LyrArc Article Gist
Nirmala Sitharaman Indian Finance minister talks about food exports by India of about 15 million tons of wheat and other foodgrains to countries that are suffering severe food shortages from the effects of the war in Ukraine. She also describes India's unique geography and the Himalayan border with Pakistan and China that stretches for 1500 miles, at at heights that go up to 15,000 feet, and the lack of clear support from the US and Britain, the European Union, in providing the technology and capabilities to defend that border that has led to India's relationship with Russia as an arms supplier. This is about to change with the new position taken by the US and Britain for defense collaboration not just for Indo-Pacific but with India for protecting the Himalayan land border.

LyrArc Article Gist
India's plans to use its increasing production of wheat to fill the gap created by Ukraine and Russia not being able to meet the need of countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Arab countries, Africa and the Middle East. Stabilizing the price of wheat will be a great help for meeting the needs of people in these countries who are severely affected first by Covid and now by the increasing prices of essential supplies of wheat for their growing populations. Prudent agricultural policies and carefully meeting the needs of farmers should enable India to do this.

In this sense India could do what it has done with its vaccine supplies to countries in Africa and Asia- help meet essential needs during a health crisis and economic crisis for Asia and Africa.

LyrArc Article Gist
A anti-corruption campaign in Saudi Arabia that led to settlements reaching $106 billion and a series of prosecutions in 2017, as reported in the WSJ. The government says this was done to ensure transparency, and a better business environment.  The effort was unusual compared to anti-corruption efforts in other countries such as China because it was conducted with the use of the Ritz Carlton and the settlements made with the most affluent Saudis, as covered in the WSJ. It happened as the Saudi government needed to raise funds including through sale in IPO of state assets such as the Saudi oil company Aramco. The Aramco IPO did not take place. Saudis lost oil revenue with the collapse of negotiations to set oil prices, and the lack of cooperation from Russia. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Healthcare, climate change, pensions and social benefits, are three issues uppermost in the minds of German voters. Three million new young voters most of them only about 2 years old when Merkel started 16 years in office, look for change. They are well informed and for these young voters climate change is the most important issue. DW.com shows three voters and how they plan to vote. One voter has cast a mail in ballot for The Greens party. The second voter will vote for the Greens. Both because of climate change concerns. The third voter Thurid says her mother is a geriatric nurse and is not vaccinated. She is vaccinated but had talks with her mother and understands her worries about vaccination. She will vote for the Free Democrats because they oppose compulsory vaccination. The three leading parties for young voters are the Greens party, the Free Democrats, followed by the Social Democrats all in the range of 16-18% of support. The Greens have sent out 2 million brochures to voters. Out of 60 million voters in a German population of 80  million, 3 million is only 5% of the vote. What makes a difference is that it is consistent with the general direction of voters young and old, all looking for change in Germany as the CDU party attracts only about 20% or one fifth of German voters. Social Democrats Scholz is way ahead of Christian Democrats Laschet in how voters view each candidate. Will German voters be well informed enough to make a decision based on their desire for change after 16 years of Merkel or will the CDU bringing back in the last days of the campaign the old fears that the communist Left party would somehow find its way into the government using the Greens as a way in- this is a question for German voters. In1994 during the Cold War with Soviets Kohl used this to keep the Social Democrats out and Greens out and formed a coalition with the FDP. Yet today Merkel has grown close to both Russia and China and away from the Western alliance in a way that was unimaginable under Adenauer who helped build the new Federal Republic of Germany after the war. Merkel refuses to even immediately accept a call from a new US president Biden, American president who is closest in style and temperament to Harry Truman who faced off the Soviets in Berlin in 1948.  The FDP opposes a wealth tax or any form of taxes in which the wealthier pay a fair share of what is needed to build crumbling infrastructure in Germany neglected in the Merkel years. In Germany social and economic disparities have grown during the pandemic with poverty increasing during the pandemic as has happened throughout Europe and the world. The US is already committing to increase taxes for the upper incomes. This is where voters have a choice- do nothing with infrastructure, health or climate change or do something by increasing taxes. The choice is now before the German people.  With this question comes a choice for western civilization, with the recent election in the US, and two elections in Germany and then France. Will it look with optimism to the future or will it huddle up in a deeply cautious and slightly pessimistic view of the world that is embedded in Angela Merkel's cautious vision that ended up only responding to crises- some self inflicted as in migration policy, and even self inflicted in tackling euro problems created in the euro currency's faulty design. In fiscal policy as in migration policy Merkel has reversed her position- by supporting European solidarity. Will Germans vote for optimism or never ending caution? Are lessons learned?     ...

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
About 400 million or one in 4 people people smoke in China. State ownership of the tobacco industry only makes this worse. Enforcement of bans on smoking is lax. Experts warn that this would become a major healthcare problem in China.

LyrArc Article Gist
Six cities have rejected the Olympics, with Calgary in Canada being the last one. The problem with hosting the Olympics is how much it costs. Cost overruns are common. 20141 Sochi WInter Olympics estimated budget was $10 billion, in the end it cost $51 billion. 

Brazil is the latest example of the problem. With huge needs in sanitation, epidemic prevention, infrastructure and public services, the country did badly by spending money on new soccer stadiums in the northeast which were not used after the World Cup soccer championship, and in the summer Olympics. 

Learning from these lessons voters in Calgary, Canada, rejected hosting  the Winter Olympics. Voters or local councils in Innsbruck, Austria, Rome, Italy, Bern, Switzerland, Hamburg, Germany, Oslo and Stockholm have rejected the idea of hosting the Olympics. Other problems are the environmental impact with deforestation to create Olympic sites.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
As David Ignatius points out in his trip to China, the China of post 2010 is a lot of things depending on who you talk to in China- cocky, scared, anxious. He comes away perplexed by the range of questions that come up in his mind. The wealth of the coastal cities is stunning, and at the same time as the leaders insist China is still a poor country with deep regional imbalances, and what is less mentioned, the rising inequality in society. How to pull it all together to make possible a transition to development that is evened out across all regions and sections of society and to allow freedom of expression, is a challenge for the new leadership of Xi Jinping in 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Geeta Anand and Jaeyeon Woo of the WSJ give this heartwarming story of how South Korea achieved a remarkable transformation in attitudes towards women in society after 1990, and reversed a dangerous imbalance in the ratio of females to males. This was done by the release of extraordinary energy of woman activists after the end of dictatorship in 1990 made this possible, and the efforts of media, courts, government and society. Women won the right to be heirs in the family lineage, and perceptions of women as well as the opportunities open to women changed in this period. Today the Korean government provides $177 a month for the first 5 years for child care at home. The story of one mother and daughter and their experiences, of Ms. Lim and Ms. Ko, both teaching at the university and having daughters only, shows how South Korea has changed by 2016. Moving further South Korea's government now offers incentives to companies to make paternity leave policies generous, with municipal governments adding cooking classes and housekeeping courses for fathers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The crisis of late 2008 and early 2009 in the global economy saw huge stimulus programs, resposible economic management, and rapid recovery by the end of 2009 in developing countries. China put in place a large stimulus program, and in most developing countries, India, Vietnam, Brazil and other countries efforts were made to strengthen the safety net for the poor and to introduce stimulus for creating jobs. India and Indonesis saw the return of ruling party governments and in Brazil Lula da Silva had favorability ratings above 60%. So contrary to earlier fears in late 2008 their was both asense of political stability and asense of confidence in the developing countries. Capital is flowing into these countries and the IIF says that net private capital inflows to developing countries will double in 2010 to $672 billion. Russia which saw capital outflows of $50 billion in the first 9 months saw $20 billon of capital inflows in the fourth quarter of 2009. Half of the 140 million laborers working in Chinese cities returned home in early 2009, a fifth stayed there and another fifth counld not find work when they returned to the cities. But as the stimulus in China kicked in, and infrastructure development surged, (see link to the rail infrastructure spending) by the middle of 2009 jobless ness among rural migrant workers went down to less than 3%. This shows in the Pew Global Attitudes Project wth more than 40% of respondents in India, China and Indonesia saying that they were satisfied with their lives, in China this was 87%. In France, Japan and Britain the share is below 30%. In America 49% of those in the Pew pollingfelt that America should mind its own business internationally, 30 points higher than in 1964. When asked "Are you better off in free markets?" the respondents share fell in 2009 in Germany by 4 points, in Spain by 10 points. Shares rose in India and China, and stayed flat in Brazil and Turkey, so there is no backlash against free markets in developing countries....

LyrArc Article Gist
A professor at Georgetown University on why it takes time to build democratic institutions, with one important omission- the military in Muslim countries such as Egypt have no intention of building these institutions and have undermined the development of these institutions for decades. A bigger omission lies in inability of the military in the most populous Muslim countries with horrendous gaps in development in basic welfare indices such as education, infrastructure and services, that have put these countries decades behind developing Asia and even Latin America which also had a past of military rule. In countries such as Pakistan and Egypt the military simply lacked the skillset and abilities to deliver in economic terms. Therein lies the biggest failure. In China and Russia the governments have popular support because of their capability to deliver economic growth that has transformed both countries and improved the lives of the people in the region. These crucial omissions explain why Republicans such as Senator John McCain and Lindsey see the need for the U.S. to be on the right side for change. Latin America shook off its history of military rule or one party rule and Brazil, Chile, Mexico are part of two free trade regions in Latin America, supporting the free trade system and economic growth in this hemisphere. The issue ultimately rests with the people of Pakistan, Egypt, and other Muslim countries, and a process of learning, compromise, healing and reconciliation that ocurred in Latin America is likely to follow in the Muslim world. It has already begun in Pakistan which like India has a independent judiciary and lively press, and some of the institutions for a functioning demcoracy. The worst omission is unmentionable because it is so obvious - that of firing live ammunition into protesters for democracy. Years after this happened in S. Korea, Mexico and other countries the day is remembered in a certain way. The important point is that when it comes to this there is no exception to the pattern. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Remember the pictures of all the bicyclists in cities in China, now there are cars instead, and that we assumed was progress. But crammed as we are into small urban areas, and with so many people in the planet and so many with aspirations for a better life in China, India, Brazil and Russia and other countries, this does not point to a sustainable future. We need bicycles back and a new kind of automobile that is sustainable on the streetsof urban areas. So here we are in New York City and commercial buildings like the Rockefeller Center operated by Tishman Meyer following old rules prohibiting bicycles, looking down on bicyles, and seeing bicycles as affecting safety in the building. So cyclists are on their own. The city has about 5000 bicycle racks, and will add 1200 by 2009, and expects to add 37 bike shelters each for 8-9 bikes by the end of the year at transit hubs. The number of bike racks are inadequate as nearly 131,000 people ride bicycles daily in New York City according to Transportation Alternatives. The city has plans to add 200 miles of new bicycle lanes but mparking is a huge problem. Parking on the street is also risky because of bike thieves in New York City. So new solutions have to be found and it would be nice if building had an area on the ground floor with a separate access for cyclists or a way to go to underground parking through a separate acess and directly park and take elevators just as one does for underground car parking. This would be really commuter friendly but till then its the shop owner who lets youpark there or a friend who has a business and an area where he lets you park your bike and so on, everybody having to be creative. But make no mistake bicycles matter for clean air, the environment, for congestion, for people, for healthy living, and to create a good living environment in urban areas....

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman on the $43 billion infrastructure he saw in China and the crumbling infrastructure in New York City and driving from dilapidated La Guardia airport in New York city into the city vs the new Shanghai airport and the magnetic levitation trains into Shanghai. He says don't forget that they are mere snapshots. And he is very aware that you go 100 milews outside Beijing and you find a poor developing country. So which is the real China, no easy answers. Give credit to their dedication and all the hard work and the motivation and planning to Chinabut still ask the questions about what we should do here in America and what countries like India have to ask what they should do and go about doing it. China will have its own questions and problems to think about too as it has to figure out what their best allocation of capital will be, what their policies should be from the birth rate and demographic changes, to the environment, and to ways to bring the rest of the country and farmers into the picture and see that the gains from now on reflect the imbalances in growth. The country building the latest infrastructure will always have the latest infrastructure and that will be the next country around the corner with the capital and energy to do it, the USA or India or Russia or some other country. The real progress is in the quality of life, of health and the resources for living productive healthy lives for most of the inhabitants of any country or region and that goes beyond politics or nationalism or rivalries or vested interests of groups of people, as it depends on learning from the best that every productive mind anywhere in the world or any productive place anywhere in the world has to offer. And the thing about this is its never a goal only because in a true sense the road well travelled is the destination for this kind of progress. ...