World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

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

All Topics Articles

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

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


New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Martin in the NYT points out that Ohio no longer plays a critical role in U.S. presidential elections. It was critical for a Bush win over Gore, and president Obama carried it by 2 points against Romney in 2012. It is critical for Trump to win. For Hillary Clinton other states are gaining importance as they better reflect the demographic changes in the U.S. and the mix with minorities- states such as Georgia, N. Carolina, Colorado and Florida. Ohio has not seen an influx of Hispanics as other states, and is now more white, more evangelical voters, and reflects a mix that was prevalent earlier. 

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ says Puerto Rico is a failed welfare state and has similiarities to the problem in Greece with a bloated public sector (25% of the workforce in the public sector). It points out that the benefits are generous even though the employment is shrinking by 14% since 2005, as 300,000 young people have left for the U.S. since 2005. Welfare benefits it points out are $1743 a month compared to $1159 for minimum wage work. Puerto Rico's Governor Alejandro Padilla says the $72 billion debt "is not payable." Debt is 100% of GNP. Three public pension funds and the Electric Power Authority face serious problems. To manage its finances Puerto Rico has taxed ever higher, increasing sales taxes to 11.5%. The editorial says Puerto Rico is ready for a Detroit style restructuring of the debt, and rewriting of labor and other contracts following the U.S. giving access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy to Puerto Rico, doing this with orderly restructuring.
CNNMoney Original article ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An interview with Sir Howard Stringer, December 2007 at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan. Note the reply to the learning Japanese question, direct and saying what it is and has to be in this situation. Its better if the senior Japanese learned English or talked in English because Sony is a copanythats huge in international markets. And it wasn't going to work for Sir Howard because he was'nt going to be conversational better to accept that fact and go on to getting Sony back on its feet as a pioneer which is how it started out under Morita in the sixties. The other response is to the question about closing factories and unprofitable businesses - he asked the senior Japanese staff to look at the numbers, to take a good hard look at the numbers, what did they have to do in all honesty in the light of their situation. Interesting not much else was needed. Refreshing direct and honest approach to the issues. Best is the response to the question about his job, he wonders if he will survive this intact, will he survive this in one piece, which would be a real miracle. An Englishman who is an American in England, an Englishman in America, and a westerner in Japan. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Timothy Geithner as New York Fed Chairman was a key person in the rescue of Bear Stearns. In an interview with the WSJ he recounts events and defends his actions on March 14 in a conference call at 5am in the morning with Ben Bernanke, Kohn, and other regulators and staffers and Treasury Secretary Paulson. By 7 am a decision was made choosing from 2 options not to do it, let Bear Stearns fail, and Fed would make an infusion of liquidity into the banking system to reduce the impact, or make a loan to to give time for Bear Stearns to make a merger. Mr Bernanke did the head count and all top officials agreed to the loan option. At 7.30 the morning of March 14 about $80 billion in short term loans would come due. If Bear Stearns went into bankruptcy protection lenders would get back collateral instead of cash and might sell the collateral en masse and pull back trillions of dollars of similiar loans to other investment banks. Also Bear Stearns had trading positions with 5000 other firms so the ripples would extend throughout the banking system. At issue in a Bear Stearns collapse with no Fed loan- a full blown run on Bear Stearns had begun on March 13 with customers and lenders pulling out billions of dollars. The man- Geithner does not have a PhD in economics and has never been a banker or trader, the background of previous chairmen of the New York Fed. He joined Treasury Department in 1988 and was an assistant to first Treasury Secretary Rubin and then his successor Sommers. Geithner was active in the rescue of Mexico, Indonesia and Korea in the Asian and Latin American banking crises. He was appointed to his position at the New York Fed in 2003, so he has 15 years of experience dealing with international banking crises. The criticism- has come from a colleague at the Fed Vincent Reinhart on the oped pages of the Washington Post, and from former Fed chairman Paul Volcker in a speech to the New York Economic Club. Geithner has asked to speak at the same club to give his account and his defense of his action. Note that Bernanke and Paulson and Kohn were in on this decision and voted in favor of it and there appears to be a consensus that all in the conference call supported it. Geithner kind of put it all together and so he is defending it. Geithner's contribution- Geithner pulled in the other players in the financial markets into close communication with the Fed. He assembled an informal advisory group including Rubin, Summers, Greenspan, Volcker, former New York Fed Chairman Corrigan and investment banker Pete Peterson. He would also phone them individually asking : what should we think about an issue? What are the best 3 arguments for or against? What do smart people think? He also initiated a series of dinners at the NY Fed's executive dining room in which 5 or 6 senior executives from a major investment firm would meet his own top people. He also calls CEO's of important banks and investment firms every week in a crisis situation to ask- Whats changed? Whats better? Whats worse? What worries you? And after the credit crisis in August ,Geithner joined Bernanke in a small group that included Fed vice chairman Donald Kohn and Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor, investment banker and White House aide. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ after the U.S. presidential election is critical of extreme positions on immigration in the Republican party. It reminds readers that George W. Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote with some passable Spanish and a friendly attitude on immigration, Romney managed only 29%. It says supporting immigration is a natural position for Republicans because most immigrants are culturally conservative and hard working. It call deportation in large numbers morally wrong and not workable. It also comes as immigration from Mexico is down significantly and many Hispanics are returning to Mexico. Hispanics suffered from the high unemployment in the U.S. following the 2008 crisis making it less attractive to come to the U.S. Growth is also increasing in Mexico with a large middle class and a falling birth rate.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The new 600 page book by Attorney General William Barr in the outgoing Trump Administration is titled "One Damn Thing After Another" published by Harper Collins of News Corporation. The WSJ provides early details of the book including a meeting on Dec. 1 with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, and the words exchanged as Trump insisted there was massive vote fraud and Barr replied there wasn't anything the Justice Department could find. Trump told Barr- "Leave and don't go back to your office. You are done right now, go Home," says this WSJ report. 

Barr now urges Republicans to look at an impressive list of younger candidates for the future of the party.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Years of failure of politicians in Congress in Brazil, and poor decisions in running the government by the Worker's Party by overspending leaving little money for services, sanitation, health and other priorities, leads to Brazil turning to a former army officer in the 2018 elections. Corruption charges with collusion of politicians and the state owned oil company on contracts known as the Car Wash scandal further damaged the reputation of politicians in the Worker's Party. Jair Bolsonaro was elected to Brazil's Congress in 1990 after a short period in the military at a time when democratic institutions were being restored in Brazil following decades of military dictatorship. By 2014 after two terms in office the Worker's Party led by a former automobile plant worker Da Silva had lost popular support with overspending, failure to upgrade public services and neglect of basic infrastructure such as sanitation, leading to widespread protests. In the 2014 congressional elections Bolsonaro won by nearly 500,000 votes, leading to his bid to run for president from a small party which had the support of Brazil's military. The military played a role in supporting the Getulio Vargas administration from 1930-1945, which pushed industrialization in Brazil and set minimum wage, workers rights. Democracy was restored by 1945 after Brazil sided with the U.S. in the war. In 1964 the administration of Joao Goulart was overthrown in a military coup after popular discontent and protests. Democracy was restored in 1985 with centrist parties playing apart till the election of the Worker's Party under Ignacio Lula in 2008. Six years into his administration by 2014 issues of overspending and poor management of public services led to loss of popular support for the Workers Party as the public looked for alternatives to combat crime, improve public services and address problems of lack of spending on sanitation, public services, health care. The collapse of the commodities pricing boom led to higher unemployment and a shrinking economy leading to unrest and public protests.  ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Obama is not going to shy away from developing a solution for the 12 million estimated illegal immigrants in the country, for some form of path to legal staus. The issue will be taken up this year. It does not have the same priorities as health care and energy and education, but as a human issue it will be addressed this year. The lives of people who are doing a lot of the work Americans normally do not want to do is entertwined with the economic crisis, as the lives of these immigrants are likely to be made even more difficult by this crisis. The idea is to give those who are here, and as it appears are likely to remain here, and their families, the opportunity to lead normal lives. Not see families broken or torn apart as a husband or wife has status and the other does not, or lives worsen for those who have done the menial and labor intensive jobs in factories, agriculture and in construction, that Americans born to parents from an earlier generation of immigrants do not wish to do because they have better opportunities. As it is an issue that has drawn opposition and aroused emotions, it will be tackled by framing it as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system." Rep. Gutierrez, who is from Chicago, is building support for the cause by speaking at churches around the country, and having church leaders speak at these meetings, in a movement that is reminiscent of the civil rights struggles for black people. Mr. Obama will speak publicly on the issue in May, in the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both sides and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation by early fall. The plan would not add new workers but normalize the living conditions of people already here, and who information shows are not returning home. Its also supported by a key and growing constituency in American politics, the Hispanic voters. It was a campaign promise that Obama intends to keep, and if successful only draws the Hispanic vote closer to Obama....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama first family and its many mulicultural faces from Kenyan, Indonesian, Chinese to African American and White abolitionists from Missouri. Truly a new face of the American continent. About 25% of white Americans have interracial marraiges and nearly half of all black Americans belong to a multiracial family, according to estimates made by Joshua Goldstein of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. What it does is wake one up to the reality, the changes that have already ocurred in the country which most people had not realized. With Blacks, Hispanics, Jewish people, Asian Americans, the 25% of whites in interracial marraiges, recent immigrants, white women, and white males making up this mosaic of cultures and communities that makeup America. And the geographical mix is also just as varied, with the west and the northwest and the midwest and east having a bigger share of this mosaic than the south and the mountain states. Whites in interracial marraiges tends to breakup the traditional white protestant insular demographic. On the religious side there is a breakup of the traditional white demographic with Irish Americans especially those in the east tending to move away from the traditional white protestant insular demographic because of their own particular historical and cultural narrative. The Obama story is one of tapping into these different demographics and changing faces of America at the right time, when the conservative southern demographic, represented by the Bush family, combined with related demographic groups in counties and neighborhoods around the country had lost popular support from two wars and a failing economy....
The New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ makes the America centric thinking mistake of forgetting where China started from in assessing progress and China's new priorities. In 1960 the World Bank shows China per capita at $90 which does not change much till 1990 when it was $300, the Deng opening to western technology and capital pushed it up to $3000 the year 2000 (US $36,000) and $4500 in 2010 (US $50,000) when the global financial crisis hit. Since 2010 the Chinese economy was burdened by high local government debt and struggled to get to $10,000 in 2020 under Xi Jinping's first two terms as president. Yet it paid a huge price for this -the chance of Bo Xilai (2014) upsetting the twin banners of Science and Modernization of the May 4th 1919 movement that set the course of China for 100 years uninterrupted through the Nationalists, the Japanese occupation, the Maoist CCP, the Deng CCP opening and Jinping CCP pullback. The huge inequality was seen as an opportunity for Bo Xi Lai or some other leader to capitalize on moving China in an unknown direction that posed risks for the future of China. Even then the first preference of Xi would be to carry on with what had worked after Deng. Yet it was clear that working class votes were shifting the dynamics of elections after the Trump election and closing the doors to open access to western capital, technology, and investment. With Trump in erratic and uncertain ways, with Biden after the elections of 2020 consistent and with single minded determination to limit flows. Not just Xi, any other Chinese leader would have had to have the internal discussions about the need to shift back to a model China was familiar with and one that worked before- that of state intervention in the economy, that of reducing the inequalities that posed risks for the CCP's survival as forging a path for stability to carry out the twin banners of the May 4, 1919 Movement - Science and Modernization as China's salvation. Unlike the hysteria about China posing a challenge to the US these internal debates of Xi and the party may have concluded that the US with about half the population of China's as it grows with immigration in the future and multiple times the per capita GDP was a country that no other country was going to come close to. In this sense the supply chains are deceptive as these are likely to be completely redone under the Biden administration to bring most important manufacturing back to China. It is in this context that Xi had limited room to manoeuvre and decided to focus on stability for the long term to fulfill China's dream of the May 4, 1919 Movement of the last 100 years for Science and Modernization casting aside the risks associated for instability of the inequality that comes with more of the western type of growth, and with the climate change risks also associated with it. Lower growth gives China a chance to correct some of the flaws of the hyper growth that was partly of its own making and partly thrust upon it by investors from the outside, so that the new climate would best serve the goals of the May 4, 1919 Movement of keeping high the banners of Science and Modernization. This kind of rethinking is also going on in the US in the same manner about inequalities and hardships for workers and families, with some of the anger directed at China as internal political sentiment- hence the trillions of dollars moved by the Biden administration to address the flaws of growth under free markets and intervene in the economy where needed as in climate change to give firm sense of direction. In a sense the direction taken in different contexts the American and the Chinese are the same - address the problems of workers and families, of the people, as Lincoln had pointed out and striven so hard for, so that Labor is the more important than Capital, and workers and families vital to the nation.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greenspan testifes before the House Oversight Committee headed by Congressman Henry Waxman (D., California). Congressmen read back quotations from Greenspan where he talked about the resilience and efficiency of American free markets and defended derivatives and complex financial instruments. Some referred to the comments he made saying that housing markets would not collapse and the worst may well be over. Almost by 10 to 1 the readers responding to a WSJ poll say Greenspan was responsible for easy money for most of the decade and his lack of the most elementary safeguards for the economy instead defending derivatives and complex financial instruments, and considering the bubble in house prices as not the Fed's concern. Many used expletives deleted or the words "clowns" or "illiterates" for Greenspan and associates at Treasury. A congresswoman from Minnesota asked pointed questions about state effforts to stop predatory lending that were nixed by the federal authorites under Greenspan and Treasury's watch. She thensuggested that they the stewards of the economy try pragmatism and commonsense for policy decisions. Describing the present crisis he seemed so out of touch that when asked about rising foreclosures and need to stabilize home prices, he still was trapped in his libertarian ideology and impulses. He said transfer payments should be tried instead as modifying the mortgages would not be good in the long run when markets return to normal. He said this crisis has still some months to go. In these observations he showed that he has still not grasped the full extent of the crisis, as a realistic assessment of the economy suggests that the economic downturn has not really hit in terms of unemployment and drops in consumption, which will hit in 2009 and 2010 and years beyond. He looked old and worn out showing every bit of his 81 years, which begs the question how could he have been chairman for 17 years till he was nearly 80, as he was still Fed chairman just 2 years ago. There are term limits for mayors, and for President, how is it that there are no term limits for Fed chairman? Should'nt the Clinton administration or the Bush administration have made a new appointment to get fresh blood, fresh thinking, just as corporations do. Wells Fargo chairman Kovacevich is supposed to retire, even though he has good skills for accomplishing the merger of Wachovia having done this for Norwest. Bloomberg is fighting the term limits to stay on for another term and will need a special vote. Doesn't senility hit the best of us, and isn't there an age when people should have to retire from these positions, long before they get close to 80. An assessment of Greenspan watching him over the years would show that he loved data and data analysis, and trusted data as almost carrying infallible weight. As most of the data he looked at was for the postwar expansion of the USA economy, he saw as he himself testified this week data that showed the economy with small setbacks to be sure but on a constant upward trend. The way down he said in response to a question the data looks completely different, with fear and lack of trust and other things making this pattern have no relationship whatsoever with the way up. Greenspan and the nation's misfortune maybe that for too long the country's political leaders trusted over two decades a man who did not have the healthy skepticism of data even when it appeared to reflect certainty, and did not have the healthy impulses for safety and safeguards that surpass all ideological thinking, and a respect for basic ethics and common sense that goes beyond everything and puts it above everything else. This is a misfortune because these are qualities required for good leadership especially leadership entrusted with such huge responsibilities which can never be taken lightly. ...
New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post editorial following the New York primary points out the misstatements, exaggerations, and extreme statements that have characterized the Trump campaign, about women, minorites, the media, and other candidates.
The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The head of the CDU party who would become chancellor after Merkel, makes an emotional plea to the British people to change their mind and remain in the European Union. In an affectionate letter to The Times of London many leading figures from politics, industry and the arts in Germany made a plea that Britain remain in the EU "from the bottom of their hearts." A look at dozens of letters in response to this article in The Times shows that many Britons feel that Britain would have voted to remain if Germany and Merkel had given prime minister Cameron a better response during negotiations in 2016. Even chancellor Merkel warned Germans not to take an indifferent or complacent attitude to Britain's staying in the EU. The letter makes amends by saying there is an indissoluble bond between Britain and Germany because of the help given by Britain to rebuild Germany after the war. "Without your great nation this nation would not be what it is today, defined by freedom and prosperity," the letter says. It says "should Britain wish to leave the EU it will always have friends in Germany and Europe. But Britons should equally know that know choice is irreversible. Our door will always remain open: Europe is home."  Katarina Barley, Germany's Justice Minister whose father is British, says she supports a second referendum on Brexit. The letter is signed by Andrea Nahles, head of the Social Democrats, Annalena Baerbock head of the Greens party. Also signing it are the heads of Daimler, Airbus and the German Federation of Industry. Annegret Karrenbauer, head of the CDU says it is looking for constructive proposals from Britain, now that the deal put forward in the British parliament was defeated by a large margin. "We will not block the path to Britain remaining in the EU." The letter is significant in that it changes the whole tone of German leaders across the spectrum towards Britain- as critical to the idea of Europe, and the dawning in German minds that Europe would never be Europe without Britain, would never be Europe simply with France and Germany and the other nations. ...
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Progressive caucus in the US House of Representatives led by Pramila Jaypal, a first time Indian American Congresswoman defeats an attempt by Josh Gottheimer of the Problem Solvers caucus to separate much of the president Biden's agenda in health, education and social policy and risk it being defeated by Senators Manchin and Sinema in the US Senate. Without the efforts on child care, education and health, climate change and social services part of the Biden Workers and Families Plan much of the Biden agenda would remain unfinished and Democratic party promises not kept. This also means that Manchin a Senator from West Virginia with a population of 1.8 million and Arizona with a population of 7.2 million, both conservative leaning Democrats could sink the entire agenda of president Biden to support American families and workers for a population of 331 million people. That two states with a population of less than 3% of the American population could sink the entire agenda of president Biden shows how fragile a situation has been created within the Democratic party to support workers and families even during the pandemic following the leadership of Carter, Clinton, and Obama Ms. Jaypal, a three term Congresswoman from Seattle, Washington state, was first elected in 2016 with an endorsement from Bernie Sanders who was the Democratic Party's leading candidate for president till the late stages of the 2020 US presidential primaries. Bernie Sanders says of Jaypal- "I think she is doing an extraordinary job. And I think the Progressive Caucus is doing an extraordinary job." Sanders founded the Progressive caucus after getting elected to the Senate from Vermont 30 years ago. Even though it is hard to imagine the Democratic party being the Democratic party without bold policies in climate change, affordable housing, reducing income disparities,  investing big in childcare, education and healthcare, attempts were being made to sink the entire Democratic party and national agenda going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Jaypal is described in the WSJ as diplomatic and firm, saying "I am so proud of our caucus; I have never seen our caucus so strong. And I am a very good vote counter also." Fifty members of the 100 member Progressive Caucus held firm in support of president Biden's original agenda without which the president would have little to show in keeping promises he made to the American people in the election and little to differentiate him from Mr. Trump who also supported infrastructure spending. Separating the infrastructure bill would have risked sinking Mr. Biden's plan for recovery of America from the pandemic and the devastating policies pursued by American presidents in the last two decades. Policies by previous presidents that have impoverished the country, created huge income disparities, weakened America in the world in trade and technological leadership, and wasted resources in foreign wars. There are no centrists or far left- these are just labels. When Ms Japal said "Let's just remember the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) is a great champion of this agenda. I think she was trying to do as much as she could to get this done," she could have said it is Mr. Biden's own agenda pushed forward with conviction to help workers and families during the pandemic, and build a solid American recovery, restore American leadership in the world. Pramila Japypal is the first Indian American woman in the US Congress, and one of only two dozen naturalized American citizens in the US Congress. That she could play such a critical role for good in the US Congress shows that with the right convictions, determination, experience, much can be done for the common good in America and the world.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A study by BuzzFeed shows that all but three of 20 fake stories by hoax sites or hyper partisan elements with likes on Facebook spread fake news with stories on Trump or denigrating Hillary Clinton. During the last 3 months of the campaign in 2016 the fake stories or bogus news stories appearing online and on social media had a greater reach than authoritative reporting by mainstream news outlets, according to a study of Facebook activity by BuzzFeed. President Obama and chancellor Merkel took aim at the fake stories on social media and hate opinions in talking to the public in Berlin at their final meeting in November 2016. Obama said "because in an age when there is so much active misinformation and it is packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on television." He added it is a big problem that 43 percent of eligible voters do not vote and when "we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not, particularly in age of social media when so many people are getting their information in sound bites and off their phones." Merkel compared the situation today with digitization to the social disruptions during the Industrial Revolution and gave her own warnings. ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This view in the Economist shows that president Trump actually represented the instincts of the Republican party base by 2018- anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and to the right on social issues. As a result it says it is no surprise that he has taken over the Republican party. As the elections for Congress get closer most candidates are trying to get Trump's support and many of the older senators and Congressman from the earlier period of the party are retiring. It cites polls showing Trump has support of 85% of the Republican party base. In 2018 Mr. Trump appointed new members of his cabinet who more closely represented his views on China, Iran, NATO, and business issues. Remaining party leaders such as Mr. Romney running for Senate seat from Utah are now seeking and getting Trump's endorsement. The Republican National Committee is also run by Trump supporters. On issues of foreign affairs Trump has combined alternate shifts between demands and pragmatism in relations with China, Iran, and other countries on trade, politics, coming up with a new way international relations are tackled. Part of the reason for their appeal is the nature of the intractable problems such as the imbalances in trade, nuclear weapons, and the idea that an alternative approach might work when other approaches have failed.  On social issues such as issues facing workers in globalization and free trade the parties to the left in the U.S. and countries in western Europe have failed to deliver, leading to the appeal of Mr. Trump, Brexiters, National Front in France.  The immigration issue has also worked against the socialist parties.  In Britain dissatisfaction with Theresa May and hard core Brexiters is growing, leading to Labor Party getting 40% of the vote in the recent election. Suggesting that the changes induced by the Brexiters and the Trump administration may lead to other changes in the future that may shift the focus back to basic issues and delivery on infrastructure, health and education which are fundamental for the future.   ...

Support LyrArc

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

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


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