LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi of India's visit to Japan in September 2014 leads to a commitment of about $35 billion in Japanese investment over 5 years. Japanese companies such as Suzuki, Toyota and Toshiba already have large investments in India.

LyrArc Article Gist
This NY Times editorial cites Defense Secretary Aston Carter's comments after the fall of Ramadi to Islamic State, that the Iraqi army units at Ramadi outnumbered the Islamic State militants but "lacked the will to fight." It points out the problem of the Iraqi government using Shiite militias which further aggravates sectarian tensions.

LyrArc Article Gist
It is too much to expect central bankers to solve the US economy's problems, especially with rates nearly zero, and no agreement between the political parties before mid-term elections. The Federal Reserve by itself cannot fix the economy's problems, with the US economy facing prospects of deflation in 2011; and local governments cutting back as they face revenue shortfalls. Deficit concerns have led to inaction on further stimulus or help to local governments, and the Bush tax cuts are expiring shortly. In 2011 austerity cuts will be the singular theme in the western world, and these cuts are of a magnitude not seen in 40 years. In this situation there is only so much the US Fed can do.

LyrArc Article Gist
Reminders of the 6th of May, 2010, when sentiment swung the other way and the Dow Jones averages dropped by 900 points.

LyrArc Article Gist
How returns in the U.S. stock markets of over 30% in 2013 change the picture of five year returns to the end of 2013 compared to the end of 2012. Long run has to be much more than 5 years and even longer for decent returns.

LyrArc Article Gist
In Germany's consensus based politics the term flip flop does not have the negative meaning it does in other countries. Chancellor Merkel is adept at presenting changes in policy as coming from careful thought and analysis. She has remained Chancellor for the longest period since Chancellor Kohl, doing this by co-opting the positions of other parties including the SPD. On refugees, atomic energy, same sex marraige, and other issues Merkel has adopted positions that reflect the majority of people.  As the magazine editors of Der Spiegel told Merkel in an interview she is the best chancellor the socialist SPD party ever had. Merkel has the unique ability of doing this and still sounding genuine in a way few leaders could. This may be the result of her background and life as the daughter of a pastor in East Germany who professed socialist ideals and yet was part of the opposition to the GDR regime and reflected changes in Germany as the Berlin Wall came down in 1990. Merkel joined the Democratic Awakening just as the German people in the east gave up on the communist regime. Merkel first major change was on the nuclear energy policy after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Yet looking at it one can see that Merkel could present her change in belief as sincere. Under Merkel Germany has shifted away from nuclear energy and coal in a way no other nation has. It is now considered one of her most positive achievements in Germany. On the refugee crisis she also shifted her views on the need for enhanced security and on putting in place controls in an agreement with Turkey, addressing the causes of migration in home countries. As a result Merkel now has over 60% support in polls before this weeks election in Germany in September 2017. Contrast this with the sharp decline in support for Sarkozy and Hollande in France, Cameron and now Theresa May in Britain, and for other leaders in the U.S., and one can see how Merkel is different. It has much to do with sincerity and authenticity as a politician. Her favorite soup is potato soup, she drives a VW Golf small car, and lives modestly, shopping in the local grocery store. When it comes to protecting ordinary German people in what Germany owes in bailouts to indebted countries she could be tough with bankers and politicians. All this makes people of different political views see something valuable and to be respected in Angela Merkel, particularly at times like this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Hispanic immigrants make up a big part of the construction industry and a big part of industries like carpet making in Georgia. This has been hit hard and jobless rate for Hispanics is 6.9% according to the Labor Department up from 5.5% in April 2007. States with expandig Hispanic populations like Florida, California, Georgia and Nevada are hit hard by Hispanic job losses. Overall the jobless rate has gone up from 4.5% last year to 5% during th same periodand when one takes out the Hispanic component the jobless rate is down much less, which also tell us something about why the pace of the economic downturn is felt less among the whites and the rest of the population, because the construction industry got hit the worst and the Hispanics especially immigrants who dominate the construction industry are taking the brunt of it. The subprime story plays up here as well. From 1994 to 2006 the rate of Hispanic homeownership climbed to 50% frm 41% according to census data, at a rate more than double for the increase amon non-Hispanics. By 2006 47% of the loans issued for home purchases by Hispanics were subprime or loans with poor credit histories, double the rate for non-Hispanic whites, according to a paper by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, only exceeded by African Americans. In 2006 homeownership fell among Hispanics and one in 12 mortgages made to Latino households in 2005 and 2006 is likely to fail according to Catherine Singley, a policy fellow at the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group in Washington. Georgia has one of the heavy concentration of new Latino immgrants, with a 70% increase in the state's Hispanic population between 2000 and 2007, according to census data. From one fifth of the construction work force in 2000 Hispanics made up one third by 2006 according to the Economic Policy Institute. Among foreign born Hispanics construction was responsible for 46% of the growth in employment from 2004 to 2006 according to Rakesh Kochhar, an econist at the Pew Hispanic Center, which tells us that the new Latino immigrants dominated the construction industry in places like Atlanta and in the rest of the country and are now getting hit the worst. Not only construction but industries that parallel the growth in construction like carpet making based in Dalton, Georgia, were dominated by Latino immigrants, so that as construction fell these towns and Latinos there are hit hardest. Investment manager El-Erian of Pimco points to employment as the key the critical thing to watch for the next 6 months and its useful to see that unemployment has increased by about half a percentage point to 5% from 4.5% April 2006 to April 2007 according to Labor Department data. As most of this unemployment has probably been taken up by the new Latino immigrants to the USA its probably not changed much excluding that component, which is possibly why the economy has not felt like it is in a recession when all around the signs of recession or what causes a recession are evident around us. Another way to say this is that there are built in hidden mechanisms of the American economy in its present form such as immigration, and possibly others that act as delay mechanisms that throw the recessionary impact back by anywhere from 6-18 months depending on how they operate and can blind one about the reality of oncoming storms. This was to be seen in 2005 for the economy with consumption spending and mortgage industry excesses, and which is why Pimco decided in 2005 at its spring meeting, that the big secular story was about the economic downturn. It actually took until 2007 for this to occur because of similiar things to what we are seeing now in terms of recessionary pain, then the new structured investment vehicles and other ingenious innovations in the mortgage industry may have extended the boom and delayed the economic downturn being felt till 2007. There is a lot of grief among Hispanic people. The numbers tell the story. For the 19 million Latino immigrants in the USA...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lessons from the Mexican financial crisis of 1994-95 with the collapse of the Mexican peso, and a massive government bank bailout and Mexico's biggest slump since the Great Depression. Guillermo Ortiz, now central bank governor, was finance minister at the time. He discussed things with Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, about the Mexican experience which could be seen as the first financial crisis of the global economy. What lessons can be learned? Ortiz says there comes a moment when something happens that leads to a general loss of confidence. Once this happens things can deteriorate fast. This happened when Mexico could not successfully manage the devaluing of the peso. For the USA this might have happened with the collapse of Lehman, which may have triggered a sequence of events leading to a general loss of confidence and banks fear of lending to each other and credit markets getting frozen. At that point Ortiz says its better to do too much than to do too little, as it takes a lot to restore confidence. "And don't be ruled by ideology, stay flexible and act decisively. Help those with mortgages they can't pay. Take stakes in troubled banks. Don't expect to turn a profit on government investment." How do you tackle mortgage workouts or modification. Vicente Corta who led Mexico's bank bailout program says "we tried fancy scemes that did not work. We ended up saying 'OK you pay half your mortgage, and we'll pick up the other half." Sounds similiar to what FDIC's Sheila Barr is doing on a small scale at IndyMac bank, basically " making mortgages affordable." And take stake of ownership in banks in exchange for injection of capital. Paul Krugman says the Bush administration earlier was reluctant to do this, thinking oh that is socialism, because they let themselves get into an ideological bind. Until Gordon Brown did just this in the UK with RBS and HBOS banks on Monday October 13, 2008. In that case because no on else came forward Britain took a majority stake. British finance Minister, Alistair Darling, stated that the British government was not in the business of running banks and that this was taking a necessary step to restore lending. The Mexican experince in this context is very instructive. It cost Mexico dearly in terms of political warfare about this, because once Banamex for example- to which the Mexican governmet gave money without any ownership stake- became healthy it was sold to Citigroup for $12 billion and the government got nothing. In Mexico Lopez Obrador and other politicians have created a running debate about this as totally unfair and it has been divisive for Mexican politics, making passing even basic legislation difficult. Ortiz now says take ownership stakes and if you don't forget about socialism you will have political fallout of a different kind when banks once healthy and profitable are on their own owing little to the government; just when the government falls short of financing the basic programs for the elderly, for children, for schools, for health care,and for collapsing bridges and roads that are falling apart, not to speak of funding shortfalls for Medicare and Social Security. So Guillermo Ortiz has some very useful advice for Ben Bernanke and the Fed and for Treasury and for the next President. Edmund Phelps of Columbia University was interviewed on Bloomberg today, October 13. He is a recent winner of the Nobel prize in Economics. He also believes capital injection into the banks- like other economist have suggested -is the key to getting the banks to lend. He thinks the auction process and buying up toxic assets is way too complicated and would take way too much time. He thinks keeping homeowners in their homes and reducing foreclosures is critical and thinks Martin Feldstein has some good ideas on this. See the links to Martin Feldstein. What if things still deteriorate? The government may have to nationalize or takeover some of the banks, he says. Gordon Brown has already taken over RBS and HBOS. What are some of the ways to improve things. One is that credit ratings firms he says have become almost oracular. Do they know what can happen in the future he asks. We have to rethink what it means to give a rating he says. And the U.S. financial institutions have to go back to doing what they should be doing in the first place, which is to finance investments in companies and business, and not homes and residential construction. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A study published in the British journal Lancet shows that the number of people suffering from diabetes went from 153 million in 1980 to 353 million in 2008. The study shows the U.S. having 24.7 millon diabetics in 2008, which is three times the number from 1980. About 70% of this is from population growth and aging, and the rest from obesity, lack of exercize, changing diet. The American Diabetes Association estimated the cost of treating diabetes in the U.S. at $174 billion for 2007. About 138 million diabetics live in China and India. In India there is an additional cause- malnutrition in early childhood years for the poorer segment of the population. European countries have done better than the U.S., Mexico, India and China. S. Korea and Thailand have done better than other Asian countries. And this is attributed to healthier lifestyles, diet and less obesity in these countries.

LyrArc Article Gist
According to recent Center for Disease Control numbers, about two-thirds of American women are obese or overweight. Retail stores like Target are trying to appeal to women in the 14 plus sizes where demand is growing.