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 New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
French voters turned to parties outside the mainstream left Socialist Party and the right Republican Party for the first time in a run off presidential election. The National Front's Jean Le Pen made it to the runoff in 2002, then lost to Chirac of the Republican Party who won 78% of the vote. This time the Republican Party candidate Fillon had about 20%, the Socialist Party candidate Hamon won just 6% of the vote with the rest of the socialist vote going to a far left candidate Jean Luc Melenchon who had 19.6%. The winners were Emmanuel Macron, a former Economy minister under president Hollande of the socialist Party, getting about 24% and Marine Le Pen, the daughter of Jean Le Pen of the National Front, getting 21.5%. Compared to the U.S. the situation is slightly different in France because of the very high unemployment rate for young people- younger voters supported the National Front, and people especially in rural areas in the north, north east, and the south of the country around Nice and Marseille supported the National Front. Macron's movement En Marche, centrist party drawing support from centre right and centre left without clear ideology except to renew France and pro-EU, was strong in urban areas, among more educated people, especially in Paris and the area around Bordeaux and Toulouse in the south east of the country. Fillon did not do well in some traditional Republican Party areas including Nice, with inroads from Le Pen, who defined the party around anti-immigration, closed borders, and withdrawal from the European Union. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton narrowly loses the Michigan primary to Bernie Sanders in March 2016, as the Sanders campaign focusses on Clinton's support for trade agreements that hurt American workers and lead to loss of manufacturing jobs. About three fifths of voters in the Michigan primary considered this a major issue. Many less educated younger workers see their job prospects diminish and wages drop with free trade that hurts American manufacturing jobs. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement with Mexico, and as a member of the Obama administration Clinton supported the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, later opposing TPP when she left the cabinet. Sentiment against trade that hurts manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is strongest in midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. This was also a major issue benefitting the Liberals under Justin Trudeau who won in Canada's industrial Ontario province which has suffered hollowing out and loss of manufacturing jobs under the Conservative Harper administration. In the U.S. the issue goes back to the Clinton Administration for two decades. New jobs created by Apple, Google, and other tech companies pale in comparison with the industrial jobs created in another era that benefitted working class families. This issue and high unemployment or under employment, lower wages for working class families, was a major issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Widening wealth disparities, and lack of upward mobility, high tution and healthcare costs for ordinary families, dominated the campaign in the U.S....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
After the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, China and the European Union sought to fill the leadership on this issue. Yet the reality now looks to be different. China decreased coal consumption between 2014-2016. Now China is ramping up coal generation as it needs to provide stimulus to a slowing economy as trade relations with the U.S. worsening.  In 2017 the trend reversed with state backed loans to help economic growth and surge in provincial permits.  China is now moving forward with plans to add coal fired power equal to almost the total U.S. capacity, according to Coalswarm, which tracks power plants worldwide for coal use. This would push coal fired production to above the cap of 1,100 gigawatts China has set and its current cap. Its current production is already about half of the world's total coal fired generation and quadruple that of the U.S. In 2017 China made up one fourth of total CO2 productions.  Canada is missing its emissions targets and is not likely to meet 2020 targets say experts. In the EU members reliant on coal power energy oppose EU parliament efforts to end subsidies to the most polluting plants by 2025, seeking delay of one decade. At the climate change talks in Katowice, Poland, these changes are facing opposition. As a sign of how the situation is changing since the 2015 Paris Accords, the protests in France by yellow vest protestors started in opposition to a carbon tax intended to meet France's climate change targets. That tax increase is being withdrawn by president Macron. Families struggling financially had a different perception of the increase in the fuel tax and even young people who support meeting emissions reduction joined the protests, as reported in the New York Times and The Times. This tells a lot about how the issue of climate change has changed in the public perception in three years. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian economy had GDP decline of 2% and was relatively not affected by the shutoff of imports of oil and gas from Europe in 2022. Gas exports to Europe began declining in the summer. The EU ban on seaborne oil from Russia and price cap went into effect in December 2022. Russia made a huge stimulus of 4% of GDP in 2022. The result is that only now in 2023 is the full impact being felt on the Russian economy.  WSJ reports that in January and February Russian exports of oil and gas revenue which makeup half of the budget fell by 46% year over year, while state spending jumped 50%. Analysts estimate that it would take a price of $100 for Russia to balance its books. Yet the Group of Seven price cap on Russian oil has brought it down to $50- the price the Ministry of Finance says Urals crude sold in February. This is a deep discount to the $80 price of Brent Crude, the US benchmark.  A bigger problem is the downward trajectory the Russian economy faces in future years. Worker shortages are severe for industry and a shift to wartime production does not add to productivity or productive capacity. The cut off from access to western technology and western financial markets will have a severe impact in the productive capacity for the economy, for oil and industrial production in the years to 2030. Russia needed to protect against the gradual shift away from fossil fuels to fight climate change by shifting the economy in a new direction using its access to western technologies not just China's technologies. Instead it now finds itself in a period of 1 year in 2022 when oil revenues surged with prices jumping from the war, and then a steady slump in all the inputs of development- supply of labor, capital and technology declining rapidly after 2023 as the costs of the Ukraine invasion are absorbed into the economy. As this report points out it is the social contract that similar to China's social contract of growth and improvement in standards of living that led to people having a large measure of confidence in the government. It was not fully grasped but it was the access to American and European Union plus Japanese technology, manufacturing, capital and markets that made this possible. With this absent the situation changes to put Russia, and China to a lesser extent as long as it trades with the west, on a different trajectory.  ...
New York Times Original article ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Harvard professor Robert Lawrence tells Tom Keene, the Obama administration has'nt paid that much attention to trade and trade agreements. He says this is unfortunate because it is important to lower barriers to trade, create fair trade, and increase U.S. exports.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Alexandra Stevenson provides this exceptional account summarizing the reasoning in the minds of Argentine negotiators and holdout bondholders over a debt dispute remaining from the 2001 Argentine debt crisis and default. Over a decade later the repercussions of Argentina's 2001 debt crisis and default are still taking new twists ant turns. Holdout bondholders won in U.S. courts and Judge Griesa ordered Argentina to make full payment demanded by holdout bondholders. Argentina responded by depositing $539 million in Bank of New York Mellon as instalment payment to exchange bondholders. Judge Griesa responded by ruling that if Bank of New York Mellon made the payment it would be in contempt of court. Griesa also called for court mediated negotiations between Argentina and the holdout bondholders to come up with an agreement. Argentina and hedge fund holdouts negotiated in July 2014 but talks faltered. Legal experts say that if Argentina makes an agreement with holdout bondholders led by NML Capital which is asking for $1.5 billion, the risk is that the exchange bondholders could also ask for better terms. After the 2001 crisis following which Argentina defaulted on its debt, agreements were reached for bondholders to be paid about 25 cents on the dollar. Not all bondholders agreed, the bondholders who agreed are called the exhange bondholders, and the ones holding out holdout bondholders. From the Argentine government's point of view the risk of reaching agreement with the holdouts suing Argentina is that the other holdout bondholders not represented in the lawsuit could also ask for the same terms, and Argentina would have to pay all the holdouts costing it $15 billion. Risks if Argentina allows it to go into default are that exchange bondholders would come together to pressure the Argentine government to make a full payment of their discounted bonds quickly. This would cost Argentina payment of as much as $28.7 billion, according to JPMorgan estimates, under the right to "accelerate" payment if Argentina is considered as having missed a July 30, 2014 payment deadline. Legal experts say Argentina has to weigh this risk, which may or may not occur depending on the exchange bondholders taking such action, against the risk of having to pay out $15 billion to all the holdouts. Paying all holdouts would be politically very unpopular in Argentina, posing political risks for the socialist Peronist Kirchner government, already facing difficulties with the trade unions and the stronger opposition from centrist parties in Buenos Aires province. Default would affect Argentine access to capital markets, which is already highly restricted. Yet because Argentina has made the payment to Bank of New York Mellon, blocked by Judge Griesa, the nature of this default would be different. A worse case scenario for Argentina's Kirchner government is reopening negotiations with exchange bondholders for higher payment on debt than the 25 cents on the dollar already agreed to. Argentina faces an acute cash shortage with international reserves of only about $29.5 billion in May 2014, and a slowing agricultural export dependent economy. This is why the prospect of a technical default is being treated with relative calm in Buenos Aires....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden joins a UAW picket line in Detroit. Biden says he supports the UAW in its wage negotiations for 40% increase in wages. Workers wages are depressed because of concessions made a decade ago to ensure the survival of the US auto companies. UAW leader Shain Fawn was elected directly by the rank and file members for the first time. He has gone back to the UAW's roots for strike action, as it seeks to reverse concessions on tiered wages and address the cost of living crisis. 

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Adjusted for inflation wages for automakers have fallen 19% since 2008 because of tiers new workers making about $17 an hour significantly less than the $32 an hour. UAW seeks an end to tiered hiring.  For GM it is about committing to a long term contract in an industry that is unpredictable and uncertain. GM wants to make substantial investments in the EV industry with president Biden's help even when not making profits from EV's. For the UAW Ms. Janis of Jobs to Move America says labor is a very small part of what it costs to make EV's, batteries are the most. None of the earlier difficulties are likely because much fewer workers are needed making labor cost a much smaller component. Toyota has been slow in its EV start, BYD in China is leading but US carmakers are supported by the US government for EV's. Auto workers want a fair contract . And GM working with partners can still build joint venture factories for batteries in the South just like Tesla where work is not unionized. In the competition in EV's R&D and quality of management will play a bigger role. Fairness for workers will motivate American carmakers, with worker training and quality+value of EV's important for success.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ offers this view on the UAW strike by 13,000 of 150,000 workers at GM, Ford, and Stellantis factories. No one gains from the strike, workers say are behind by 19% lower wages today than in 2008 after making concessions to the carmakers. They just want fair wages, and president Biden is backing the UAW union. Is Tesla and non union labor in the south going to put GM out of EV's? Unlikely, labor is a small part of EV cost, Tesla is too dependent on one leader with much of its glow reduced after the Twitter acquisition, whereas workers and management at GM at all levels are more resilient today than at any time in GM's history. President Biden also brings a tempering influence on both sides with the national interest uppermost in building a strong EV industry.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Worklife balance is now at the center of negotiations between UAW speaking for 150,000 autoworkers and Stellantis, Ford, GM. During the pandemic with mandatory overtime and working upto 6 days week, 10 hours a day, for product launches for many factory workers, meant a detrimental impact on personal health. A shorter workweek is proposed.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Autoworkers want a raise of 40% from depressed levels with two tiers one for entry level workers set really low during a crisis when auto companies were near or entering bankruptcy. Automobile companies want to use high profits for EV vehicles.  Autoworkers have worked hard through the pandemic and have suffered low wages for a decade, now face a cost of living crisis- the 40% should be seen in the context of starting a depressed level trying to meet costs of living that have surged in 2021-2022. If both conditions are removed the increase might be a modest closer to 10% over a hypothetical higher wage and lower cost of living.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A less known political leader, Albert Hernandez, who teaches university law classes, is now set to become the next president of Argentina. He has worked with Peronist party under the Kirchner administrations and quit Christina Kirchner's administration after some disagreements on policies.  He is so far ahead of president Macri- sixteen points in the primary, that it is seen as too much of a gap for Macri to reverse. Hernandez is seen as a pragmatic leader and has as his running mate Christina Kirchner. Ms. Kirchner says she supports Hernandez as he can bring together all the Peronist factions. Mr. Hernandez is 60 years old and has worked with Peronist leaders in government from the 1990's who supported free market changes and with the Kirchner administrations when Argentina was recovering from economic collapse. Hernandez says he is learning from the mistakes made by Christina Kirchner. During the administration of Nestor Kirchner, Christina's husband, Hernandez, who was chief of staff, acted as a key problem solver. Argentina faced a crisis in debt accumulation and defaulted on the debt during that period around 2003. Argentina recovered from that crisis with the help of a commodities boom and demand from China. Mr. Hernandez was also chief of staff under Christina Kirchener who followed her husband as president, but resigned early because of differences on economic policy. Today debt accumulation is again a problem, with debt built up under the Macri administration and errors in policy of Mr. Macri. Christina Kirchner asked Hernandez to lead the ticket after it was clear that Peronist factions who did not support her could only come together if Mr Hernandez was the candidate. As a moderate without ideological tendency Mr. Hernandez was able to lead a broader coalition after errors in economic policy made by Mr. Macri leading to high inflation and a declining economy. Mr. Hernandez says he would renegotiate a deal with the IMF for a $57 bailout, which was signed by Mr. Macri to tackle a currency crisis. He also plans to take a new look at the trade deal with the European Union. Today both Brazil and Argentina are mired in economic crisis. Brazil through extravagant spending including on pensions, that left basic sanitation services, transport services, health care  poorly funded. Argentina has gone from prosperity to crisis, before 2003 during the first Kirchner administration, and now under Mr. Macri in 2019. Recurrent economic crises are a regular pattern in the region since 1950, with the region dependent on commodities exports and failing to build manufacturing industries.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.  ...
POLITICO Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union has a massive surplus of $147 billion with the U.S. President Trump is making this an issue in trade negotiations. A 20% tariff on German cars imported into the U.S. is part of the tariff response from the Trump administration. 

To settle this dispute Germany is making new offers with the visit of European Commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, to Washington. France sees little room for compromise as it sees Trump's efforts designed to break European unity by driving a wedge between France and Germany.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Peterson Institute of International Economics study on the TPP trade agreement shows it would reduce growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector by a fifth, according to this report in the NYT. Workers incomes and job losses in manufacturing are a key concern for voters and account for the surge in polls for Trump and Sanders in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. All four leading candidates Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Cruz oppose the TPP agreement. Congress will wait till after the election to decide. This is a big issue today because about 5 million jobs have been lost in 1977-2014, according to the Alliance for American Manufacturing. The Peterson study predicts job losses of 50,000 a year, yet another study by Tufts University predicts job losses of 450,000 a year. Another study by the Economic Policy Institute study shows other damaging effects such as labor's share of national income declining from the TPP.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A bill in the U.S. Senate in October 2011, which has bipartisan support, would push for China to correct an unfair trade advantage from keeping the value of the yuan low. The bill requires retaliatory tariffs for countries that have "misaligned" currency. This makes it possible for the U.S. Treasury Department to take action even if it finds no currency manipulation by China. This is a new approach as the U.S. Congress struggles to restore a level playing field in international trade.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Senate voted 63 to 35 passing legislation that forces the U.S. government to seek tariffs and other action against countries with "misaligned" currencies."
Pew Research Center Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tariffs policy is part of a renegotiation the US is conducting with China similar to that started with Japan by Lighthizer in the Reagan era as Deputy Trade Representative. It does not in any way have anything to do with the tariffs of Herbert Hoover in 1930 that gave tariffs a bad meaning. This is because tariffs were reduced since Harry Truman's efforts in 1945 by 2017 to 1.47% on average on total imported goods into the US and world trade makes up 63% of world GDP, so large is world trade today. What are Lighthizer- DJT tariffs trying to accomplish? As with Japan in the 1960-1970's it is intended to reverse the trends for China in 2000-2017 that allowed it to game the world trading system to gain an unfair advantage by dumping specific products into the US destroying American manufacturing and communities dependent on it. The US tariffs on Chinese goods proposed in 2024 by former USTR Robert Lighthizer come at a time when US tariffs are in 2023 only about 2.2% of all imported goods, $33 billion on 2333 billion of imported goods. In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China. By the time the first tariffs were taken up by the DJT administration in 2017 the total tariffs the US had imposed on imported goods were down to an all time low of 1.47% of imported goods value, $33 billion out of $2333 billion in total imported goods. Compared to the 29-40% under Hoover Act of 1930 raised to 60%.  Today world trade makes up 62% of world GDP, in 1930 it made up 9% of World GDP.  In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With Obama's popularity rating in 2016 similar to Reagan's in his last year in office at 51%, he announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. Obama is likely to campaign in 2016 for Hillary to reunite the Democratic Party, bring Bernie Sanders and Sander's supporters behind the Democratic nominee, including younger women.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A study by Prof. Peter Petri of Brandeis University, shows the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement boosting economic output in the U.S. by about 0.4% by 2025 or $77 billion. Winners are biologic drugs which get long term patent protection, tech firms and software engineering services. Losers are the Detroit auto industry with higher auto parts imports, light manufacturing, and some heavy manufacturing sectors. Prof. Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College and other experts say it is not clear how U.S. consumers and businesses will benefit. The import duties as a percentage of total imports are now at about 1.4%. Experts say about 4/5ths of the benefits of TPP for the U.S. are from opening up trade in services and new rules for investment and commerce. TPP includes Pacific countries Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan. Issues are environmental rules, worker protection and standards, agricultural imports in sensitive countries such as Canada and Japan, affordable drugs in poor countries....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This interview with Donald Trump by the publisher, editors and columnists of The Washington Post, Ryan Jr., Hiatt, Lane, Marcus, Diehl, Armai, Attiah, provides an exceptional insight into the views of Donald Trump on domestic and foreign policy, on his campaign for president. It is the result of an effort to get Trump to state his policies on different issues without the fuzziness in which Trump has carried out his campaign, often taking different sides of the same issue. In some situations Trump is pressed hard on his positions or controversial statements, to clarify what he has not clarified in the burst of media attention Trump received in the past 6 months, especially on television media. First some myths and realities. A recent March 19, 2016, issue of the Economist cites the Pew Trust in showing that only about 17% of eligible Republican voters voted in the primaries. A person watching television news media coverage on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, would get the impression that the voter turnout was tremendous- this is not confirmed by the Pew Trust survey. The Economist points out that had the other eligible voters cast their ballots and even if Trump had a share of these votes, the results might look different. With a highly fragmented vote in the Republican primaries, and about half of the vote going to candidates other than Trump, Trump's voter support would add up to about 8-9% of eligible Republican voters based on the Pew Survey results. The question here would be is this a representative sample of the U.S. or of the Republican Party. And is one likely to make false generalizations about the nature of the Republican party from such a limited sample of voter opinion. Is voter sentiment inadequately reflected, and results hopelessly skewed because of the lack of good candidates in the Republican Party, and Trump's tactical rhetoric appealing to a group of working class Americans left out in the technological progress of the last decade. In the process is the hard work of the founders of the Republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the framers of the Constitution being undone by a minority of disaffected voters with legitimate grievances on distribution of economic benefits of the technological progress, trade and global manufacturing networks- with a level of divisive rhetoric and decline in levels of public debate rarely seen. These are the clarifications sought from Trump and his response. Attiah raises the question of divisive rhetoric on minorities Hispanics and Black people- Trump says he is only talking about people here illegally, that he gets support from Hispanics here legally. He turns the question to Muslims and says there is a serious problem there that means being careful about how people are being admitted into the U.S. Questions about Trump's controversial statements about a wall with Mexico are not raised. Ryan pushes hard on the question of the libel laws standard that Trump says he is going to change, asking whether this would happen if Trump thinks the reporting "is wrong" but there is no malice. Trump wants the reporting to be fair for him, that reporters call him to check if he did this or that and why, before writing stuff about him, and he sees the reporting from the Post as very bad about him. He says his lawyers would have to tell the media, that he believes he should loosen up the standards so that this kind of coverage does not continue. On ISIS Trump pulls back when asked by Diehl about statements that suggested he would send the number of troops the generals wanted on the ground- estimated at 20,000 to 30,000- saying he would find it very, very, difficult to do that. On a nuclear option for ISIS Trump says he does not favor that. Suggesting that Trump like the other candidates in the election know there are no easy ways to tackle ISIS. Trump would rely on other countries in the region for help with troops on the ground, something that president Obama also favors, with limited results. Diehl also pushes hard on NATO- Trump says hundreds of billions of dollars are going to NATO and the whole burden for defending South Korea falls on the U.S. when it is not now a rich country that it once was. Diehl corrects him by saying for the public record that its not hundreds of billions, and South Korea, Japan pay 50% of the cost for defending their region. Trump wants to see 100% for the Korean peninsula defense borne by the South Koreans and Japan. Trump seees NATO as a good concept but needing more help from Germany, Poland, Baltics. At one point the Washington Post journalists tell Trump this is a position he shares with president Obama. Trump responds to questions from Hiatt about how he would handle the situations in black communities such as Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. Trump says he feels law enforcement is important and should play a big role in preventing the destruction of property from day one. He says jobs are what hurts inner cities but offers no solution about how to get the jobs lost in the steel industry for Baltimore, black neighborhoods sitting ironically next to the John Hopkins high technology university complex. Trump brings up the response that jobs could be created if the U.S. simply did not spend money on supporting nationbuilding overseas, a policy that president Obama has supported, and which the public has favored in the U.S. As Holman Jenkins brings up in a column on March 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal, these policies are being pursued today, and most of these jobs are not coming back so how would Trump bring them back or do anything about it, especially when Chinese workers in China's factories are being displaced by robotics in places such as Hon Hai factories. The more one thinks about it many of things Trump is saying are already being done, and there are no new solutions Mr. Trump has for today's problems of lack of upward mobility for the middle and working class- a priority for Sanders and Clinton also, not just for Trump. As a television personality and a candidate with a understanding of voter concerns, Trump artfully voices voter concerns of working class Americans for problems that defy easy solutions. Are there risks with Trump's approach that Trump has failed to think through or grasp? Does the unpredictable behaviour Trump suggests that would get allies thinking and trade partners responding lead to unpredictable consequences? Divisive rhetoric creates additional distractions in tackling the problems of the middle class and working class Americans. Divisive rhetoric within the NATO alliance would create additional distractions in tackling the problems of defending the European Union, such as using the very show of unpredictability. Diehl pushes Trump on this question. Would trade threats to China lead to a withdrawal from the Senkaku Islands by China? Trump says he thinks this would cause the Chinese to retreat . What if the Chinese see it differently, in their relations with Japan and South Korea, with a long difficult history, not necessarily in their relations with the U.S. Would a trade war hurt the global economy, and hurt confidence in U.S. fianncial markets just when the U.S. and European economies are staging a recovery, and when the economes of China, Japan and India are in a sensitive phase? These questions could not be raised because of time constraints, but must be on the minds of the editors of the Post and the WSJ, coming from different ends of the political spectrum. How would this help tackle the problem of upward mobility for working class Americans that all the candidates in the presidential election share? ...
Original article ›

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