the party. Projections by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer, Fan Zhai, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, show a net negative impact on depressed wage sectors such as U.S. manufacturing with additional $45 billion in U.S. imports and $35 billion in exports for heavy manufacturing from the TPP free trade pact, and additional $33 billion of U.S. imports and $10 billion exports in light manufacturing by 2025. Higher wage sectors such as U.S. Services including IT get a boost with additional $42 billion in exports and $ 8 billion imports. Agriculture shows insignificant gains with additional exports of $2 billion and imports of 0.5 billion. The auto and transport sector disproportionately favors Japan with $33 billion in additional U.S. imports and $8 billion in exports. ...
US International Trade Commission Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A 2024 US International Trade Commission report by David Riker of the effects on imports of 25% US tariff shows a 75% reduction in imports and a 5% increase in US prices.  It would lead to large new investments in the US auto industry in different states. Hyundai recently announced a $21 billion investment plan in the US and building of a steel plant in Louisiana. General Motors will increase investments in the US and expand production. Other Japanese companies will make large investments for a presence in the US market.

"A new 25% tariff on U.S. imports from outside of North America would reduce vehicle imports by 73.9%, increase average prices of vehicles in the United States by 5.0%, and increase variable profits from domestic production by 5.2%." David Riker, USITC

 

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As Keith Bradsher of the NYT points out in this report too much may be made of the tariffs of 25% imposed by president Trump on steel imports. The effect Bradsher says on China is trivial because China imports make up a fraction of 1% or 0.1% of China's production, and only 2% of American steel imports. Most of China's aluminium is made into products such as auto parts and solar panel frames, and little of it is imported as raw metal. On the day the tariffs were announced, China's top economic official Liu He met with economic officials of the Trump administration and China's reaction was cautious and reflected the fact mentioned b.y Trump about its huge trade surplus with the U.S. of $375 billion in 2017. China's officials stated "that its dialogue with the U.S. was very useful, constructive, and helpful."  China's principal goals are first to preserve its broader trading relationship with the U.S. which gives it th $375 billion trade surplus for 2017 and creates millions of jobs in China, and to preserve its ability to invest in the U.S.  This has given China access to American technology and manufacturing expertise that would be difficult to develop independently. The Trump administration is meanwhile working with senior members of Congress to come up with new rules for tighter scrutiny of Chinese investments in the U.S. as a new phase of competition in technology takes place between China and the U.S.  ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US envoy to Belarus responds to overtures from Belarus's leader Lukashenko for improved relations, release of hundreds of political prisoners including the husband of a opposition leader who is thought to have won the last Belarus open elections in 2020. Today it is not realized that politicians with lack of vision or foresight - Bush, Obama, Merkel, failed to grasp that in 2020 two events happened that were linked- the Belarus electons bringing another pro-EU government on Russia's border which was squashed before it could take office and the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong also squashed in 2020 by China PRC. Crimea was made part of Russia in 2014 when Ukrainian protesters in Kviv and Lviv near Poland ousted the government of pro Russia leader Yanukovych in the Maidan revolution. Russia under Putin responded 2014-2020 with a simmering effort to take parts of eastern Ukraine that were close to and sympathetic to Russia. This was an effort to counter NATO or pro-EU countries coming to Russia's borders in the way JFK opposed pro-Russian regime in Cuba. Obama and Merkel never understood or grasped this or were too involved in the eurozone, migration crises (Merkel) or war in Afghanistan (Obama). The result was that in 2020 Russia helped squash the election results in Belarus with another pro-EU government impending. Within 2 years Russia under Putin with tacit Chinese support invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022. Belarus shares a border with Russia and it is closely allied with Russia in the Eurasian Economic Zone that includes former Soviet Bloc countries such as Kazakhstan. Gradually following the recovery of the Russian economy by 2010 the emphasis shifted to create something similar to the Soviet Union, a bloc of countries in central Asia and in Eastern Europe that are part of a Russian sphere of influence. For much of the period of the Obama/ Merkel administrations in US and Germany this was ignored as most of the politicians never gave Russia the importance it sought, not accepting that the economic power was not measured only in GDP- also in science and technology, nuclear technologies, space, in energy resources, and Russia's position in Northern/Central Europe and Central Asia since 1700.  It is this situation that the DJT administration faced with US challenges of the Mexican and Venezuelan drug and people trafficking in the western hemisphere has responded with the Monroe Doctrine to reassert American influence in Latin America by respecting Russia's effort to have some measure of influence on its borders, that the US seeks on it's borders. Without Russian or Chinese intervention in Latin America and with the the Monroe Doctrine in place America can protect the interests of the American people and the people of Latin America for free and good government. What Bush, Obama, Merkel lost sight of is that by each power having some strong measure of influence in their regions, and the tendencies for benevolent influence put in place, there is significantly more room for respecting the hopes and aspirations of people in their regions through democratic or other people oriented forms of government than by the situation in which economically the US was dominant after the fall of the Berlin Wall but other influences would lead to US decline- open but not free trade with China, and the recovery of the Russian economy, drug and people trafficking by gangs in Latin America where the Monroe Doctrine for US leadership had prevailed till the 1960's. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fox News and WSJ are taking differing positions on Epstein case with Fox News ignoring it and the WSJ carrying the story. Murdoch and DJT have a complicated relationship in July 2025 following the $10 billion DJT lawsuit against Murdoch filed in late July after a story in the WSJ. WSJ parent company Dow Jones says it stands by the story and will defend the accuracy of its reporting. Both the DJT Republicans and the Fox News network appeal to conservative viewers of television, and people in business. WSJ has carried stories questioning the tariff policies of the president, and is critical. It is also not fully supportive of policies to handle migrants. Fox News another Murdoch news outlet is through programs like "Hannity" supporting the president and DJT supports it. This creates a dichotomy in the support when DJT and Republicans are putting forward an agenda that is moving fast on the economy, migration, crime, and world trade requiring support to keep the conservative groups together in the US. This is not a situation encountered before as the nation is moving to a crossroads in which direction it should take. And this does not even take up the issues of climate protection which will come up, and of pharmaceutical companies overcharging Americans for healthcare, other battles that will take place.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Dow Chemical CEO, Anthony Liveris, is co-chair of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, an effort to bring together federal government, industry, universities and other groups to invest in new technologies that would generate good-quality jobs and increase U.S. competitiveness. He writes this letter in the Wall Street Journal to correct two misperceptions. The first, is that government has no significant role in nurturing an environment that is good for business and manufacturing industry. Because other countries, including China, are now operating like companies, it is important not to let the U.S. be in a disadvantageous position. Government has always been involved in its writing of tax and incentive policies, regulations, trade agreements, and creating a climate of certainty. The second, is that the loss of manufacturing capacity and job losses in the last 10 years are different from the job losses in the 1980's. These are not the low tech and less efficient manufacturing job losses of the 1980's, but job losses as a result of moving advanced manufacturing capacity and research and development centers to outside of the U.S. Of the 8 million jobs lost in the last recession, he says two million manufacturing jobs of higher pay and supporting employment in other sectors were lost. His point: its time to focus on expanding manufacturing in the U.S. because manufacturing is the sector with the highest multiplier effect on other sectors. Public-private partnerships are critical to this effort for increasing technology development and increasing investment. This view is supported by other experts....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
China says its students are subject to harsh questioning when coming to the US, and these students face racial discrimination in the US. 105,000 student visas for Chinese students were issued by the US embassy in Beijing and consulates in China in 2023 as the pandemic recedes and normal exchange relations resume. About 50,000 exchange program participants in the US are expected to visit China over 5 years. Nicholas Burns, 68 years, is the new US ambassador to China in April 2022. As the mood changes in the US with both presidential candidates ramping up their stand on trade with China and tariffs, US China relations face headwinds after the normalization of US-China relations following the pandemic, when Xi and Biden met in San Francisco in 2023. Chinese student facing racial discrimination in the US and the difficulties with learning English pose serious problems for Chinese students which Nicholas Burns in a diplomat sheltered world may have no idea of. This applies to students from mainland China and Taiwan alike. Burns may have too hastily dismissed this side of the perspective from Xi Jinping. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump plans to introduce  tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminium. It is not clear whether this will be targeted at Countries flooding the U.S. market with cheap metals, or generally for all countries. Executives from the steel industry and aluminium industries met with Trump at the White House. This would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises.

There is a vigorous debate in the White House between advisors who advocate limiting the measures such as Gen Mattis at Defense, Gary Cohn at the Economic Council, on one side, and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro, on the other. 

Mr. Lighthizer has convinced the president of the need for strong action, yet he has hesitated in the past. Now president Trump says he wants "free, fair and smart trade," and will not let "American companies and workers be taken advantage of any longer."

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Xi Jinping's effort to shift the economy of China more towards serving the interests of Chinese who were left behind in the boom years includes a shift away from coal, away from real estate for speculation, and away from reliance on trade with the US and Europe as a driver for growth. This is proving to be difficult as the pandemic has increased demand for Chinese exports making trade a bigger driver for growth than before the pandemic. Introduction of a property tax to cut into real estate speculation has been scaled down to trials in 10 cities.  China did not put stimulus checks in the accounts of its people the way the US did which has led to Chinese domestic consumption not rebounding the way it has done in the US. Figures for consumer spending in China for September show an increase of 4.4% from the year earlier far below the pace of 8% set for 2019. The lack of social security and other safety nets in China makes people to save even more today. Chinese savings rate was 40% in 2019, today it is 45.2% for May 2021, according to one survey. Personal consumption makes up 38% of China's GDP in 2020, it was 39% in 2019. In the US it went up in 2021 June to 69% compared to 67% by the end of 2020. Infrastructure and construction deepened debt problems in China, and expanding exports created trade tensions. Both these problems have deepened with the pandemic. As this report says Chinese exports have gone gangbusters. Problems in production in Vietnam and Malaysia have added to export surge from China. China's trade surplus with the world is now at $535 billion in 2020, and surplus with US increased by 7% to $317 billion in 2020 from 2019.  Chinese government policy is now for "common prosperity" to reduce inequality and spread wealth and income more evenly for all the Chinese people. This is taking time and Chinese government policy is now set for the long run with these short run problems. ...
The Times of London Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
James McIntyre's book about Gordon Brown, (title is Power with a Purpose) who like Jimmy Carter, was more respected in retirement for doing good work humbly and not getting into a revenue generating speaker's circuit or consulting, or boards of directors of companies. McIntyre looks at his career, the involvement of Mandelson as Business Secretary, the failures of Mandelson and Blair in New Labour, and Gordon Brown's failure to revive the Labour Party. The Times says Gordon Brown has grown in stature since leaving No. 10 Downing Street. Under Blair, Brown was No.2 and headed the British Treasury as finance minister. He only became prime minister at the end of his career during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. He started the effort to redefine Labour Party after Margaret Thatcher defeated the Labour candidate from Plymouth Mr. Foot and swept out socialist Labour and the trade unions. Then followed privatization and changes in the British economy which were followed by Reagan in the US by 1980. Through this period Brown and Blair tried to create the concept of New Labour which won in landslides as Britain switched back to Labour as the alternative. As the Blair magic withered Brown was left tackling the 2009 financial crisis but failed to define what Labour was- his Business secretary was Peter Mandelson who unlike Brown was in Labour but in for his own purpose and had a cynical attitude to politics as a way to retire in some privileged business position on boards of directors. The result is well known Cameron and the conservatives who were even less qualified than an earlier generation of Conservative politicians, their decision to call the Brexit referendum, the verdict of yes on Brexit leading to Cameron's replacement by Boris Johnson, and Britain having 4 prime ministers in a span of five years as discredited austerity drive was replaced by Keir Starmer's Labour. This project with McSweeney as Starmer's campaign manager cleared Labour of socialist outlook Corbyn supporters, won in a landslide in 2024, only to fail to define the purpose for which Labour stood for and Starmer's ratings dropping to new lows of 18% support as Reform UK's Farage took up the issue of migrants and the culture that enabled migrants to enter the UK. Britain has been let down by two generations of less competent, poorly qualified for public service politicians over three decades since the 1990's- through Blair/Brown, Cameron, Boris Johnson and left struggling with Keir Starmer. Sixty years after decolonization of an Empire in the 1960's, Britain has not gained in purpose and strength, only drifting along as new powers emerge in Asia and the world changes. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Protests in Hannover, Germany, as U.S. president Obama visits the Hannover Trade Fair. Protesters oppose the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Treaty promoted by president Obama. A recent Bertelsmann Stiftung research institute poll shows larger rejection of the treaty in Germany than a mid-Feb. poll by German broadcaster ZDF showing about half of Germans opposed. Interviews with a dozen protesters show suspicion about large corporate interests, and fears that the talks are secretive, a sense that the interests of ordinary people would be neglected. Elections in the U.S. in 2016 have shown a surge in sentiment opposing trade agreements.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Krugman says in this column in the NYT that Biden's policies for trade reflect a stronger conviction for protecting American technologies and building its manufacturing base than previous administrations including the Trump administration. With less rhetoric and with quiet determination Biden has placed American domestic manufacturing as a requirement for renewable subsidies for new electric vehicles manufacturing and sale in the Inflation Reduction Act. In the Chips and Science Act Biden has placed US semiconductor technology promotion and manufacturing at the core of the Act. Krugman says this was the right thing for Biden to do. The renewable subsidy comes from ordinary Americans paying taxes who would benefit most from new jobs created in the electric vehicle industry. China has gained such a big lead in semiconductor chips manufacturing and materials by supporting its industry, that it is the right thing to do to give American manufacturers the same kind of support. Trade rules were about creating a level playing field, yet previous administrations failed to create that level playing field, and the Biden administration has boldly made its point clear. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gerlad Seib points out that one should look less at what president Trump accomplished in the first 100 days and more at how he operated and learned during this initial period. This is certainly true because much of what happened in the first 100 days contradicts some of the tone that Trump setup during the campaign. When it comes to governing Trump has made an effort to learn and adapt and show resilience in the face of early setbacks on the travel ban and the health care bill, the Flynn episode. After this early period Trump took on a more disciplined approach, gave more room to and listened to more respected advisors- Tillerson on foreign affairs in shaping policy with Russia leading to Tillerson's presence at Lucca massacre memorial in Italy sending a clear signal about U.S. policies in line with its role in the past century in world affairs, Gary Cohn and Ross on economic policy and seeking Cohn's advice on tax plan, Ross's on NAFTA negotiations with Mexico. As a result the NAFTA fears were calmed down with statements by Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, that the goal was a win-win relationship with Mexico. Trump worked with his party in Congress to have the Supreme Court nomination of Gorsuch approved. Meetings with Merkel of Germany and Jinping of China were carefully planned and new relationships established as Seib points out, without ruffling trade relations. The appointment of Robert Lighthizer, as Trade Representative, also shows that efforts to give the U.S. a more level playing field in trade will be resolutely pursued in the win-win context. Lyrarc has profiled Lighthizer earlier in this decade after his op-eds in the media as he correctly anticipated the changing public mood on the need for fairness in trade relations. On relations with China and South Korea, Jim Mattis has taken the lead, and Pence's visit to South Korea also show deftness in handling what is one of the most difficult issues in foreign affairs. Mattis and Tillerson also have helped reinforce the Republican party policies on NATO and Europe, with the visit of NATO secretary general Stoltenberg to the White House. In the end it is how much you can learn in the first year, how much you listen, and the courage to act in difficult situations, the willingness to act contrary to one's instincts and self interest where necessary, that matters. This is especially true in an environment where as Seib points out the Democratic Party stands opposed to the Trump administration following a bitter election campaign.   ...
The Economic Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi's visit to the US comes at a time when US president Biden is eager to show the US is fully engaged in the Indo-Pacific region with its allies in the Quad 4 countries- Australia, Japan and India. The recently announced Aukus defense agreement brought together 2 members of the Quad 4 the US and Australia, plus the UK. Aukus is designed to strengthen US presence as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific region in the Indian and Pacific oceans around India, Southeast Asia, China, and across the Pacific. After a futile engagement in Afghanistan the US is reorganizing its presence where it is strongest- in the oceans. In a way that Britain once did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the US is dominant in the high seas. US naval power far exceeds that of all navies in the world combined. This is meant to reassure India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and Japan, which together have close to twice the population of China, that the US has not diminished its presence in any way from that it had in the 1950's following the Second World War. With this new framework India enters discussions that will focus on health to deal with the pandemic and its after effects, with security and rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, with trade, technology, new supply chain manufacturing structure in which India plays a key role. With this new focus and clearing past engagements made by other US  presidents, including some mistaken policies, the US emerges as a new force in the Indian ocean, China seas and Pacific ocean region.  On September 23 Modi meets Tim Cook for what could be new supply chain arrangements that Apple could be preparing as it and other US corporations build new supply chain structures to rebuild US manufacturing technologies capabilities that were lost to China over the period 2000-2020. During that period manufacturing technology knowhow was shifted out of the US in a mistaken policy that assumed design and invention were sufficient for the US to keep. The first step in this direction was a change of CEO's at Intel Corp with US president Biden pushing for new US technology reclaiming policy. Following that the new CEO at Intel Corp, Patrick Gelsinger, completely reassessed Intel's mistaken policies of ceding its entire semiconductor manufacturing technologies capabilities to Taiwan and China. Intel made a U turn and is now investing all or most of $50 billion in the US instead of in China or Taiwan.  On September 24 Modi meets Mr Biden to discuss trade, investment, defense, and security. On the same day the leaders of Japan, Australia, Mr. Suga and Mr. Morrison join Modi and Biden for the Quad 4 talks. Indian infrastructure capabilities and Indian economic growth would be key goals to strengthen India along its land borders along Tibet occupied region and Himalayas as part of the overall effort to build a new US and allied presence in Asia.  On September 21 Modi attends a Covid Summit that will look at the way forward in the aftermath of the pandemic and ways to vaccinate the remaining unvaccinated population in the world, as well as vaccination passports.  ...
POLITICO Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...
The Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US Supreme Court hears arguments from D. John Sauer Solicitor General of the US on DJT Tariffs Wednesday, November 5, 2025. The Supreme Court will hear about a case brought by a small wine importing company with 19 employees. The US president used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that allows the president to impose tariffs. The IEEPA was introduced by president Jimmy Carter in 1977. It was used during the Iran hostage crisis. It has been used for the Venezuelan regime after elections were rigged with human rights violations, on Belarus as early as 2006, and on Mexico for drug cartels. This increases the responsibilities of the Justices of the Court as these sanctions have broad support of the American people. Tariffs were imposed on China for illicit fentanyl flows and a 25% tariff was imposed on Canada and Mexico under Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 20% on China under Executive Order 14195 in 2025 for illicit drug traffic flows across their borders into the US. Illicit flows that has taken the lives in the case of fentanyl of more young people than were killed in the Vietnam, Korean and First World Wars combined.  For the reason that the economic aspect of tariffs now overlaps with trading partners abuse of basic rights of their largest trading partner the US in the case of Canada, Mexico and China not stopping such flows, the issue before the Supreme Court is basic to the US as a Nation to protect its citizens under these Executive Orders and IEEPA- not the kind of interpretation of the law the USC does for most or almost all of its cases. In 2025 a lot of the discourse is distorted and does not reflect the way citizens of the Nation should show concern for the welfare and safety of their fellow citizens in communities around them severely hurt by the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids making their way from other countries conducted by drug trafficking gangs outside the US.  Also relevant is that the tariffs are correcting trade deficits of $1 trillion of the world with China that threaten the economic security of the US, EU, India and other countries. Larger companies are moving their supply chains out of China to reduce concentration in China, impact on inflation is slight with 3.0 % inflation in September 2025. Smaller companies such as the wine company in this lawsuit are unable to do so. Most of the smaller businesses affected can be compensated with a fund from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026. In this way the goals of the US as a Nation can be achieved of reducing the supply channels concentration in China, cutting supply chain concentration in China, for fair trade with trading partners EU/Japan, and for action on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Justice Roberts and his team have a lot to think about in this effort by the Nation to correct abuses that should never been allowed to happen. ...
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's DW.com says in this report- "However, economists have pointed out that the US benefits from having large trade imbalances with the rest of the world, as the dollar is used in most trade, and offers major tailwind effects to the US economy." Which economists one must ask? Most of these economists had turned their back on the working people in factories in America, on their wages turned into a downward spiral, on their jobs, their factories lost for three decades. Today the American people have a sense of the true cost of this colossal failure to protect American workers and small towns across America depending on manufacturing. The pandemic exposed the risks of supply chain shocks and inflation by overly concentrating manufacturing in China.  The US has 1 trillion in trade deficits each year and it is completing the destruction of manufacturing in the US. Half of this is with China as China exports through Vietnam and Mexico, third countries, in addition to 295 billion dollars of trade imbalance the US has with China. China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam are the largest offenders. No country can long endure with such a loss of its manufacturing base. The US Navy itself is in danger without the manufacturing to compete with China that has taken up over 50% of shipbuilding, and soon will not be able to protect the free world if these types of economists and self serving German or other foreign interests drive a false narrative. Without the US Navy in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans no one is safe, not Germany, not the EU, not India or the rest of the world. ...
DW.COM Original article ›
France 24 Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What a change DJT's first 100 Days and actions on immigration and tariffs , Ukraine and Russia, have made in China's and World relations in Asia, and in Europe - all for the better, significantly better relations worldwide.  China has worked out a peace settlement in Ladakh frontier with India. It has come together in Tokyo with Japanese prime minister Ishiba and China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi holding hands, and South Korea joining, all three nations vowing to remember history and work together. In Europe Russia is being brought back into the community of nations for big power cooperation with the US after 3 years of war in Ukraine. And Germany has removed its constitutional brake on spending that frees up $1 trillion in funding for infrastructure to replace much of its rail and other infrastructure built in 1900. One would not know this reading the NYT on democracy or the WSJ on tariffs or the Washington Post on assault on federal workforce, or the Atlantic, Politico, DW.com or FR24, Der Spiegel, nor Le Monde, much of the world media slanted on way or another. One does not hear about military exercises so often as the world realizes that so called large economies China, Germany, Japan and India all depend on American goodwill and willingness to give rather than take for most of the post war period since 1950. For the last 6 years in the latter half of the Trump administration and the 4 years of the Biden administration during the pandemic relations between China and the US deteriorated and China first retreated into its own then opened up a bit. The initial idea that it could manage the DJT trade actions evaporated as Biden continued the DJT first round of tariffs. Now Navarro, Lighhizer, and his deputy Jamieson are all back advising DJT for anew round of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China for not stopping fentanyl flows.  In 2022 in eastern Ladakh China's PLA had a big standoff with Indian forces in eastern Ladakh at Galwan and Pangong Lake. The Quad was active with Australia India and the US in Indo Pacific and China conducted military exercises close to Taiwan.      ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This interview with Donald Trump by the publisher, editors and columnists of The Washington Post, Ryan Jr., Hiatt, Lane, Marcus, Diehl, Armai, Attiah, provides an exceptional insight into the views of Donald Trump on domestic and foreign policy, on his campaign for president. It is the result of an effort to get Trump to state his policies on different issues without the fuzziness in which Trump has carried out his campaign, often taking different sides of the same issue. In some situations Trump is pressed hard on his positions or controversial statements, to clarify what he has not clarified in the burst of media attention Trump received in the past 6 months, especially on television media. First some myths and realities. A recent March 19, 2016, issue of the Economist cites the Pew Trust in showing that only about 17% of eligible Republican voters voted in the primaries. A person watching television news media coverage on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, would get the impression that the voter turnout was tremendous- this is not confirmed by the Pew Trust survey. The Economist points out that had the other eligible voters cast their ballots and even if Trump had a share of these votes, the results might look different. With a highly fragmented vote in the Republican primaries, and about half of the vote going to candidates other than Trump, Trump's voter support would add up to about 8-9% of eligible Republican voters based on the Pew Survey results. The question here would be is this a representative sample of the U.S. or of the Republican Party. And is one likely to make false generalizations about the nature of the Republican party from such a limited sample of voter opinion. Is voter sentiment inadequately reflected, and results hopelessly skewed because of the lack of good candidates in the Republican Party, and Trump's tactical rhetoric appealing to a group of working class Americans left out in the technological progress of the last decade. In the process is the hard work of the founders of the Republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the framers of the Constitution being undone by a minority of disaffected voters with legitimate grievances on distribution of economic benefits of the technological progress, trade and global manufacturing networks- with a level of divisive rhetoric and decline in levels of public debate rarely seen. These are the clarifications sought from Trump and his response. Attiah raises the question of divisive rhetoric on minorities Hispanics and Black people- Trump says he is only talking about people here illegally, that he gets support from Hispanics here legally. He turns the question to Muslims and says there is a serious problem there that means being careful about how people are being admitted into the U.S. Questions about Trump's controversial statements about a wall with Mexico are not raised. Ryan pushes hard on the question of the libel laws standard that Trump says he is going to change, asking whether this would happen if Trump thinks the reporting "is wrong" but there is no malice. Trump wants the reporting to be fair for him, that reporters call him to check if he did this or that and why, before writing stuff about him, and he sees the reporting from the Post as very bad about him. He says his lawyers would have to tell the media, that he believes he should loosen up the standards so that this kind of coverage does not continue. On ISIS Trump pulls back when asked by Diehl about statements that suggested he would send the number of troops the generals wanted on the ground- estimated at 20,000 to 30,000- saying he would find it very, very, difficult to do that. On a nuclear option for ISIS Trump says he does not favor that. Suggesting that Trump like the other candidates in the election know there are no easy ways to tackle ISIS. Trump would rely on other countries in the region for help with troops on the ground, something that president Obama also favors, with limited results. Diehl also pushes hard on NATO- Trump says hundreds of billions of dollars are going to NATO and the whole burden for defending South Korea falls on the U.S. when it is not now a rich country that it once was. Diehl corrects him by saying for the public record that its not hundreds of billions, and South Korea, Japan pay 50% of the cost for defending their region. Trump wants to see 100% for the Korean peninsula defense borne by the South Koreans and Japan. Trump seees NATO as a good concept but needing more help from Germany, Poland, Baltics. At one point the Washington Post journalists tell Trump this is a position he shares with president Obama. Trump responds to questions from Hiatt about how he would handle the situations in black communities such as Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. Trump says he feels law enforcement is important and should play a big role in preventing the destruction of property from day one. He says jobs are what hurts inner cities but offers no solution about how to get the jobs lost in the steel industry for Baltimore, black neighborhoods sitting ironically next to the John Hopkins high technology university complex. Trump brings up the response that jobs could be created if the U.S. simply did not spend money on supporting nationbuilding overseas, a policy that president Obama has supported, and which the public has favored in the U.S. As Holman Jenkins brings up in a column on March 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal, these policies are being pursued today, and most of these jobs are not coming back so how would Trump bring them back or do anything about it, especially when Chinese workers in China's factories are being displaced by robotics in places such as Hon Hai factories. The more one thinks about it many of things Trump is saying are already being done, and there are no new solutions Mr. Trump has for today's problems of lack of upward mobility for the middle and working class- a priority for Sanders and Clinton also, not just for Trump. As a television personality and a candidate with a understanding of voter concerns, Trump artfully voices voter concerns of working class Americans for problems that defy easy solutions. Are there risks with Trump's approach that Trump has failed to think through or grasp? Does the unpredictable behaviour Trump suggests that would get allies thinking and trade partners responding lead to unpredictable consequences? Divisive rhetoric creates additional distractions in tackling the problems of the middle class and working class Americans. Divisive rhetoric within the NATO alliance would create additional distractions in tackling the problems of defending the European Union, such as using the very show of unpredictability. Diehl pushes Trump on this question. Would trade threats to China lead to a withdrawal from the Senkaku Islands by China? Trump says he thinks this would cause the Chinese to retreat . What if the Chinese see it differently, in their relations with Japan and South Korea, with a long difficult history, not necessarily in their relations with the U.S. Would a trade war hurt the global economy, and hurt confidence in U.S. fianncial markets just when the U.S. and European economies are staging a recovery, and when the economes of China, Japan and India are in a sensitive phase? These questions could not be raised because of time constraints, but must be on the minds of the editors of the Post and the WSJ, coming from different ends of the political spectrum. How would this help tackle the problem of upward mobility for working class Americans that all the candidates in the presidential election share? ...
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
BRICS is becoming an obsolete concept as Brazil, India and South Africa are essentially looking for ways in which they can increase opportunities for growth. It was a concept started by a Goldman Sachs investment banker Mr. O'Neill at a different time in 2010. The world has gone through the 2009 financial crisis, the pandemic, and the supply chain crisis with overconcentration of EU and US supply chain in China. These events are leading to a shift under the Biden administration to bring India  into the G7 into a new G8 that includes India. Only Russia, China and South Africa remain from the original BRICS. Russia because of the war in Ukraine now depends on Chinese support and trade. Brazil will gradually shift back to its position as part of the US alliance in Latin America with Mexico, Argentina and Chile. India with its plans for rapid growth to build the modern third largest economy by 2040 seeks supply chain integration with the US and EU in the position that China holds today.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany is trying not to choose sides in the trade and security disputes between China and the U.S. Yet it owes a lot to the U.S. from the days of the Marshall Plan and U.S. taking on the role of defending Germany after the Berlin Wall. China was then a partner with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  Today China is Germany's top market for its car industry. Yet the U.S. export market is much larger than China at $119 billion with China's at $96 billion. In Germany 28% of jobs are linked to exports, and in manufacturing this goes up to 56%, according to Germany Ministry of Economic Affairs. Germany supplied much of the factory  equipment from its engineering companies and the infrastructure that powered up the China transformation. A transformation now underway in India.  There are signs of a shift as engineering companies in Germany grew faster in the U.S. than China, increasing by 6-10% a year. India remains a key growth market for Germany over the next 10-15 years as growth in China slows and India accelerates with its younger demographics and investment in infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure in China is built and it is approaching the saturation Japan reached in the 1990's with additional investments adding little in the way of productivity. Longer term Germany has more potential for growth in countries in South and South East Asia  that will need to make huge investments in infrastructure and technology for manufacturing to meet the aspirations of the people there. Other issues related to freedom going back to the Berlin Wall and the rebuilding of Germany after World War II will emerge. German companies are running out of patience says this report in the WSJ with the bureaucratic obstacles, forced technology transfers, subsidies by state model to extinguish competition, and protectionist approach to home markets, even as state funded companies in China put other companies in Europe, Asia and the U.S. at a disadvantage. Germany will need to transition to a shift in its global relations, a process that is only now taking place. Just as with austerity policies in which it has now made the shift from going with the northern European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland) to the Southern European (France, Italy, Spain) in favor of common solidarity even at the short term cost of common debt, Germany now is facing the shift for solidarity with the U.S. for its support of Germany from the period of the Berlin Wall in the 1950's, for the U.S. and European solidarity in the face of the post-coronavirus world. The U.S. showing its generosity and openness to Germany and war torn Europe even as it took on the added responsibilities for creating a new alliance with Europe.   ...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us