LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Seib points out why the current political landscape with the popularity of Trump and Sanders reflects demographic, economc and social changes in America compared to when Geroge H.W. Bush won the election in 1988 and Bill Clinton won in 1992. The Republican party is more populist, with older Americans, more Southern and conservative, making it harder for Jeb Bush or Wall Street backed candidates. The Democratic Party more liberal, more popular on both the east and west coast of the U.S., with younger Americans, diverse demographic groups, making it harder for Hillary Clinton as an establishment candidate. A Journal/NBC poll of Oct. 2015 shows 28% of Republicans describing their views as very conservative, and 26% of Democrats saying they are very liberal. Yet there is another aspect that will show up once the primaries are over. And this is the steady group of somewhat conservative and moderate combined in the Republican Party of 64%, and the steady group of somewhat liberal and moderate in the Democratic Party of 62% in the 2015 Journal/NBC poll. The moderates are up from 26% in the above 1990 poll to 31% in the 2015 poll for the Republican Party, and from 26% to 33% in the Democratic Party. So that one sees about a quarter of people polled in each party pushing for fringe views and a countervailing trend for moderate or close to moderate views with about two thirds support in the 2015 Journal/NBC poll for each party....

LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Lighthizer in the Report on China's Entry into WTO sees this as a mistake in the policy of president Clinton. Clinton has said that was a mistake. David Sacks raised this issue in a podcast with Larry Summers, an economist who was deputy to Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary, then Treasury Secretary succeeding Rubin in 1999. Clinton on the advice of Rubin and Summers set up the framework for China to join the World Trade Organization without the safeguards and the setup that would prevent it using state capitalism and subisidies to build its own economy with exports, to ally with American corporations to support the outshoring of almost the entire industrial base of the US. Shocking as it sounds this has happened, had happened by 2016, when Donald Trump with the advice of USTR Lighthizer took the first steps to reverse this with Tariff policy, which was supported by president Biden, and continues in its new phase under DJT in 2025. Rubin and Summers had supported deregulation of financial markets and removal of the Glass Steagall Act by 1999. This was to led to the financial crisis of 2009 that was to be one of three body blows to the American working and middle class. The others China entering WTO without safeguards that led to deindustrializing US and loss of its manufacturing base, loss of 5 million jobs, tens of thousands of factories. And the third was the pandemic. “ . . .it seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime” 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The $787 million settlement is for defamation damages for Dominion Voting Systems and its owner State Street Capital. On the fundamental issue of free and fair elections and freely elected governments, the settlement does not ask for an explicit statement by Fox News of misconduct. To understand what happened one has to look at the origins of the FNN in the Melbourne Herald of 1920-1950 under Keith Murdoch and the political controversy pursued to increase readership in that period. NYT says it has an implicit plea of "no contest" to several pre trial findings by the presiding judge Eric Davis- "The evidence does not support that Fox News Network television carried good faith disinterested reporting." NYT explains this as the judge saying that spreading a conspiracy theory does not fall under legally protected "news gathering." The presiding judge also decided that - "Evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that it is CRYSTAL clear none of the statements related to Dominion (by Fox News) are true." As the case is not going to trial readers may ask what happened not just in this case but in Fox News and Trump over the last decade that caused risks to the framework of democracy, of elections and transfer of power setup by the founding fathers. Fox News Network has its origins in the Melbourne Herald of the 1920-1950 period when Keith Murdoch setup the business in Australia that was expanded a generation later by Rupert Murdoch. Keith Murdoch was heavily influenced in his newspaper career by Lord Northcliffe, and by Lord Beaverbrook, a Canadian from New Brunswick, who both created a form of journalism that used political controversy to increase readership between the two world wars and in the period after that to 1957. The readership of these papers ran to 3-4 million which in that period in Britain or Australia was huge. Beaverbook took controversial positions that were built on his idea that the bloc Britain should represent was Canada, Australia and Britain with the British Empire, to have little to do with Europe or even the US. For this reason he did not support Britain's entry into the Second World War, or Britain joining in the Cold War against the Soviets till the Berlin Blockade. British prime minister Macmillan held back announcing Britain joining the European Economic Community (predecessor to the EU), because of the power of the Beaverbrook newspapers who were not interested in Europe. And British prime minister Clement Attlee faced the bitter opposition of Churchill and Beaverbrook/Northcliffe papers in sending Mountbatten to negotiate a transfer of power to India in 1947. The win of Labour's Clement Attlee in the 1951 election was opposed by Beaverbrook using the most sensational language. One can see the origins of what happened in the Trump period in the newspaper origins from the 1900-1957 period of Australian and British television networks. Of Keith Murdoch, National Biography of the Australian National University says- he supported the conservative stances of his time, was a remarkable entrepreneur and organizer of industry. Yet it also says his judgement was faulty. That he had "no real social philosophy"and lacked the originality to make useful contributions to public policy. Of Rupert Murdoch it can be said that he was also a remarkable entrepreneur and organizer of industry who built the newspaper business in Australia from one Adelaide paper left to him by Keith Murdoch. Yet his judgement proved faulty and there was no real concept of public policy or "real social philosophy." There is also the fact that like Beaverbrook from New Brunswick, Murdoch from western Australia was raised in the period of the British Empire and Commonwealth, had no real experience or grasp of the idea that is America set by the founding fathers and renewed by Lincoln, then FDR. An awareness of the origins of Murdoch's FNN is useful because it helps the American public close this chapter in the way democracies functioned in the past, and write better chapters for the future before us, keeping alive the idea that is America.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Based on this Washington Post sample of reader views on the presidential Debate, 4 of 5 readers in the sample are critical of the way the Post, NYT, WSJ are acting against the elected and popular transformative president of the US. What do Washington Post readers think of the way media magnates running Post, NYT, WSJ are trying to run the country in the face of a elected president who remains popular for the action he has taken on cost of living, climate change, manufacturing jobs, factories and supply chains, and is investing trillions of dollar in renewing America's manufacturing, Chips and science, and Infrastructure? Their campaigns are there for all to see against the president, even as the British election shows Keir Starmer of Labour saying "from 20 points behind to 20 points ahead," achieving a landslide even with only 2% increase in votes since 2019. Starmer too was written off just twelve months ago. The first letter is from Little Rock stating the Post, NYT, WSJ position. The second is from Linda Barnes of Ashland, New Hampshire, who faults the Post for not having the headline about "Disastrous debate performance by Trump who failed to answer most questions and lied relentlessly." Lauri Costello of Las Cruces, New Mexico, says every American would have benefitted from an in depth analysis of the debate rather than a focus on how each debater looked and spoke. Diana Hasuly of Ashburn, Virginia, says the debate was an opportunity to see two men's perspectives about the future of America, and the Post had done a great disservice to America, as have the NYT, WSJ and the Media in general, by not spelling what each man was offering America for the future. To take just three Climate change, manufacturing investment and jobs, infrastructure spending, Biden is getting so much done and has the plan for 2030, the former president has none, simply none and did not talk about this. Mark Parkhurst of Silver Spring, Maryland, says of the June 28 front page in the Post that the Post uses "falshoods" not "lies" when a lie needs to be called a lie from the former president. And says to be fair the Media needs to point out the actual achievements of president Biden not dwell on MAGA rhetoric. Is the Post or the Media in general overreaching, is it listening? What would Washington, Lincoln or FDR say?   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one. But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.  "I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under Mette Frederiksen immigration which reached 21,000 in 2015 was down to a little over 1000 a year. She is a strong fighter for workers and families and labor rights and yet tough on illegal immigration. She has been proven right about this as Britain and the US under Biden are seeing illegal immigration as a threat to workers and labour, are seeing the risks of distraction from illegal immigration doing a serious disservice to workers and families by making it hard to fight for workers and families on wages, cost of living and other issues.  Even with a strong record of fighting for workers and families, Frederiksen was one of the first European leaders to see the dangers of illegal immigration to society. It gave parts of the political spectrum that had no interest all along in workers and families doing well, an issue to run on that would come to cause grave harm to workers and families. This turned out to be the error of Angela Merkel a CDU leader brought up in Communist East Germany, who had no idea of the risks of her approach for open immigration. As Merkel let this chapter unfold it created fissures in Europe, with Tories and Nigel Farage taking Britain out of the EU and laying waste to its economy for 5 years till Labour's Starmer adopted a tough immigration policy and became prime minister in 2024. That danger then spread to the US in 2016 which also suffered as Republicans and Trump did the same in the US around rhetoric but without serious action on immigration till the Lankford- Biden legislation.  That bill would have closed the border with Mexico and ended immigration as an issue forever if passed into law in December 2023, as Senator Lankford says would have happened. Ending immigration as an issue forever alongside foreign wars as an issue, so that a concentrated effort could be made on improving badly damaged lives of workers and families. And on rebuilding badly damaged manufacturing in the US, rebuilding collapsing infrastructure, and competing with better education and healthcare with the large Asian countries China, Japan/ South Korea, India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Vernon Jordan points out the problems with media and new tech and the loss of quality journalism. He says this has damaged the political process in the U.S. and Europe by spreading rumor as facts, and not providing reliable information, with news and entertainment not being separated. The failure to educate people he says, risks in Jefferson's words the "perversion of power into tyranny."

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Navarro's thinking is genuinely felt and genuinely thought out after 20 years  at Harvard, UC Irvine and other universities, as an economist who abhors sitting in the office with textbook theory that has no relevance to life of working families in the heartland of America. He says of these textbook theory economists and the American companies that have recklessly shifted America's industrial base to China year after year and decade after decade- “The same damn fools who supported NAFTA, China’s entry into the W.T.O., and every other trade deal that was supposed to benefit America but only benefited Wall Street and the foreign nations screwing us. Those mainstream economists need to get out more often — maybe to Ohio or North Carolina or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Michigan.”  He says the 70 nations including the big ones Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Britain and the European Union are already neogtiating with the Trump administration. What more proof does one want. The Nation will get a better deal as it is about fairness in world trade, and an even playing field. Navarro calls it "a beautiful thing." The three dimensional unique approach taken by Navarro, Bessent and Lutnick and by Trump is working, says Navarro. Fifteen decades ago A. Lincoln stated- "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion.As our case is new we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Much of what is written here about Xi Jinping pursuing Chinese socialist vision was known since he became president in 2013 when China's Communist party was losing its appeal, and efforts were made to seize power within the communist party by a leader in the western province of Chongqing. Bo Xi Lai attempted to take advantage of the situation with appeals to the working class and without any genuine commitment beyond a power grab. It was well known that Xi Jinping is a son of one of the veterans of the Communist party under Mao, Xi Zhongxun, unlike leaders who followed premier Deng Xiaoping such as Jiang Zemin. Zemin was a relatively unknown figure who was in university during the crucial period of 1947-49 when Mao came to power in mainland China. It would not be correct to say that little was known about Xi's own ideas about socialism as the long term answer to China's problems. Xi also came in as president at a time when the Communist party was losing its appeal to working class people after three administrations that followed premier Den Xiaoping. These three administrations followed a form of state capitalism that allowed companies to pollute the environment, compete without any regulations, and allowed to operate without any controls as long as they pursued growth aggressively and expanded the economy.There was an effort by Communist party regional leader in western Chinese province of Chongqing, Bo Xi Lai, to use this as an opportunity to grab power in China. During his first year as president Xi had to resolve this issue by having a court trial after revelations of corruption and misuse of power by Bo Xi Lai.  Xi's father Zhongxun's role in the revolutionary movement offers clues to Xi's own convictions and faith in the party. Zhongxun was a communist soldier who set up the revolutionary base areas in Shanxi-Gansu northwest border region of China that provided a refuge for Mao's army following the Long March. Other clues come from Zhongxun's role as head of propaganda during the period after 1944 and in 1952. Xi's family background particularly on his mother's side shows a fervent commitment to Chinese socialist vision during the chaotic years when the Japanese invaded China and Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalist forces failed to defend China's sovereignty. One reason Xi has been less understood is that little attention is paid to Xi's mother, Qi Xin who was highly educated and fervently believed in Chinese socialism and nationalist spirit during the Japanese invasion in 1938. In fact Qi Xin had to leave middle school after the Japanese took over Beijing. She joined the Counter Japanese Political and Military University to continue education and in 1941 attended the Central Party school. She met Xi's father Zhongxun in 1944. In 1953 she enrolled in the Marx School of Communism, and it was her position at the school that offered her husband added protection during the Cultural Revolution that affected Deng Xiaoping and others. With such a history in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's it is likely that Xi was profoundly influenced by his father's role in the revolutionary movement, and his mother's faith in socialism with national spirit as the way to protect against the foreign invasions. It would now appear that by the time Xi joined the Politburo in 2003 there was no question about the future course China would take given the role of his parents, and the events of 1938 the fall of Beijing, his mother having to flee, and the events that followed. Xi showed resilience during the period of the Great Proletarian Revolution when he was sent to the villages at a time when he would be studying in school and college. He was sent to an agricultural commune in largely rural Shanxi province where he worked as a manual laborer alongside other people and developed a relationship with the local farmers. Unlike other leaders during that period which could even be said about premier Deng Xiaoping in 1989, Xi took a different lesson from this experience largely because his father and mother were committed to the socialist vision for the long run. His father was still not fully rehabilitated by premier Chou en-lai when Xi was allowed to enter Beijing's Tsinghua University in 1975. He studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua graduating in 1979. Upon graduation he worked as a assistant for 3 years to a vice premier who was minister of defense. He then left Beijing for Hebei province to work as a deputy secretary of the provincial CCP. He was made Mayor of Xiamen, then governor of Fujian province in 1999 where he tackled environmental conservation before moving to Zheziang province. His father passed away in 2002 and it would appear that he was carefully trained in different provinces instead of staying in Beijing, for a position of national leadership. Xi got his break in 2007 when the upper leadership of Shanghai city was tainted in a wide ranging pension fund scheme. He was made party secretary for Shanghai. This was the position Jiang Zemin had held before he succeeded premier Deng Xiaoping. In only a few months in October 2007 Xi was made one of the 8 Politburo members, ready to succeed Hu Jintao as president. Xi's perception of being sent to the villages and making it to university education was that it was part of the long run socialist struggle, with pain that his father had also endured as simply a phase in which things would be right in the end. Xi's mother comes across as a resilient figure and one who had herself gone through the struggles of the 1930's and aided her husband on one occasion. Some of this resilience could have been passed on to the son. Xi's wife is a zealous participant in Chinese dance and music performances that created enthusiasm for the Chinese socialist revolution from the 1930's period. In his conversations  with colleagues in the party, in culture and temperament, Xi has been forthright about this background and his style of work.  Xi is unlike premier Deng and the presidents who succeeded him such as Hu Jintao mentored by a former mayor of Shanghai Jiang Zemin who came to power in 1989. Xi is more in line with the leaders around Mao like his father in his outlook and thinking, with a cautious temperament that comes from years going through ups and downs of political struggles. He is once said to have responded with dismay about being in a top position in the government knowing how precarious this had been for his father. The education at Tsinghua, his engineering background, and his easy familiarity with farmers in the provinces, mean that he understands China and its history well enough to have the confidence to shape Chinese policies in a way that none of his predecessors had except Mao, premier Chou-en-lai, Liu Shao Chi and a few veterans from that time in the 1930's. That Xi waited patiently for so long to gradually assert his ideas about socialist vision for China may be the surprising part of his behaviour till 2021.  It may be that he wanted to make the changes only after he could persuade party leaders and colleagues of his vision and long run goals. And because the Chinese economy had grown so large that it would take time to steer the ship in a different direction for the long term. In most of the negotiations with president Trump he cautiously let trade negotiators handle the situation, all the time learning about how to tackle problems of China's relationship with US and Europe. US president Biden also has a vision that is veering towards a socialist perspective in terms of bringing gains of progress to workers and families. So does Mr. Trump, Mr. Boris Johnson in UK, and Social Democrat's Scholz in Germany. It is both economic and political as Mr. Xi is quoted as saying in this WSJ report. The necessities of such action are both economic, social and politically driven as capitalism has veered way off course.  In this report it is mentioned that Soho China 40% stake was taken by a large capital markets firm in New York in the hope of large gains, as Soho China developer was a tycoon who wanted to leave China. Seeing it as not favorable to his company following events in Hong Kong. This behaviour of capital markets groups in New York and tech companies in Silicon Valley, driven by profits and not aware of the social and economic problems of working class American families is a problem in the US and in Europe. It is also what has driven so many large tech companies to expand manufacturing operations in China, that hurt US manufacturing capabilities and American workers jobs- an issue raised by president Trump and taken up by president Biden. Biden has already moved to make Intel Corporation change its plans and invest in American manufacturing technologies in a quietly implemented U turn. US president Biden is left with the unenviable job of solving this huge problem during the pandemic. He has also committed to a somewhat socialistic vision with a $3.5 trillion plan for workers and families, as has vice chancellor Scholz in Germany with his own version of programs, after the failures of unregulated forms of capitalism. Scholz goes so far as to say his mission is to show that there is really no such thing as a self-made man, that it is help from society, his fellow citizens, and government, that makes it possible for him to do his work. In a sense the world is shifting away from Reagan forms of capitalism without regulation after seeing disastrous results during the pandemic. Not just China. Some form of government guidance and regulations are now seen as essential in China, the US, UK, Germany and India for a better society and a better, healthier life, and for opportunity for all in each country.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Donald Trump's remarks at a Wilmington rally that caused a storm- "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." The second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to bear arms. Some newspapers saw it as threat, especially considering the heated rhetoric in Trump's other remarks in his campaigning. Speaker Paul Ryan called it a joke gone bad, and that the Second Amendment should not be talked about in this way.

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
There are differences between the governors of 10 worst hit states and the president of the U.S. on when to reopen the economy. The seven on the East Coast including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and three on the West Coast including California and Washington, all but one have Democrat governors and want to wait beyond May 1, till it is believed to be safe to reopen.190,000 of the 592,000 infected cases and over 10,000 of 25,000 cases of deaths are from New York alone. This is as though a third of the problem is in one state. The feeling in New York is that it should be the last to reopen, other states can go first in the middle of the country. The position in the U.S. Constitution is for states to maintain public order and safety. This was the basis of the president's position to work with the governors and continues to be the case, though there is pressure from economic advisers to the president to reopen earlier balanced by the opinion of health experts around the president.  Some states are taking action to reopen because the virus has not severely affected these states. President Trump says it is for governors to decide what is best for each state in consultation with the federal government. The U.S. government would step in if a state is taking risky action with the coronavirus. On the issue of whether the president could have acted quickly in February following his decision to stop flights from China and set up quarantines in January, the BBC has this to say. Dr. Fauci, the president's respected health expert was one of many public officials who did not see the magnitude of the crisis evolving with lack of good information from China. BBC North America Editor Jon Sopel cites Dr. Fauci's comments on February 13- that the coronavirus danger is "just miniscule" compared with the "real and present danger" of flu. As it happened the president acted alone in his sense of the danger from the outbreak in China through incoming flights and not relying on others. Here is what the situation of each country on reopening is- India -  has extended the lockdown to May 3. France - has extended the lockdown till May 11. U.S. - has extended the lockdown to May 1. States are taking the responsibility. UK - continues lockdown restrictions till May. The French president Macron had a simple answer to the question " when will we be able to get back to a normal, prior life?" Macron said "Quite frankly, humbly, I have no definitive answer to that." Some nurseries and schools will reopen May 11. Not restaurants, hotels, museums and theaters. By May 11 France will be able to test and quarantine anyone with symptoms and general public masks will be available to all. This is what Dr. Fauci in the U.S. also wants to see before being able to reopen, that testing and tracing, isolating, procedures be efficient and reliable. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Was president Biden right to get the Fed, the FDIC and Treasury to cover the uninsured deposits in Silicon Valley Bank. Is it a good use of taxpayer money? $25 billion was provided by the Treasury to the Fed to stabilize other medium sized banks. The answer from the administration is that it was necessary to protect working families from any effects on the overall economy of the ripple effect on medium sized banks that were left unregulated by former president Trump's 2018 roll back of regulation on banks with less than 250 billion in assets.The Office of the Budget has shown that the government recovered all except $31 billion from the much larger bailout of 2008. Paul Krugman in NYT says the assets of SVB are invested in long term US Treasury securities which have value and should cover most of the cost of insuring depositors. Moral hazard is covered by the management at SVB and Signature losing their jobs and by the losses in stock value and bonds which are left unprotected as a cautionary signal to investors. A much larger impact is hidden in the hearts and minds of Silicon Valley who will be expected to reflect on the nature of their self serving deal where they oppose regulation of tech monopolies and of regulatory action except where it serves their  own interests, and see a laissez faire system that works for them but not for workers and families across communities in states across America. A situation made worse by the loss of America's manufacturing base on which issue Silicon Valley neither reflected or acted. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's effort to tie Vietnam and Malaysia to its economic system- will it work? China has trade worth $982 billion with 10 neighbors in South East Asia compared to trade of $786 billion with EU and $688 billion with US.

Some of that $982 billion is product shipped to Vietnam by China, assembled there and shipped to the US. This is why DJT/USTR put 46% tariff on Vietnam, now reduced to 10% for 90 days till negotiations. President Xi of China visited Hanoi, Vietnam, to sign 45 bilateral cooperation agreements to bind Vietnam closer to China's state run capitalist system. At the same time premier Lam of Vietnam is seeking negotiations with US and has talked to president Trump. What is going on? Vietnam hope to have ties to both US and China. Will it work?