LyrArc Article Gist
How will posterity view Angela Merkel. As she ends a fourth term this BBC News report says it will remain a contested legacy. Much of what went right has already been written. A woman, a pragmatic scientist who hewed to the center not just as a scientist but with a knack for politics. Much of her early period in office was one in which she had to tackle the eurozone crisis. The euro's weakness had its roots in the way Mr Kohl allowed eurozone membership for countries such as Greece without adequate entry requirements. Some of the other problems were also left behind by an overzealous mentor Helmut Kohl who pushed for German reunification that never really happened in terms of bringing all east Germans into the idea of the Federal Republic. These problems in a neglected eastern part of Germany around Dresden were never tackled by Merkel. They were social issues that Merkel's pragmatic thinking failed to grasp. Letting in migrants from Arab and African countries was a move that Merkel made without realizing the full implications. This policy was reversed but led to the emergence of extreme right wing sentiment in parts of the country. It is left to a future German leader to tackle the social and economic disparities that affect Germany today. As time passes people reflect and a more careful view prevails. Dr Rudiger Schmitt-Beck reflects this when he says that the Merkel years were about  a bizarre mix of modernization and backwardness. Merkel rejected nuclear energy after the events at Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. As a scientist she was able to tackle such issues. Yet on the major social issues of the day Prof. Schmitt-Beck of the University of Mannheim, says she left Germany "grotesquely behind"- on child care, climate policy, digitization, infrastructure building, on demographic change. These are the issues that the Social Democrats and the Greens are standing up for today. Ironically Merkel may be remembered more for something that is not even mentioned in this BBC report. This is the European solidarity shown by action to financially support all EU countries including Italy with EU funding during the coronavirus pandemic.  This may be her biggest achievement because it will be lasting. Without it Europe would not be the better place it is today, resilient in the face of the pandemic.  Seen from outside Merkel will be seen as a German leader who failed to see the potential for India and other Asian countries with almost twice the population of China. Fascinated with 13 visits to China she studied Chinese history, politics and economics, says the WSJ. And did too little to balance Germany's close business and trade ties with China, with efforts in India and other countries. Seen from America as pointed out in the WSJ front page on September 23, Merkel made no effort to rebuild US relations with the Biden administration after the tumultuous period under presidents Obama with spying on her phone and with Mr. Trump over the EU's participation in NATO defense. She seemed resigned to a view that America had seen her best years, a belief that today does not exist anywhere in America. US president Biden's first phone call to Merkel was put off for a few days says the WSJ, and Merkel continued to build close ties with China, ignoring the fact that this was a new administration closer to that of presidents FDR and Harry Truman who did so much for Germany. And a president very different than any of Biden's five predecessors. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One negative effect of the trade war with the U.S. is an increased emphasis on energy security and increased use of coal in China. After China committed to goals for climate change coal use declined in 2014, after reaching a high in 2013. The attack on Saudi oil facilities showed risk in its reliance on Saudi oil. China's import dependency for oil reached an all time high of 72% in 2018, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review. Gradually the commitment to climate change and lower use of coal has changed since 2016 with the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Initially after the U.S. withdrawal under president Trump China made bold commitment to lead the fight against climate change but has since wavered. In an October 2019 speech Premier Li Kequiang called for the development of the coal industry to ensure energy security.  As China's economy slowed in 2019 in the face of U.S. tariffs and a trade war with the U.S. efforts are being made to increase infrastructure investment which has driven coal use higher. China's steel output reached a record of 750 million metric tons in 2019. The amount of coal fired capacity under construction in China now exceeds the rest of the world combined, much of it from plants permitted before 2017, according to Global Energy Monitor. China is also expected to become the world's largest importer of natural gas by 2020. Even the Russian gas fields from Siberia supply only a fifth of China's energy demands in 2020.  China has made large strides in renewable energy helping it meet its Paris Agreement targets. Renewable energy is about 10% of China's energy mix, but its use showed growth of 29% in 2018, making up half of the world's growth. China's use of coal in the energy mix has dropped to 58% in 2018 from 72% in 2008, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review, as a result of renewable energy investments. At the Madrid Climate Conference China renewed its commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Now it is a balancing act keeping in mind energy security and economic growth along with the need for clear skies and better air quality. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As in the US with Harris investment in America vs Trump cuts there is a distinct difference between the Tory spending plans that allowed capital spending investment in the economic future of Britain to decline from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP over 5 years to 2030. Rachel Reeves, Britain's finance minister, says the government will adopt a new rule that changes the way it measures debt- public sector net liabilities as a percentage of GDP is the new fiscal rule. What it does is free up 50 billion pounds Britain badly needs to invest in things like climate change action, education, and other needs of the economy that will brighten Britain's prospects in the future.  “If we continued on that path, we would be embracing a path of decline. The real debate now in British politics is whether you are on the side of investment or on the side of decline. I don’t want to see public sector net investment as a share of our economy decline in a way that is currently set out. Under our current fiscal rules, we would not be able to reverse that path.” The stability rule goes with this that says strictly this money will not be used for tax giveaways, and not for public sector pay deals or the day to day functioning of government. In addition th government will borrow 25 billion pounds to  keep 30 billion pounds of headroom so that debt will keep falling over the first term of this Labour government.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Gerson offers his assessment of president Obama's 7 years in office, saying that after this period the public has lost faith in American liberalism, that Obama held it all together through a self-centredness that is now replaced by public rage that has brought out other self-centred politicians in the Republican party, such as Donald Trump. Deutsche Welle summed up its view from Europe of the Obama presidency as a period that was little more than a transitional presidency. Gero Schliess writing in DW.com, says one of the tragedies of this presidency is that the much talked about change would come about only under a successor, in a best case scenario under a Democratic successor. Yet if Gerson is right Americans are losing faith in American liberalism after the Obama years, with the setbacks suffered by the white working class and the middle class in these years, and the political deadlock that has prevented action to help them. Speaker Paul Ryan recently convened a conference on this subject. In October 2014 Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen described the problem at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference on economic opportunity and inequality, questioning whether the trends were "compatible with the values rooted in our nation's history, and the high value Americans tend to place on equality of opportunity."...

LyrArc Article Gist
The reckless behaviour of German elites in pursuing increased dependence on Russian oil and gas and ignoring American warnings is shown in this report in The Guardian. The first links to Russian oil and gas were started under chancellor Brandt in 1970. At that time the dependency on oil and gas supplies was much less than 10%. Dependence increased during the Schroeder and Merkel years to the extremes that exist today. Not much more even in the year of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It was the misconception of chancellor Schmidt of the SPD in his differences of opinion with presidents Carter and Reagan on the risks of increasing dependence on Russian energy that marked this period. Schmidt believed Germany was right in its conviction that increased trade would bring peaceful cooperation without realizing that economic dependency is never a good thing. Poland had a skeptical view- German elites including business elites were being corrupted. Cheap Russian energy was being used in the Schroeder and Merkel years as a competitive business advantage without considering the risks involved and the admonitions of American presidents of the dangers. With Steinmeier of the SPD there was the immense guilt of the millions of war dead from the German invasion of Russia in 1941 that acted as a brake on evaluating the increasing dependency for energy that reached over 35% by the time he was foreign minister. The fall of the Berlin Wall was seen not as a result of multiple factors including the positions taken by Carter and Reagan, the losses to the Russian economy from the war in Afghanistan, and the general decline of the Russian economy. German leaders saw this as coming from the new relationship being built with Russia. German business and Schroeder- Merkel even allowed not just new Nordstream pipelines under the Baltic Sea but also transferred ownership of reserves, the gas and oil storage inside Germany to Russia's Gazprom. German Economy minister Habeck says the storage tanks were emptied so that there would be added surge for oil and gas prices after the attacks on Ukraine. This Guardian report ends by saying that Mr. Steinmeier still needs to show why he pursued policy of cooperation with Russia with increasing dependency to the point that a cut off of Russian oil and gas supplies would lead to gas rationing in Germany in the event of a sudden cutoff. Was it a form of sensible cooperation taking dependency to such extremes. Similar questions remain for chancellor Merkel. With the added question for Merkel about the increase in trading ties with China even after the Trump administration had warned of the serious risks to US and European competitive advantage in technology and manufacturing, and the increased dependence on a supply chain that was fundamentally weak as shown clearly by the pandemic.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Friedman of the NYT points out the three aces held by Donald Trump in the U.S. election campaign of 2016. He could move to the centre in a campaign against Hillary Clinton and voters could give him a pass saying he only meant to start a conversation on immigration with his comment on the wall, that his comments on Muslims read carefully only means he would tighten controls on some countries, that he was acting in the way he said in his book "The Art of the Deal." A terrorist attack could change the atmosphere in the election and benefit Trump. And he could set a barrage of ads against Hillary bringing anti-Hillary Republicans back to his side after the divisions in a Republican convention. On the opposite side of this is Trump's penchant for making wild statements that could lead to a break with his support base, especially women who are shifting away according to some recent polls in mid March. Another vulnerability says Friedman is the rough way in which minorities are treated at Trump rallies, which could backfire with a serious incident resulting in hugely negative media coverage....

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ cautions about thinking that the GDP growth of 3% is likely to be achieved with the Trump plan for a corporate tax rate of 15%. He says evidence from Britain and Canada- Britain reducing the tax rate from 30% in 2007 to 19% today, and Canada from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2004- is disappointing. In Britain the increase in GDP averaged about 0.1% a year. Business investment increases with cut in corporate taxes, and the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than other advanced countries such as Germany, yet GDP growth includes other factors, such as the business cycle, demographics, productivity growth, aging, technology, regulation, says Ip. It is better if the tax cuts are spread broadly over the population, and tax cuts are offset to a greater extent by savings in other areas, and that tax cuts promote productivity boosting investment, to create enough of a surge in growth above 2%.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, wins by 84% to his challenger's 16% of the vote in the Republican primary for his House seat of Janesville, Wisconsin. The challenger Nehlen, an executive at a water filtration company, adopted many of Trump's positions including building a wall and had the support of the group Tea Party Patriots. Trump lost to Ted Cruz in Wisconsin and lost in the 1st congressional district covering Janesville by 19 percentage points. Janesville, is a former industrial working class town that has lost many factory jobs over the years, and this election shows the trade issue is not the only issue on people's minds when they vote. That it is easy for a candidate to use it as wedge even when they do not mean what they say by outsourcing themselves, or have few real solutions- especially as public opinion in both parties is opposed to a shift of jobs overseas for the last decade. Ryan said about his win- "I'm a local guy, people know who I am, they know what I believe in and they know I mean what I say and I say what I mean and I don't do it in a mean way." Some Republican experts say Ryan's job of winning his seat very easily, protecting the congressional majority of Republicans, and dealing with Trump as the nominee, is the hardest job in politics. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Balz of the WP points out the effect of the bruising campaign with Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton's negative perceptions by April 2016- with the references to her fund raising speeches on Wall Street and on other issues. The NBC/WSJ poll in April 2016 shows her with minus 40 negative ratings among men, mimus 72 among white men, among women minus 9 points and minus 25 points among white women. With minorities her net poitive with Latinos has dropped from 21 points positive in the first quarter to 2 points positive, and for African Americans dropped from 64 points positive plus to 51 points positive.

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib points to the damage done by the Sanders campaign on Hillary Clinton's prospects in a general election by increasing her negative perceptions in polls. He says both the front runners Trump and Clinton have gained by winning in their home state New York primary, but there is an arduous road ahead for Trump in gaining enough delegates, and for Clinton in regaining the trust of young Sanders supporters.

LyrArc Article Gist
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ms. Annegret Kramp-Krarrenbauer, elected leader of the CDU party in 2018 with the support of Angela Merkel, will not run for chancellor in next years election and will resign from her position by the end of the year. She will continue as Germany's defense minister. After losses for the CDU in recent elections and the embarrassment of local CDU leaders in Thuringia supporting the far right AfD, AKK as she is known decided to step down. Angela Merkel has decided not to run for chancellor again. Germany is set to chair the EU in the second half of 2020, and Merkel is no longer seen as a leader of influence. The Nationalist Alternative for Germany AfD has gained votes in recent elections following the 2015-2016 migrant crisis, with large numbers of refugees from North Africa and Arab world landing in Greece and Turkey and walking to Hungary, Austria and Germany. Merkel's handling of the crisis with acceptance of a million refugees in 2015-2016 unsettled European and German politics. Why? One way of looking at it is that in the same way that the U.S. took in Chinese imported goods ending in the Trump tariffs war, at some point it just becomes too big to handle. That ended up at $1 billion a day in imports from China when president Trump called it off and accused Obama Democrats, Bush Republicans, of betraying the country. Putting it into perspective Germany with one fourth of the population of the U.S. took in about twice the number of refugees in just one year 2015-2016 that the U.S. took in 10 years 2005-2015. The U.S. took in 675,000 immigrants between 2005-2015. This is as if the U.S. took in something like 20 million immigrants in a short period of 1 year on an equivalent basis- though the cultural impact is even greater in a nation like Germany that is like Japan an historically immigrant averse nation. All this happened too quickly for Germany to handle for its fragile cultural fabric. Much of the initial outpouring of support and positive sentiment came from the sense of having gone through World War II and the refugees in that and the early post war period, the need to return in the same spirit support Germany had received. Over time it eroded support for the Christian Democratic Union and Merkel. That Merkel could have done this is itself a small miracle. Now the rebuilding has to begin. Adenauer's CDU and the socialist SPD party of Willy Brandt now have less than 50% support, only with the Greens Party do they make up 50%. The question now is can the CDU, and the SPD which has fallen to 14% in elections, make it back and what kind of future makeup political parties will have in Germany, how the social fabric can be restored. AKK's achievement is to mend relations between the liberal Merkel wing of the CDU and conservatives from Bavaria (CSU) over immigration.  Candidates for CDU leadership are Armin Laschet, Jens Spahn, and Friedrich Merz. Laschet premier of North Rhine-Westphalia has Merkel's support. Looking back too much attention was taken up by the euro crisis, and too little was done in the areas of infrastructure, inequality gaps, education, child care, under Merkel's leadership and of the preceding SPD years, much like what happened under Bush and Obama administrations in the U.S. where wars, economic crises led to neglect on issues that affect lives of ordinary working families. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ's reporters Meichtry, L, Pokharel, and Soon look at the extraordinary rise of Gautam Adani through his efforts to develop reclaimed land at Mundra port in the state of Gujarat. Adani who started with a small family owned plastics maker in Ahmedabad developed Mundra port around 2001 with the help of the Modi administration. Modi saw the electricity shortages in Gujarat as an opportunity to tackle India's chronic electricity shortages. Adani's early development of a deep water port at Mundra offered both Modi and Adani the opportunity to tackle the electricity shortages by bringing coal in large ships to Mundra in the way that China was already doing by 2005 in its own efforts at industrialization. So deeply immersed was India under the Congress Raj of licenses and closed economy that India's established business failed to see what China was doing to break into the ranks of industrialized nations. India's first prime minister Nehru had build a command economy where not much happened without government licenses and approval often riddled unwittingly with corruption. Modi needed someone outside the established companies operating under the Congress Raj command economy and with a vision of an India with abundant electricity to take the risks Chinese companies were taking to build an entirely new economy. By 2005 Guangzhou was importing coal with large ships from Indonesia and Australia. State owned companies moved slowly and would take years to develop the port capacity. Using China's example Modi pushed ahead with Adani on a rapid time delivery making Mundra a Special economic Zone and helping to connect Indian Railways to the port of Mundra for coal deliveries. Adani Enterprises built the thermal power plants near Mundra and build electricity transmission lines on a rapid mission mode giving Gujarat abundant electricity supplies and giving Gujarat state in northwestern India a great leap forward in the way China was already doing right in front of everyone's eyes by 2005 with world class ports built at Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenzen, Hong Kong and logistics connections set with the help of Maersk.  Maersk is now doing the same for modern logistics in India in collaboration with the Modi administration.  Modi and the younger generation of aspirational youth in India see a New India that can break into the ranks of the largest industrialized nations with world class infrastructure in the way China has done, and use new technologies with innovation that will speed up the process in a way that the world has never seen. A quick look at Mundra Port in Wikipedia shows the timeline, It starts in 1998 when Adani Port Ltd was setup and Mundra port work began, 2002 the port integrated with Indian Railways, 2003 when it was made a Special Economic Zone by the Modi government in Gujarat, 2007 when IPO of 40 million shares at price band of around Rs 400 was done.  The Biden administration and the Trump administration support India's efforts to build a new modern economy with a rapid shift to renewable energy. As India is building the ports and logistics with the help of Maersk and other companies in the European Union, president Biden is working with prime minister Modi to build a new supply chain that removes the overconcentration of manufacturing and supply chain logistics in China. This means new ports with the latest technologies in India to handle shipment to the US and the EU. Jake Sullivan set out the goals for president Biden to accomplish this task in meetings with his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval this week on iCERT. President Biden and Republicans, Germany and the EU, see India as a critical part of the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies, and the new supply chain. For the Adani Group the IPO pause offers an opportunity to do what Nirmala Sitharman has done in the Indian Budget this week- build a stable growth path ahead for the long term in line with India's Amrit Kal the next 25 years to centenary of freedom in 2047. Nirmala Sitharaman set a goal of rapid capital spending and investment increasing capital spending in 2023 by 33% in 2023 over 2022, yet maintaining a stable fiscal path by keeping the deficit below 6%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSj points out that Britain is in a weaker position to tackle Brexit than it was when Boris Johnson called for supporting the Yes vote to Leave the EU three years ago in the referendum. Business investment is lower than France, Germany and even Italy. And today protectionism, nationalism, hostility to globalization mean that its not so easy to increase exports by signing free trade agreements with other nations. Even a treaty with a friendly Trump administration  is not certain as Mr. Trump favors looking at how he can get the best deal and reverse any advantages of other trading nations, Britain being no exception. A trade agreement with the U.S. could mean the U.S. barring Britain from signing one with China as a condition of Mr. Trump. Greg Ip also points out that it was precisely joining the EU that helped Britain catch up with German and French standards of living after a period of low growth, inflation, and balance of payments crises in the 1970's. Joining the European Economic Community was as prime minister Heath stated would " enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Biden addressed the Nation from the Rose garden today November 7, 2024. His remarks were conciliatory. "You can't love your neighbor only when you agree."  "Something I hope we can do, no matter who you voted for, is see each other not as adversaries, but as fellow Americans. Bring down the temperature." It is a remarkable end to a remarkable presidency which history will judge as perhaps a single term in which more was done than in any other 4 year term of a presidency, except for FDR in 1932 and Lincoln in 1861, tackling a once in a century pandemic, and rebuilding the economy, manufacturing, and infrastructure. And even correcting missteps on immigration by getting the legislation to fix it. It is a tall order for anyone who succeeds Biden though in the current post election situation there will be the typical euphoria on one side and losing on the other.  During the Republican sweep by Herbert Hoover in 1928 Franklin Roosevelt was elected governor of New York and he used the intervening years to 1932 to prepare for the monumental task ahead by testing his plan for economic recovery using New York and a couple of states from Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, setting up the first unemployment insurance, shorter week, annual employment and other ideas to stabilize employment for one third of the US economy. Biden says he has asked his administration to work with Trump's team for the peaceful transition to a newly elected president. None of the fears about the transition came true with the new president getting a clear mandate to tackle the cost of living crisis for Americans. ...