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.


The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar makes a 3 day visit to Saudi Arabia. He addressed diplomats at the Prince Saud Al Faisal Institute of Diplomatic Studies in Riyadh. He will co-chair with Prince Faisal bin Al Saud the first ministerial meeting of the Committee on Political, Security, Social and Cultural  Cooperation (PSSC), established under the framework of the India-Saudi Arabia Strategic Partnership Council. What is happening here is that the Saudis can build their own ties in the region as they choose what is best for the future, compared to the relationship in the past which was as a state mainly dependent on the US but which sorely lagged behind in educationally, culturally, in developing its own scientific and technology institutions to transition into the modern age. The relationship in the past also appeared to be rooted in the colonial period that had transitioned only half way out of the colonial period into the relationship built by America's FDR and succeeding presidents with the royal family and monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Under Mohamad Bin Salman it now gives Saudis an opportunity to make its own choices with the help of neighbors such as India, Japan, and other countries. It also strengthens the relationship with the US and the EU in unseen ways through the Saudi relationship with India, Japan and other countries. Bilateral trade is at $30 billion for FY22 April to December. India imports 18% of crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia. Indian imports worth $23 billion, Indian exports worth $7 billion to Saudis. About 2.2 million Indians are living in Saudi Arabia. During the pandemic India was the closest health ally of the Saudis.   ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Saudi Arabia signed a series of agreements with India at the G20 Summit with $100 billion in investments planned including digital, rail, energy  and other connectivity for the IMEC corridor for India through Middle East to Europe. Saudi prince MBS announces the IMEC Corridor and talks about its significance at the G20 Summit.

Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, leads the EuroFuture Project. Here he offers his ideas of the dilemmas facing German leaders in agreeing to letting the European Central Bank take a larger role of supporting the bonds of Italy, Portugal and Spain. He says Germans are seeing a contradiction between European demands for German leadership and not wanting to be led by Germany or perceiving Germany as a hegemon. Brockhoff says Germans have never in the postwar period wanted to or learned to exercize continental leadership. He recounts the postwar period when Germans were content with the deutsche mark, and limited their expression of national pride to the deutsche mark. Giving up the deutsche mark was part of the deal for reunification of the two Germanys, a surrender of economic sovereignty for the sake of a larger integration into Europe. He says that even though the arguments are framed in terms of orthodox economics, economic nationalists who never really wanted to give up the deutsche mark are the core of the opposition to the common issue of eurozone bonds. The German position is to go back to the framework of principles for economic and monetary union and tighten the rules for spending and taxes, something that is good in the long run, but does not work in the short run with shrinking economies from austerity programs and nervous markets. The Merkel government's resolution of this crisis is to set new fiscal rules for the eurozone, and either move in the direction of letting the ECB play a larger role, or support such a move. What is not clear is whether the government will survive the next election taking on this leadership role in Europe, or a revolt in the Christian Democratic party....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Bremer the American in charge on the ground in Iraq issued a decree on May 22, 2003 disbanding the Iraqi army, to extirpate all forms of Saddamism and dismantle the intelligence and command centres of the Iraqi military. This was not part of the original invasion plan according to some reports. Bremer's decision sent many of these officers to fight against the Americans as insurgents, cost American lives and lives of the insurgents effectively turning the invasion into a years long war with hit and run insurgents formerly of the Saddam army. Also effectively destroying or weakening the former elements of Saddam's army. In the process it gave Shiites the first hope of living free of Sunni control and Sunnis who wanted no part of Baathist politics and repression their freedom to exercize their rights, it also brought in the turmoil and lack of security, the bombing of Shiite holy sites by politically motivated Sunni elements and Shiite reprisals, that led to effective partition of the country something a long history of ethnic conflicts and colonialism may have already exacerbated long before the arrival of Americans. The documents of the war planning may suggest that keeping the Iraqi army intact was part of the plan but Bremer could not have issued the decree and had Bush back him up unless Bush and Rumsfeld felt the same way about extirpating Saddamism, seeing it in the way Americans treated Nazis and Nazi instituitons after invading Germany and seeing it the way the Americans saw the Japanese militarists and their institutions after the invasion of Japan. The Baathist treatment of the Kurds, the gas attacks on the Kurds, the destruction of Shia in the marshes after the first American invasion, the repression of Sunni and Shiite, were reminiscent of Nazism and Japanese militarism....
The New York Times Original article ›
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
 India would be 27% richer if it rebalanced its workforce to include more women, according to the IMF. Women's participation in the workforce is the lowest of the G20 countries except Saudi Arabia. Contributing only one sixth of economic output, half the global average. The employment rate of women in India has dropped instead of rising from its low level, an alarm signal. It was 35% in 2005, now in 2018 it is 26%. In the last decade the economy has more than doubled in size and number of working age women, according to the IMF is 470 million. Part of the reason is that more girls are in school. Conservative social rules mean that women are discouraged by their families or in-laws from working outside the home. As families become richer more women stop working. The lack of manufacturing jobs is also a constraint. Men have taken 90% of the 36 million jobs in industry created since 2005. Census data show that more than one third of women would take jobs if they were available. Urbanization and the shift to cities means less work in farming, mechanization of farming makes for less agricultural work. Changes in attitudes and better policies for maternity leave and women friendly workplace could help. Because most of the jobs are still in the informal economy, this is not as effective today but could make a difference in the future as more formal jobs are generated. Attitudes where men do more housework can make a difference. If men spent about 2 hours doing dishes and putting kids to bed, there would be a 10% increase in women's participation rate in the workforce, according to a World Bank study. One study shows this would add 550 billion dollars to India's economy. True especially as more women are getting university degrees and high school education. and the census study shows women have the desire to work if cultural attitudes, more men doing housework, and the job market were to change.       ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jean Claude Trichet is one of the last leaders from a generation that helped create the euro currency union and a pathway to closer union of European nations. For four decades he has worked at the upper echelons of European economic policy making. In accepting the Charlemagne prize he stayed true to his idea for closer integration in the European Union. He said- "Confronting the challenges of the future requires strengthening the institutions of economic union." He would like to see a finance ministry for the EU, saying that "in this union of tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, would it be too bold...to envisage a ministry of finance of the Union?" Such a ministry would exercize oversight over European nations economic policies and exercize veto power over national budgets. In the current crisis in Greece such a ministry could take actions and make decisions applicable to Greece. Trichet's remarks were delivered in Aachen, Germany. At the very same time finance ministry officials from 24 European countries were meeting in Vienna to come up with a solution to the Greece debt crisis. A main stumbling block is disagreement between Germany and others including the ECB, about how to make private-sector creditors share the burden of helping Greece avoid a default. Trichet and the European central bank and other central bankers have rejected Germany's insistence of an extension on the maturities of Greece's bonds, because they fear this would be perceived as a default by financial markets.This in turn would lead to contagion effects spreading to Spain and Italy, and a Europe wide crisis. In direct exchanges between Trichet and French president Sarkozy, Sarkozy has told Trichet he represents the bankers views whereas Sarkozy and Merkel have to take public opinion into account. In fact in past resolutions of financial crises in Latin America this type of extension of maturities for bonds has been applied, as for instance in the Brady Bonds and negotiated settlement arranged by the U.S. for banks, and Latin American and some Asian governments. Search term "brady" and see Landon Thomas's piece Nov. 30, 2010, in the NYT. This becomes necessary when countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal are unlikely to ever be able to repay the debt without a renegotiation of the original debt agreemments, spreading the debt over longer maturities, and private creditors taking some losses. By shifting the entire burden on austerity and spending cuts the current agreements leave the EU lurching from crisis to crisis as the underlying situation remains unresolved. It is here that Trichet's laudable vision of European unity runs aground because of the failure to build bridges between the outlook of the financial community and the public opinion of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and other countries. The governments of creditor countries such as Germany seek a renegotiation for a restructuring of debt. The governments of Greece, Ireland and Portugal understand that severe austerity cuts alone with declining growth can never resolve the situation, and would welcome a restructuring especially because the cuts are deeply unpopular. The renegotiation has to be conducted with the full faith and credibility of the European governments, ECB and the support of the U.S. government, so that financial markets are given a certain reassurance that the situation will be managed to a successful conclusion, and not lead to contagion effects on Spain and Italy. When asked about this Nicholas Brady recently said this required "a unified decision." This would include money set aside for recapitalization of European banks that are affected by such a restructuring. In such a restructuring the German government and other European governments would still come up with taxpayer money for the resolution, yet the shared cost by all parties would create a fair and workable financial arrangement that has the potential for successful resolution to the sovereign debt crisis. This disconnect between the political leaders and the bankers is why observers say the Europeans have not been able to wrap their arms around this problem. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. President Obama's speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations, Sept. 25, 2012, in which he praised the work of Ambassador Stevens in Libya. He defended First Amendment rights in the U.S. of free speech to an audience that was not fully convinced that the "anti-Muslim video" designed from the start as a provocation, produced as a violation of probation rulings by the individual, and being given the distribution channel of a vast internet audience by Google owned YouTube, falls neatly into free speech. The German government is reported to be looking into banning the video from distribution in Germany, and Germany also protects free speech under its constitution. He cited the "voices that rally against bigotry and blasphemy," as the way a First Amendment democracy protects against this type of abuse; which would suggest that Google as one of these voices has the responsibility to treat such content similiar to other extreme content of a pornographic nature or other such provocative material inducing violence, which it routinely excludes from distribution. The ultimate protection of First Amendment rights comes not from the U.S. constitution itself, but from the responsible exericize of wisdom, vigilance and common sense. During the long years of drafting of the Constitution when Madison, Jefferson and others who drafted the document took pains to include every protection so that basic rights would be preserved, George Washington pointed out that one could do this only upto a point, because it was upto the wisdom of future generations to preserve these rights, and this could never be done completely....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, has a three part proposal for tackling the "too big to fail" problem and concentration of 70% of the U.S. banking assets in a few banks. It calls for Market Discipline to be exercized in a way that the Dodd-Frank legislation fails to do. This is to be accomplished by having deposit insurance and the Fed's discount window apply only to traditional commercial banks, not the nonbank affiliates and parent holding companies. Customers, creditors and counterparties of all nonbank affiliates and the parent holding companies would be asked to sign a disclosure accepting that there is no government guarantee. In addition the largest financial holding companies would be restructured so that all their corporate entities would fall under a speedy bankruptcy process. Fisher does not clarify how he would do this restructuring. The Fisher idea come after changes in the banking industry through internal management restructuring following trading losses, legal settlements and the passage of a Swiss referendum called the Minder Initiative on compensation. Fisher suggests the U.S. Fed and regulatory authorites in other countries should push for further restructuring and calls for action beyond the limited results from 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He is critical of Dodd-Frank's often ambiguous and lengthy worded legislation- 849 pages for the law and 9000 pages for the regulations written to implement the law. Fisher emphasizes the point that its hard to implement a law and enforce rules when its not clear and is difficult to understand....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Full Yield is a startup in Boston that is trying to help address the nation's obesity problem by introducing healthier foods and meals in cafeterias. It plans to introduce a line of Full Yield branded food made from fresh items and natural ingredients for sale in corporate cafeterias and prepared food sections of local supermarkets. It is based on a simple idea that if you eat healthier food you will be healthier. A study in the Jan-Feb issue of journal Health Affairs says 75% of the $2.5 trillion in health care spending deals with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. And how much of this traceable to obesity and bad eating habits, smoking and lack of exercize? This study says most of the cases are preventable by changing these behaviours. Dr. Kenneth Horpe, chairman of the department of health policy and management at Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, shows that if trends continue U.S. annual health care costs related to obesity would reach $344 billion by 2018, which is 20% of total health care spending. In 2009 it accounts for 9%. Thorpe says if even the 1987 levels of obesity were reached it would free up enough money to cover the uninsured population today. For American companies the problem has grown to alarming proportions and yet no nationwide coordinated plan bringing together companies, government, universities, public interest organizations, and other groups exists in the U.S. The CEO of U.S. grocery chain Safeway, Steven Burd, says Safeway was spending $1 billion to cover health care insurance for workers by 2005, with costs rising 10% a year- this meant putting out twice in health care insurance than Safeway's earnings and hitting another $500 million by 2010. Between 2004-2009 the costs of insurance surged 31%, making this the fastest growing single corporate expense, according to Towers Perrin. This reduces incomes of workers as companies pass on part of the extra cost, and reduces the profits that can be put back in new investment for economic growth....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Alexandra Stevenson provides this exceptional account of how the debt deal between Argentina and the hedge funds was negotiated. A decade long deadlock was broken for the first time when Argentina's finance secretary in the newly elected government of Mauricio Macri met Jonathan Pollock and Jay Newman of Elliott Management on Dec. 7, 2015, at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. It is based on 8 intervews with the participants in the negotiations, court filings and emails. Critical to the settlement was the work of Dan Pollack, a trial lawyer with the McCarter & English law firm who acted as the mediator and made some rules including no pen and paper allowed, building trust through open discussion. Back channels helped including one setup through Marcos Mindlin of energy firm Pampa Energia in Argentina, who helped the hedge funds communicate with the Argentine negotiators. Mindlin met the hedge fund representatives at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Argentine president Macri insisted on making the terms he offered public on Feb. 1, 2016 of $6.5 billion because this is a sensitive issue in Argentina. Pollack pushed for a simple business transaction to close the issue and not the complex debt structuring the hedge funds favored. On Feb. 19, Judge Griesa of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who presided over the legal settlement, agreed to lift an injunction that would prevent Argentina from making bond payments and raising new money, and set a deadline of Feb. 29 for the settlement. On Feb. 28 the deal was signed by all the hedge funds. Argentina paid all holdout hedgefunds $9.3 billion, according to the Economy ministry, Elliott getting $2.4 billion....
The New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A few events in the last 50 years are rewriting the rules for business, finance and economics, says the WSJ in this analysis. The admitting of China to the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 was one, another was the global financial crisis in 2009 with the selling of bad mortgages by the financial industry, the euro currency financial crisis with the bad accounting, real estate industry speculation, and lack of financial oversight in countries such as Greece, Ireland, Spain. The coronavirus pandemic is one more addition to this string of crises and events that have made the working class and middle class in US and Europe poorer and in worse shape after the recovery following World War II.  The changes indicated here are some of the surface changes- such as the shift to the suburbs for cleaner air and better living, the work at home as a serious option, the new focus on health care, wellness, exercise, nutrition and mental health, remote learning and community college as a realistic option to high tuition costs by the education industry, and a pharmaceutical industry refocused on public health and vaccines as it was in its early years before its shift into a simply profit driven industry. The underlying thread for all these changes on the surface is a deeper change in the public mind- a change that redefines what the people believe in just as happened after World War II. Rebuilding the devastated economies of Europe, America and Asia required a new vision at the time after World War II. And reconstruction could only happen with all the people involved and working for the public interest.  This also created a new hope for the future. President Biden's vision is for a new set of priorities that make child care, women's position in the economy, community college education as a right for all as a first step to opening the access to education that existed after the war in 1945. Investment in infrastructure, in building new roads, bridges and rail, water, internet connections, public services in transport, better layout of urban areas, better lives for retirees, are all part of an effort to improve quality and ease of living for all parts of society, not just those who can afford it.  This is uppermost on people's minds and administrations or governments that fail to deliver or simply talk with no action, will not have the support of ordinary working men and women in all countries. This is true for countries and regions as varied in their level of development as the US, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Japan, India, Brazil and Mexico, and African nations. Democracy, government adminstration, technology and business structures exist for the people, to improve the ease of living, quality of life, through better health, education and public services.  ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman in the NYT describes the dangers of plutocratic power to American democracy. When exercized by the Murdochs, the Elon Musks, the Harlan Crows of this world. He cites presidents who are Republican and broke up the large oil companies in the 1900's, Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) who warned about "a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power." This is happening with the power of the so called Tech companies today and both parties seeking to break  up the Tech companies.  Then there is a Democratic president from this period Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) who followed Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson says- "If there are men in this country who are big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it." Theodore Roosevelt fought political machines such as Tammany Hall in New York as well as Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Wilson, a professor from Princeton, continued this tradition by protecting the working class of that time through his New Freedom campaign in 1913.  As a professor Wilson wrote the textbook The State used in colleges of that period, which set forth for the first time the basic idea of the state that we see today- "that forbids child labor, supervises the sanitary condition of factories, limits employment of women in occupations hurtful to their health, institutes official tests for the purity or quality of goods sold, that limits the hours of work in certain trades, and by a hundred and one limitations the power of unscrupulous or heartless men to outdo the scrupulous or merciful in trade or industry." Both were progressive Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Wilson under his New Freedom platform for the 1913 election, asserted that it was the task of government "to make those adjustments of life that will put every man in a position to claim his rights as a normal human being." What president Biden is doing today is closest to what Wilson and Roosevelt were trying to achieve, and what Modi is doing today in India is also closest to what Wilson and Roosevelt were trying to achieve. In 1913 Wilson won 42% of the vote, Roosevelt 27% because of a split within the Republican party with Robert Taft. Wilson proposed breakup of oil companies to provide a level playing field for all companies. Similar decisions are being considered by president Biden today for Tech Companies. The future of both the US and India is being decided in these difficult times after a pandemic and in the middle of a European war, and a supply chain overconcentrated in one country in Asia. Wilson's idea "to put every man in a position to claim his rights as a normal human being," is being set forth by president Biden through the word "dignity," by Modi in India as "sab ka vikas, sab ke sath" (development for all, with all). The Greens and SPD's Scholz also set forth this idea as "dignity" for the worker for Germany.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...
New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Saudi Arabia and Iran are moving in the direction of taking away repressive rules and giving women more freedom in daily lives. Under Prince Salman Saudi Arabia is changing. Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia. As the role of religion is being reduced in Saudi public life women are now free to live more normal lives. Under new rules women will be able to drive motorcycles and trucks. The Tehran police chief has issued instructions that women be no longer detained if they do not wear proper hijab head covering in public. The two countries are competing with each other to show it is more modern to the international community, say some commentators. Others see the changes in Iran for hijab head covering not strictly enforced as part of the difficulty of enforcing these rules in court, as more younger women do not follow the rules strictly as in the past. Iran now substitutes educational classes in its enforcement, showing the gradual changes in Islamic societies. ...
International New York Times Original article ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The failure of the economics profession to produce any red flags for this economic crisis, and the failure of economists to come to any consensus on what works to come out of this crisis, along with the huge confidence with which the economics profession displayed as the economy sailed along in most of the post war years, is one of the very noticeable things as one reflects on what has happened. Journalists like Peter Coy at BW who wrote this report followed the housing market for BW and raised red flags long before the crisis hit, just by looking at the facts. So its clear that looking at the facts through the lens of a particular theory of economics, or the lens of some ideological bias, or the lens of triumphalism, can handicap economists. There are economists who believe in the stimulus, and economists who don't believe in a stimulus, and others who think the economy reaches equilibrium of itself if left alone, and economists who believe in tax cuts. Were it not for the fact that the risks in a time like this are really great in depending on one or the other for advice if things don't work out the way they think, this would not be such a big issue. But a lot hangs inthe balance. Which is why decisions are based on what is actually happening on the ground, and by getting a good sense of that, and a grasp of real conditions, and getting agood sense of what will work in that particular situation, and not just hoping that things will work out according to some theory or conviction in the mind. And those who execute or manage the economy instead of teaching a class, have to be aware of the great responsibility for the lives of millions of people here and in poor countries around the globe, whose lives and the lives of their children, nutrition, health and education depend on their decisions, not just when they are in office but years after they have left. And for this reason exercize needed caution....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The head of failed bank HBOS or Halifax Bank of Scotland, which needed $17 billion of British taxpayer money, and was merged with Lloyds Bank after heavy losses, is Sir James Crosby. In a strange turn of events he ends up as a trusted advisor to Prime Minister Brown and becomes deputy chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Britain's regulatory agency. Sir James obviously knighted, obtained the appointment to FSA in 2006 when HBOS was growing rapidly, the losses came in 2008. But just as in the USA some of the people who were in the financial institutions or in regulatory agencies where alot of bad judgement or lack of necessary fiscal prudence was exercized, are still in positions that have as their principal task getting the US or Britain out of this crisis in financial institutions. In this case a House of Commons' committee investigating the banking crisis released written testimony that Sir Crosby summarily fired one of his executives Paul Moore after warning that HBOS bank was moving too fast in acquiring billions of dollars in new debt. One line in the Moore testimony is telling in its description of what happened at HBOS, as it must have in a host of other places in the US and Europe: " Sadly, no one wanted to speak up for fear of stepping out of line with the rest of the lemmings who were busy organizing themselves to run over the edge of the cliff behind the pied pper CEO's and exectuive teams that were being paid so much to play that tune and take them in that direction." End result, Crosby resigns his position before Prime Minister Brown is embarrassed and faces tumult and questions in the British House of Commons....

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