LyrArc Article Gist
Brent crude drops below $60 by Dec. 15, 2014.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Senator Schumer calls it a "momentous 24 hours here in the US Congress, a legislative one two punch that you rarely see." Schumer negotiated a major climate change action bill for $369 billion in the Senate, that also covers tax changes to cover costs, and helps cut drug and health care expenses of Americans. The second quarter shows healthy job gains of average 375,000 a month and unemployment at 3.6%. The economy declined by 1.1% but much of this was from a slowdown in home and business construction sectors sensitive to higher interest rates and from higher inventory. Consumer spending increased by 1% during the quarter. The Fed's series of 0.75 percentage points interest rate increases had softened inflation expectations before they get entrenched in the economy. This makes it possible for Democrats to present a message to ordinary Americans that president Biden is getting things done with 2 legislative achievements. A $280 billion bill for investment in the semiconductor industry in the US. And a huge win on climate change with the $269 billion Schumer is negotiating in the US Congress. It is the opposite of what Republicans are saying is Biden's failure to tackle inflation. Appropriately Biden and Schumer are calling this the bill the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. How did Schumer get this done? After the Ukraine war and EU decision to shut down Russian oil supplies, cut oil and gas use by 15%, and the climate change action inducing fires and floods, there is increasing awareness about climate change action as vital for our future all over the world. This gives more confidence to Democrats to negotiate a temporary continuation of oil and gas, with increased exports of US LNG to Europe. Senator Manchin from an energy producing state of West Virginia was brought over to Schumer's side with this idea. What Biden gets is a 40% reduction of US carbon emissions over 2005 levels, enough to get within reach of the 50% he promised at COP26 in Glasgow. It is a win-win for all sides and for the American people, and shows that patience and hard work, and persistence in the face of adversity can bring results. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German leadership in the eurozone and the EU- with the strong stand for eurozone countries to do their economic homework and restore fiscal balance, and the action taken to bring the EU countries together on Russian intervention in Ukraine- is leading to questions about the dominant role played by Germany. Chancellor Merkel has played a leadership role partly because of the absence of other leaders with strong support in their home base who could provide such leadership. Merkel's poll rating in Germany actually shot up during the eurozone crisis from 40% in 2010 to 70% in 2013, and steady at 67% in June 2015, as German taxpayers and voters see Merkel as preventing debt ridden countries in the eurozone passing on higher costs in the debt crisis to Germany. With German wages kept low for the last decade to ensure a economic recovery and lower unemployment, Germans see no reason to support other eurozone countries when a low wage sector exists inside Germany, except under conditions that ensure fiscal balance. In a Harris poll taken in France June 30-July 1, 2015, Chancellor Merkel is rated higher at 43% expressing approval compared to 36% saying they approve of French premier Hollande's handling of the Greece and eurozone crisis. Over 50% of people in Spain and in France disapprove of Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis, yet two thirds of France's main centre right party support Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis. In the Harris poll when asked how Merkel, IMF, Hollande and Tsipras handled the Greece crisis people polled in France gave 43% approval to the IMF and Merkel compared to 36% for Hollande and Tsipras of Greece, and 60% disapprove of Hollande and Tsipras handling of the crisis compared to 53% disapproval for the IMF and Merkel. The Christian Democrats party in Germany has dominant leaders in its tradition starting with Konrad Adenauer in the early postwar years, through the Kohl years during reunification and Merkel in the eurozone crisis. By contrast the Social Democrats from the period under Wily Brandt, through the Schmidt years and Schroeder have operated under more of a consensus leadership. Under Sigmar Gabriel or some other Social Democratic leader Germany is likely to have a different style of leadership in the future, especially because the German public does not favor Germany playing this kind of dominant role. At different points in the eurozone crisis Merkel's leadership was needed for decisionmaking- making banks take a 50% writedown on their loans in negotiation with Charles Dallara in Brussels, calling for Italy's president to bring in a new government (led by Mario Monti) when premier Berlusconi failed to make needed changes, and providing flexibility for spending rules for Spain, Italy and France. Merkel has actually moved to the centre to maintain popular support inside Germany, especially since the new coalition government was formed with Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel. On the other major issue of immigration Merkel has provided decisive leadership to prevent the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Germany. Herfried Munkler, author of "Power in the Middle," about why Germany is playing this role may provide clues to Germany's role- by representing different aspects of German public opinion Merkel has prevented the rise of right wing populist or nationalist parties in Germany, which would distort the German narrative about what it sees as its role in keeping Europe together after three wars. ...