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 ›

ObamaCare's Reality Deficit

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There is a mixed picture behind the drop in investment in new oil exploration. The IEA estimates that overall investment will be down 15-20% in 2009. The number of drilling rigs in use globally fell 32% in the year to April 2009, to 2055, according to Baker-Hughes, an oilfield services firm. In America the number of rigs in use is down by 50%, and OPEC countries are cancelling 35 big projects, according to the OPEC secretary general, Salem Al-Badri. Cambridge Energy Associates estimates that 5.5 million barrels a day of capacity additions may not take place in the next couple of years, which is a third of expected net increase by 2014. Examine this a bit more closely and you find that the oil majors despite lack of access to oil in inhospitable terrain or foreign countries, are still holding up well in investment. Exxon increased capital spending by 5% in the 1st quarter 2009, and Shell and Chevron plan to invest the same in 2009 as in 2008, $31 billion and $23 billion. BP plans to go from $21 billion to $20 billion. Canadian Tar Sands investments are being reevaluated in the light of prices, and smaller companies like Devon Energy are cutting back, for Devon from $9 billion in 2008 to $4 billion in 2009. From the national oil companies the investments are holding up in Saudi Arabia, whereas they are faltering in Russia and cash strapped Venezuela. Saudi Aramco recently completed a 5 year project increasing capacity from 10m b/d to 12.5 b/d at cost of $70 billion. And another $60 billion is set aside for more investments which will be less vigorously pursued as Saudis have 4.5m b/d of idle capacity after production cutbacks by OPEC. Petrobras plans to increase its investment by 55% to $174 billion in the next 5 years in offshore discoveries challenged by deep waters and thick layers of salt. The oilfield services companies like Schlumberger are cutting back, with Schlumberger cutting investment in 2009 by 13% to $2.6 billion and shedding 5000 jobs. Baker Hughes shed 3000 jobs. Mature fields are also receiving less investment, so that the drop from mature fields will be 9.4% according to IEA instead of 7.7% projected earlier with larger investments. The picture described above shows investments by the Saudis, the majors, oil field services firms, investments in recovery improvements in mature fields, not in a precipitious decline. The picture is of cautious and careful investment and some pullbacks as the economies of the US suffered decline in GDP of 6% in the 1st quarter 2009 over prior year and the German and Japanese economies suffered decline of 15-16%. Even the most optimistic forecasts for China do not go above 8% for 2009. In the light of these growth estimates the moderate drop in investments in new oil exploration may match the moderation in growth in Asia and the drop in growth in the USA and Europe and Japan. The forecasts of steeply higher oil prices or spikes like those in 2007-2008 are based on the notion of a quick economic recovery. See the links to economic recovery on this. These links suggest that the current surge may not last as the basics for a recovery are weak. In the US foreclosures, toxic assets, housing, consumption and savings, and unemployment all indicate a weak economy for several years down the road. And it is this weakness that the oil investment exploration budgets may be responding to in amoderated manner. The latest sign of this weakness is the spread of foreclosures to prime borrowers with job losses, link NYT May 24, 2009. The Saudi king thinks that $75 is a fair price for oil. Current prices have taken oil to $60 a barrel, even as inventories remain strong with over 60 days of supply. No spikes like those in the past are realistic in this economic environment....
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The best that can be said about all the efforts to stabilize the housing markets is that they help in the context of the credit crisis that hit the economy hard with the Bear Stearns crisis and help to provide an orderly retreat for housing prices and ways to soften the blow to homeowners and lenders caught up in the wave of foreclosures. But housing prices themselves have not declined anywhere near what one would expect. In fact BW, p17, April 7, 2008 shws percentage changes for existing homes from Feb 2007 to Feb 2008 with data from the National Association of Realtors. And they are surprising when you consider sales for the northeast down 26% and prices up slightly 0.4%. Elsewhere the sales are down 29% in the Western states for a 13% price decline, sales down 20% for a 7% price decline in the Midwestern states, and sales are down 22% for a 9% decline in the Southern states. Jobless rates are 3.9% in Austin, Texas and Birmingham, Alabama and only Detroit, St Louis and Cleveland have jobless rates above 6%. What this suggests is that the unemployment situation has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening and drop in capital investment. As house prices have not declined much declines over 10% mostly in the western states and places like Detroit but not in the northeast and across the south, and unemployment still low across many regional communities, consumption spending has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening. Once tightened credit conditions hit payrolls as companies cut their workforce and unemployment moves up then expect to see greater housing price declines as more houses go into foreclosures, and then expect consumption spending to feel the impact which would reduce sales and further trim payrolls as companies run their factories at less and less production capacity. This sequence would continue and bring the economic crisis to more and more parts of the country in a manner that we have hardly see upto this point. What we have seen is the unfolding of a collapse of mortgage securities firms and of mortgage securites insurance providers like ACA, and with it the huge writedowns about $150 billion taken by the investment houses and the banks. And this has happened as a wave of foreclosures took place in 2006. And the collapse of Bear Stearns with the effects felt in global stock markets. In the communities themselves in the areas of consumption spending and in jobs the conditions will only now begin to be felt and the real impact not felt till the end of 2008 and into 2009 with the Fed action to shore up confidence adding several months in slowing the process. See the link to BW, Bernanke the Reluctant Revolutionary, where the BW estimate is that Americans took on about $3 trillion in additional debt between 2000 and 2006 from what they would have taken if they had followed the trajectory of spending patterns that had prevailed upto that point, with their recent free spending ways. It would take abot 3 to 4 years conservatively for Americans to work down all that debt. Another way of saying this is that consumption spending is going to take a big hit and with it sales of companies and consequently higher unemployment and more part time labor force with less benefits, which would tend to depress consumption even more. The winds of housing, credit, consumption and unemployment would all hit the economy in about 12 months time. Credit will further tighten as BW estimates about $130 billion of additional writedowns still expected....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A new report on American driving habits by Samantha Gross and Aaron Brady of Cambridge Energy Associates shows that finally the gasoline price increases are beginning to bite the consumer and American drivers are changing their habits. After increasing from about2.5 trillion miles of total vehicle miles travelled by Americans in 1998 to about 3.0 trillion miles in 2007 the last 6 months are showing a downward trend for the first time. In the late 1970's and early 1980's something similar happened with a deep recession, rising gasoline prices and improved fuel efficiency standards, during this period gasoline consumption declined by 12 % accordingt o CEA. What is different now? For one thing the environmental issues are a big factor now and they take a new meaning as developing countries like India China Brazil and Rusia as well as other countries with much larger numbers of people than the US and Europe are now part of the car buying and electricity using peoples of the world. Its impossible both for the environment and for resource supplies to meet the needs of billions of new people joining the global economy and western ways of living without doing something radically different. And he problem is immediate as China becomes the second largest car buying country and India is not far behind with an explosion in Nano sales expected in the next few years, and the huge demands on electricity in these countries meaning burning huge amounts of coal to generate this electricity and create global environmental problems. All this makes the 70's and early eighties period remotely relevant. We are looking at something hugely different and 21st century defining now as its clear fuel has to be conserved and resources shared between the western world and the developing world, and technology moved forward quickly to meet the needs of a new world of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas all bundled into one both by the global ecoomy and the way business operates and by the needs of people everywhere. And the media and public perceptions may be just catching up to these changes which are already taking place on the lands and under the feet of millions of people around the world. Some clues to what might have happened. Americans spent 4.5% of their after tax income on transportation fuels in 1981 according to Global Insight, a forecasting firm, and this went down to 1.9% in 1998, and is back up to 4% now in 2008. In California and more affluent areas of the country where the incomes are higher and gasoline prices are higher over 4% is spent on transportation fuels, whereas in areas of Alabama and Mississippi in the poorest areas where gasoline is less expensive this is over 16% according to the New York Times interactive graphic. During this period 1998 to 2008 demand increased for gasoline, in terms of the number of miles driven went up by 25% from 2.5 trillion miles driven to 3.0 trillion miles driven, and the sales of large pickup trucks and SUV's soared to make them the largest number of vehicles sold each year. At 1.9% of after tax income nationally, transportation fuels were cheap and consumers reacted rationally by splurging on gasoline in the USA. As a sobering note to all this sign of improvement in conservation of fuel the miles driven are still at about 3.0 trillion miles the high reached last year 2007. It will take a lag of a couple of years before a changing fleet to smaller vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles and better driving habits and conserving fuel habits to make itself felt in transportation fuel usage across the USA and this requires prices at least at these levels to make the change seen as necessary to meet global needs and global environment....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Reited Gen Gantz appears to be the likely head of a new government after winning the most seats in parliament. Policy towards Iran is not likely to change. But a Gantz led government is likely to reduce the divisiveness in the country, and provide a more unifying effort in Israeli society. The role of religious groups in daily life would also be held back. Better relations with Jewish people in America would result and peace negotiations with Palestinians would be encouraged. The prime minister would concentrate less power in his hands. By temperament Gantz is a quiet leader who preferred not to engage in the back and forth attacks in the election campaign even when Mr. Netanyahu  did not hesitate to do so. As the head of the military from 2011 to 2015 he also has the confidence of people in Israel looking for a new start after a long period of Netanyahu rule. The current prime minister could be indicted soon after a hearing next month on charges of bribery and fraud. Mr. Trump has said that U.S. relationship is not with any leader but with the country Israel. Gantz makes it clear after Netanyahu's style of politics has rocked Israel for many years- "We will bring about a real change in priorities, and heal Israeli society in all its parts." Mr. Gantz has said that he think the Obama administration could have done more in securing a better nuclear deal with Iran. Yet at an event in 2015 when the deal was being set, Mr Gantz said he also saw "the half full part of the glass." That the deal would keep Iran 10 or 15 years from making a nuclear weapon "with the right price." At this juncture in world affairs this is important because Mr. Trump has shown flexibility in dealing with Iran following the firing of National Security Adviser Bolton. Trump held back on a response at several points during the attacks in the Straits of Hormuz and the taking of ships hostage by Iran and the UK. The attacks on Saudi oil facilities and the difficulty of protecting oil installations in the region, Iran's increasingly difficult position under tight U.S. sanctions and pressure on Asian buyers of Iranian oil to cut back purchases, the efforts of Japan and India dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil to reduce tensions, all point to a new policy in the region with a new Israeli government playing a useful role to keep policy control in the hands of Asian countries dependent on oil supplies for their economies, and in the hands of a U.S. president better informed about a policy course that is in U.S. interests of avoiding unnecessary engagements overseas when there are other pressing priorities. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Competing interests of the U.S. and China on issues such as jobs, currency and trade. Chinese stalling over currency revaluation.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Heise, chief economist of Allianz SE, says the ECB needs to assure financial markets that the deflation risks in the first half of 2015 are not all negative, as the declining price of oil adds to purchasing power in the eurozone economies. He points out that ECB needs to define price stability not as inflation of "nearly 2%" but as inflation of "below 2%," to take into account the impact of declining oil prices on inflation. His concern is about financial markets expecting strong quantitative easing program from the ECB in 2015.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
At the height of the market a year ago Citigroup acquired Nikko Cordial for 1.6 trillion yen ($17.7 billion). Now in a reversal of an earlier decision, after announcing a loss of $8.3 billion on Jan 16, 2009 for 4th quarter 2008, Citigroup will consider Nikko Cordial a non-core asset, meaning that it would be sold if a buyer can be found in Japan. Japanese banks are relatively healthy and there are propects for finding a buyer there.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera talks to experts like Simon Johnson at MIT. Johnson says that when he talks to other experts, after a two minute discussion, they say we should just nationalize the banks. Here Christopher Whalen, a veteran bank analyst, of Institutional Risk Analyst, and Joshua Rosner of research firm Graham-Fisher, say the same thing, with the phrases, lets get on with it or just do it. Says Simon Johnson, thats what we told emerging market countries, Thailand in 1997, or Russia in 1998, when he worked at the IMF. He says we told them to close down some of the banks, and take over the others, and inject government capital. He adds its the best practices, and its straightforward. So asks Nocera, is Geithner talking about the stress test banks will be subjected to, as first step preceding nationalization, more of a calculated approach to gradually introduce the idea of nationalization. But he isnt sure, as Geithner also told David Brooks of the NYT, that governments were not so good at managing banks. No one knows for sure. But says Nocera thats exactly what the government did to solve the S&L crisis. And the man who was former chairman of the FDIC, and helped run the program for the Resolution Trust Corporation, says the government did a pretty good job of it, taking over banks, replacing top managers and directors, and stripping out the bad assets and selling off the now healthy banks to private buyers. So can it be done again and will it be that hard? Yes, its been done before, and its not that hard say these experts. Every month that the administration and Geithner procrastinate puts the banks in a deeper hole, and will mean more layoffs and a worse crisis, even years taken to recover. What he has'nt mentioned is that even if after some procrastination the government gets around to doing it to clean up the mess, there is one added complication this time that is different than what happened with the S&L crisis or with the Swedish cleanup, or the Japanese cleanup after 2003, this time the global economy is caught up in the crisis which makes recovery that much tougher....
New York Times Original article ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In Spain it is not the big banks like Banco Santander or BBVA that funneled a lot of the mortgage lending. Its the Cajas or non profit lending instituions that do more than half of all the loans. The Cajas had $330 billion in loans to developers in Sept. 2009, up from $50 billion in 2000. As home prices plunge the 45 Cajas are suffering losses, amounting to estimated $3.4 billion in 2010.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
After the Phase 1 trade deal with China led to cancellation of new tariffs on computers, mobile phones and the remaining products imported from China, tariffs are still in place on $370 billion of imports from China. President Trump says China agreed to import $32 billion of agricultural goods, with the figures reaching $50 billion in 2020. The prior high was $26 billion in 2012. This comes as a big relief for the agricultural farm sector which had 24% more bankruptcies in 2019. Farmers are now more likely to vote for president Trump as they did in the last election. In addition China agreed to buy $200 billion more of American goods over the next 2 years. This combined with the USMCA agreement to replace NAFTA, for North American trade, is good news for president Trump and for the U.S. economy for 2% annual growth. The S&P stock index went up by 29% in 2019. The big concession by China is its agreement to agree to penalties if it does not keep up its part of the bargain.  Intellectual property protection remains a challenge and Mr. Trump may have decided to take a tactical success and shore up his base of farmers and small business people before taking up these issues in the future. China for its part may have decided to make a tactical move of its own as it has nothing to lose in importing more farm products from the U.S. in exchange for being able to continue to make the computers, iPhones and tech products it manufactures, just like before. China has not conceded much in terms of its goals set  in "Made in China 2025." Both sides are taking a much needed pause to consolidate their positions, as the fundamental differences remain to be tackled. Huawei and Chinese technology issue remains as before with the U.S. wary of China's technological gains in 5G telecom equipment and keen on building and protecting America's technological advantage in future trade relations. ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A wonderful mindset and and a philosophy of life and the game from Spanish coach Luis de la Fuente. Sid Lowe of The Guardian's interview with Luis de la Fuente, the coach from humble beginnings who has taken the Spanish team to the Nations League title. Spain defends its title this season. La Fuente has watched the young Spanish players come up through the junior leagues, Rodri, Carvajal, Yamal and Olmo, long before anyone heard of them. He is a former full back for Athletic and Sevilla with little coaching experience mostly in 11 third tier games.  Here is what he thinks of coaching today- "Obnoxious, rude, disrespectful, arrogant … it seems like the only way they take you into consideration is this thing they call ‘charisma’,” he says. “I don’t know what that is but if you’re those things they say: ‘He’s got charisma!’ Well, then, I don’t want charisma. We’ve shown that being normal can work, too. You don’t have to be winding people up all day.” Of his young players Olmo, Rodri, Carvajal, Yamal, Nico, Fabian, he says "it is the symbol of a new Spain that strengthens society, culture, and it is the future." Of the style of coaching it is to be simple- "A structure put in place in the late 90s by Iñaki Sáez, and a culture that brought success. “It is not chance but a process going back many years, based around an idea, controlled." “But we’re very simplistic. That phrase people think was invented recently – game by game – is as old as walking forwards and we went one obstacle at a time, in order. We have to take the drama out of the concepts win and lose; sometimes it’s destiny’s whim. But our conviction was we were there to win, to reach our limits.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ Investigation shows Facebook is aware of the acute flaws in its product, that the product is riddled with flaws that only Facebook fully understands. Yet it says the company has not acted in a way that correct these flaws. Some of the flaws of how this app affects teenage girls was a subject of one part of this report. In other parts it looked at how the Facebook app in social media use could increase the level of division in society, and affect the achievement of public interest goals, as users make use of the app and apps like Facebook such as Twitter to increase discord. This is becoming an issue as public interest goals are now seen as critical for recovery. Vaccination for coronavirus in US and Europe, national infrastructure development in India and developing nations, effects of social media on women's health, are critical areas in which social media may have failed to deliver constructive results, and actually gone the other way to make things worse for all. This may also be why leaders of large nations including Mr. Biden, and leaders in India and Europe, have lost patience with social media. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman says that the Democratic party will have to look elsewhere for its leadership needs than the Obama administration. He faults the administration for its pay freeze for federal workers, when the issue of the extension of the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes is the much larger issue in terms of savings for deficit reduction.
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal 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