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.


WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As the deadline of July 22 approaches for the 160,000 members of the UK Conservative Party to elect a leader, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and the current Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt are running for the leadership position. Boris Johnson has 68% member support with Hunt at 23%, according to YouGov survey. Both candidates are in favor of Britain leaving the European Union without an agreement. Hunt has stated he would cancel leave for Britain's 16,000 civil servants in August to prepare for the departure of Britain from the EU by October 31.  Only 27% of Conservative Party members believe Mr. Hunt can do the preparation needed for an abrupt exit after 45 years of economic integration with the European Union. By contrast 90% of members think Johnson would do the preparation needed. Preparation is needed because of food and medical supplies trucks and in flights awaiting customs at border points. The result could be chaotic without adequate preparation. Under a Johnson government many ministers would leave the government including Mr. Hammond who runs the finance ministry. He is expected to join rebel ranks in the Conservative Party that does not think an abrupt exit like this is good for Britain. If these members in the House of Commons join Labour party members they could vote to block this from happening. Britain's opposition Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn has finally decided to call for a second referendum if Johnson pushes to leave the EU abruptly, and to campaign wholeheartedly this time for staying inside the EU. During the last referendum Labour leaders did not push hard for Remain, and David Cameron as prime minister and head of the Conservatives proved to be a weak and ineffective leader using the promise of a referendum as a ploy to win votes for the Conservatives in an earlier election and then finding himself stuck with promises made in the election with his party's right wing led by Johnson. Years of austerity policies promoted by Germany in the EU after a flawed entry of southern European countries with faulty not transparent finances such as Greece too early  into the eurozone had soured Britons on the EU. The friendly migration policies of German leader Merkel for economic as well as war torn country migrants from North Africa finally not just soured Germans on Merkel policies but also soured British working class families struggling to make ends meet and seeing migration as taking British resources that were needed at home. This has split most of Europe including Britain along lines of the major cities and the rural areas plus smaller towns, and in Eastern Europe, East Germany region along the lines of the old Soviet bloc countries which with deeply conservative thinking do not favor such migration policies. These divisive changes have taken place over along period of decades and will take time to heal through economic recovery and a fairer distribution of wealth, better investment in infrastructure, health, education, public services, neglected during the Tech driven flawed investment diversion of economic resources. Yet the hope of this type of change if grasped by Britons as well as Europeans could bring new life and revive the vision of a Europe with shared benefits for all Europeans, not just a French-German project. For this to happen new leaders have to rise to the challenge inside Britain and the rest of Europe.      ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Washington Post uses Frequently Asked Questions to give readers an understanding of the India China border conflict. The roots of the conflict lie in  China's claim to Tibet based on Chinese troops going to aid Tibet in 1792. This based on the Qing dynasty sending troops to aid Tibet after a Nepalese invasion of Tibet. Tibet and Nepal are neighboring countries in the Himalayan mountains,  Nepal has a border with Indian state of Bihar, and Tibet is north and northeast of Nepal, all in close proximity of several hundred kilometres from India but four thousand kilometres from Beijing near Korea and Japan. The Sino Nepalese war, called the Gurkha war in Chinese, was the result of a dispute between Nepal and Tibet over debased silver coinage supplied by Nepal to Tibet and Tibet's demand for compensation, as well as a dispute about salt supplied by Tibet to Nepal. Chinese forces were repelled by  the Nepalese Gorkhas, and eventually the conflict was settled with a peace treaty between Nepal and Tibet with Chinese mediation for the Tibetan side. When the British East India company intervened in the region in 1815 China was not present, and when Nepal and Tibet had another war in 1855 China was not present.  For the first half of the twentieth century Tibet printed its own stamps and was an independent country negotiating treaties with Britain. China's brief intervention in 1792 is the fact cited by China for its claim to Tibet. Crossing the high mountains to get to Tibet from China's western frontier was for most of history and during this 1792 intervention, a journey that took 3 or 4 months with yaks and mules. Because of the sheer logistics China was present only in a symbolic way in Tibet or Nepal, both regions far more autonomous and remote from China than say a Finland near Russia. It takes 5 hours to go from Helsinki to St Petersburg in Russia. This is about the distance between the border with Nepal in Bihar, India, to Tibetan border with Nepal. By contrast it takes four thousand kilometres journey from Beijing to Tibet and over steep mountain ranges and rivers which would took months of journey with mules and yaks all the way into the twentieth century.  Finland was part of Sweden till 1809 when it became part of Russian Empire, till 1917 when it became an independent country. The Soviet Union invaded Finland one more time before World War II and was repelled, but this is attributed to Russian fears that Finland could be used as a base for an invasion of Russia. Tibet was a buffer between the British Empire and China. Chinese Nationalists party and Communist party thinking may have changed after Japan's invasion of China in the thirties, making extending China's western frontiers to the borders of India as part of the new nationalist idea.  How else can one see Beijing in East Asia throughout its history suddenly at the border with India after its takeover of Tibet in 1950. The period in 1950 when India was just coming out of the partition and tackling millions of refugees on the border with newly created Pakistan.      ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Having an adequate supply of N95 masks is critical for each hospital tackling the coronavirus pandemic. The lack of enough masks leaves health care personnel without the basic protection and is a grave emergency. Hospitals are resorting to reuse of the masks in this crisis and this is not a good practice as it increases the chances of infection. President Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act on April 2 against 3M. This gives the federal government more control over 3M's operations to ensure that it goes all out to make the healthcare N95 masks that the hospitals need in this grave emergency. This report in the WSJ covers the situation as of April 3 on the supply of M95 masks for health workers and others. N95 masks block 95% of very small particles. Supply in the U.S. is for 50 million N95 masks. Demand in the U.S. is for 300 million N95 masks as estimated by the Department of Health and Human Services. in March- this is how many are needed by health care workers to fight this pandemic in the U.S. The principal manufacturer is 3M. 3M company has doubled its production since January 2020. The trend before this pandemic was to send production over to China and other countries. This is changing now with the pandemic and the U.S. policy shifting to be self sufficient in medical supplies in the event of an emergency. A policy Peter Navarro, who heads the agency in charge of getting medical supplies, says President Trump is insisting be implemented. Hospital buyers supported the earlier trend to keep costs down, but this appears to be a costly mistake, putting health care workers in hospitals across the U.S. without the basic protection they need. Minnesota based 3M invented the first modern disposable masks in the 1960's. Interestingly 3M continued to make millions of masks in the U.S. even though competitors moved manufacturing overseas. The 50 million disposable masks 3M made globally went to workers in industries where it provided extra safety from metal shavings or other substances, and medical workers. Now 90% of masks go to medical workers. 3M ramped up production globally since January 11 when the pandemic first hit to 100 million masks a month globally, and 35 million a month in the U.S. at plants in South Dakota and Nebraska. 3M says that it will import 10 million masks from its factory in China, which earlier this year was restricted from shipping it outside China as China needed masks for the pandemic. About 10 million more masks are made by two other manufacturers Alpha Pro and Louis Gerson Co.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ordered 600 million N95 masks from 5 companies to distribute to hospitals and build up the national medical supply stockpile. 190 million each of this is from 3M and Honeywell and 130 million Owens & Minor Inc.  3M says it will make 50 million a month in the U.S. by June. Honeywell which had moved production overseas, plans to bring back production to the U.S. by making 10 million masks by May at its Rhode Island and Phoenix plants. There is a company in Singapore that makes one million masks a day in China and other Asian countries, Pasture Pharma Pte, but most of it is committed to government agencies in China.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Stimulus Package Unveiled

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Details of the $825 billion stimulus plan. Renewable energy does well under the plan including production tax credit for renewables, with $32 billion for a "smart" electrical grid for which GE makes components and lobbied for. Renewable energy producers win an extension of production tax credits now convertible into cash for companies whose losses leave them unable to use the credits. Transportation infrastructure green projects did not do so well, with $32 billion for transportation projects and only $10 billion for mass transit projects.The Natural Resources Defense Council had compiled a list of more than 80 environmentally friendly infrastructure and transportation projects worth about $405 billion. Only a small number of these projects made it. What is in the stimulus to create jobs and stimulate capital investment? Businesses get bonus depreciation, which speeds up depreciation deductions for companies that invest in plant and equipment. The stimulus doubles the amount small businesses can immediately write off for capital investments and purchasing new eqipment, and gives incentives for businesses to invest in renewable energy. States get help with $90 billion going to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments, and an additional $79 billion to help states avoid cutbacks in education and other services. And there is a "Make Work Pay" tax credit for $500 per worer and $1000 per couple. Experts say the effects of the stimulus will be felt in the latter part of 2009 and into 2010. Which is one reason the view of economists that there would be a second half recovery does not reflect conditions on the ground. Goldman has revised its view to 2010 and even that may be optimistic. One example of what has happened in the stimulus in this respect is that the earlier optimistic view of largeinvestments in science and technology, broadband networks, and transportation projects for fast rail and transit have all been trimmed down. Part of the reason may be that the bill for the nation's banking system revival may be larger than realized as an additional amount of $15-20 billion is being negotiated for Bank of America and more money will go to Citigroup. $6 billion is shown for highspeed internet access for rural and underserved areas. Science facilities get $10 billion. Repair of public infrastructure (read roads and bridges) gets $31 billion. School modernization gets $21 billion. And modernization of health information technology systems gets $20 billion which its hoped will provide equivalent or higher returns to pay for some of the universal health care costs, and preventative care gets $4 billion. There is a tax credit for R&D work on energy innovations and renewable energy production of $20 billion, and $32 billion for a "smart electricity grid." These are the proactive parts of the stimulus that create something new and make improvements. They add up to $144 billion. So much money goes to shore up the existing services and supplement incomes, and to relieve stresses on the banking system, and other ways to shore up the system, that the proactive expenditures are only a small fraction or 17% of the $825 billion stimulus. And all the time the federal deficit and debt increases with these huge outlays just to shore up the system. The Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Director Mr. Beach told Congressmen at a discussion chaired by Congressman Cantor (R), on January 16, 2009, that the federal debt would reach 92% of the nation's GDP in 2009 from 58 billion or 70% in 2008, with the $825 billion for stimulus. The federal deficit would go up to $1.31 trillion or 9.2% of GDP up from $541 billion in 2008. See the research paper on the Heritage website. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Trade economists from Ivy League universities, are still peddling the old theories on trade from textbooks that make no sense and have got America in this huge mess that it is in where other countries are ripping America off with unfair trade practices. These economists have turned a blind eye, turned their backs to the great damage done to industrial towns and communities across America for two decades with the loss of manufacturing. Take Irwin's point that the US would have to monitor rates on 13000 tariff line items. This is ridiculous because the US simply needs to monitor the key products such as semiconductors, oil and gas, LNG. In just one negotiation with India the US having a trade deficit DJT states of $100 billion with India- terrible trade. By opening up supply of LNG and oil US can fill India's needs for Oil and LNG and cut the deficit to zero. Who came up with this idea. Indian PM Modi and his trade team. Once it was known that the status quo was unacceptable India came up with its own ideas lets import what we get from Russia from the US. Yes we had discounts from Russia but that was when oil prices were high. DJT's effort to get oil prices down by increasing US production will make it possible for India to get this oil at similar prices. India is a much bigger economy now than during Covid 5 years back India can do this. US and India win-win by doing joint aviation production deals and US gains with sale of F-35 stealth fighters. It is just common sense. Sadly, much of this is common sense that is beyond Ivy League Economics departments at American universities.  Reciprocal Tariffs make a lot of sense because this is how fairness is done- for China, for India. In the case of Mexico, Canada, China, on stopping flow of fentanyl- this reciprocal tariff is not a tariff it is as Commerce Secretarty Luttnick pointed out domestic policy of the United States. Which country would tolerate 490,000 deaths from fentanyl over 12 years and not take domesti policy action. It is not that the policy actions are taken it is that these action should have been taken a long time back. ...
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This New Yorker has resilence in his roots in the Scottish Hebrides islands. No wonder he was able to take up the challenge of a US unable to extricate itself from  wars in the Middle East (Reagan, Bushes, Obama), and unfair trade with China, and an onslaught of unfavorable media attention. His name is DJT. According to the BBC in this story on Donald Trump's mother Mary Ann Mcleod, she was a regular churchgoer, well respected in the community, who visited her homeland in Scottish isle of Lewis, British Hebrides, frequently. Mary Ann McLeod is the youngest of 10 children of a Scottish family in the town of Tong in the Hebridean isle of Lewis in the North Sea, northwest of the Scotland mainland. Her father ran the local post office. The family was  relatively poor coming from Scottish people cleared of Highlanders during the Clearances and with fishing disasters in the family. Two hundred servicemen returning from the first world war to Tong lost their lives in a shipping disaster and the economy of the island was in poor shape. With no opportunities or future many immigrated to Canada. Mary Ann's sister Catherine immigrated to Canada and on a visit to Tong she took Mary back with her to New York in 1930. Mary worked as a nanny for a wealthy family in New York before meeting a socialite of German immigrants Fred Trump. Mary returned to Scotland in 1934 and by then she found a new life with Fred Trump whom she married. The couple lived in a wealthy area of Queens and Fred Trump ran a real estate business he had inherited with his mother. Donald Trump still has three cousins in Tong in the British Hebrides Scottish isles. His older sister Maryanne Trump Barry regularly visited Tong. Donald Trump visited Tong in 2008. Of this family a local who knows the cousins and the family John MacIver, a local councillor and friend of the cousins told BBC in 2017- "They are very nice, gentle people and I'm sure they don't want all the publicity that's around. I quite understand that they don't want to talk about it."   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Here are 11 big infrastructure projects that are planned across the country. They are part of the $2.2 trillion of projects to build or repair infrastructure, that is estimated by the American Society of Civil Engineers as needed by America today. But there is only $100 billion for infrastructure spending in the Stimulus Plan, and much of this will go to keeping existing infrastructure, a dilapidated bridge here or road there in repair. Only $50 billion is available for transportation projects. The rapid transit planned for California with trains twice as fast as Acela for a 800 mile track is estimated at $45 billion, but there is only $11 billion in the Stimulus for mass transit aand cities like Washington DC for Dulles airport with its need for a airport train, and other mass transit projects around the country wil compete for the same money. As a result most will go unfunded. The Second Avenue Subway in New York at $4.35 billion, Miami Port Tunnel at $1 billion, Bridge to Canada from Detroit for $1.8 billion, Hudson Rail Tunnel for New York at $8.75 billion, Seattle Highway Tunnel at $4.24 billion, Gulf ports at New Orleans and Gulfport, Mississippi at $2.04 billion, tens of billions for new California aqueduct bypassing the delta around Sacramento to bring water from north to arid Southern part of California, NestGen Air Traffic Control for $15 billion to $22 billion, are the other projects on this list. Many of these are badly needed and have been waiting for years to get the necessary investment. This is only a partial list, and suggests that there are a lot of projects that can productively use government investment, so that wasteful spending does not occur. It appears that the projects are there because these areas were neglected for a long period, more like the situation faced during the post Thatcher period in the UK, where infrastructure and services had been neglected for so long that Labor governments could productively channel new investment in these areas to avoid wasteful spending. And it appears that the situation is very different from Japan where the Liberal Democratic Party had a vested interest in keeping its farm and rural base happy with new projects, like a bridge to nowhere, that led to wasteful spending for a decade or more, leading to rising deficits and investments that did not create productive returns in terms of economic growth. By contrast these projects have potential to generate productive returns for years into the future and also are large enough to create jobs and be spread out over a number of years. This could end up being a real bright spot in the current situation. Felix Rohatyn, who helped New York rebuild its finances afte a crisis, has a new book "Bold Endeavors: How our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now", using examples like the rebuilding of the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, and the Interstate Highway System, and says the US needs to build for the future with more ambitious, better planned projects today. He says, that infrastructure is not an expense, it has to be seen as a vitally needed and productive investment. People like Rohatyn and others see the Stimlulus plan as a missed opportunity because a lot of these projects mentioned here and the numerous others not shown here will simply not see much money from the government to support them and get them off the ground. The idea that this is wasteful government spending that is spreading, may be a danger to this vision and opportunity. At the same time the reality is that if all this was happening during the time of the Erie Canal or the postwar period of the Interstate Highway System it would have been much easier to support. The banking crisis fix is taking away so many of the dollars that could have gone here, that this may be the missed opportunity, the lack of room for visionary investments because of the danger of pushing the government deficit to 60% of GDP with the current spending plans. ...
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fred Hiatt of The Washington Post asks the question what would have happened if U.S. president Harry Truman had sounded the retreat for war weary Americans following the Second World War- as Greece floundered, during the Berlin Blockade 1948-1949 when Truman ordered airlifts to Berlin which totaled 200,000 in one year from the U.S. and allies, as South Korea was invaded by the Communist North in 1949 when Truman responded with the landing at Inchon. He cites an intervew with president Obama in the Atlantic magazine of Jeffrey Goldberg, where Obama's views after hours of conversations are summarized as being- that the Middle East cannot be fixed during the Obama years in office, and not for a generation, so that it would be better to simply do nationbuilding in the U.S. He points to Trump's interview with the Washington Post about pursuing a similiar policy because the U.S. is much poorer today than it was in the past. Hiatt says the U.S. GDP per capita was $27,000 in 1945, $62,000 today. And who would have thought in 1953 as the Korean War wound down and Federal Republic of Germany under Adenauer was emerging, Japan recovering from the devastation of the war, that South Korea, Japan and Germany, would one day be America's strongest trading partners and prosperous democracies. It was not about nationbuilding but lending a hand when needed, and the countries having to lift themselves up by the bootstraps- yet during a severe crisis as in Greece, Berlin, Seoul, in the 1950's when the post war Europe and East Asian countries were being established and needed help, the U.S. offered the early security and economic support needed to allow nationbuilding to happen by people in these places pulling themselves up by the bootstraps over a subsequent longer period. Truman did not shrink from the challenge and set the groundwork for today's European Union, and for today's Japan and South Korea. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
By putting the credibility of 6 Republican National Chairmen in recent years on the line, including Republican figures such as Bill Brock and Bob Dole, this op-ed article in the WSJ aims to put to rest any doubts about the rule that an absolute majority of delegates is always needed to become the nominee of the Republican Party. This is true since Lincoln won the nomination on the third ballot, and who would never have been president if this was not the rule. The party coalesced behind Lincoln after the nominee on the first ballot failed to win. This also happened when Reagan won a million more votes than Gerald Ford but gracefully conceded to Ford who had the delegate lead. Eisenhower also was nominated on the second ballot after the leading candidate failed to win the first ballot. Reasons given by the party chairmen for this setup are that the party works to elect the best candidate to represent it by coming together at the convention behind the best leader for the party in the general election. Only about 17% of eligible voters voted in the Republican primaries, with a highly fragmented vote, which make the primaries only one way of bringing in public representation, the other being grassroots leaders in each state party having their views represented as delegates, leaders of the party in prevous elections also offering their views and being represented in some form. Even the general election system of electoral votes is based on winning by state electoral votes and does not simply tally up the votes in the entire country, the framework for the Senate with 2 senators for each state, 2 for California and 2 for Wyoming is not entirely on number of voters because it was the intent of the founders for the Senate to bring representation in a different way than for the House of Representatives, all the time looking for appropriate checks and balances for good government as the goal they set above everything else....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
James Areddy explains why the Jinping administration in China was so keen on promoting gains in the equity markets. It was seen as a way to ease the debt overhang from the 2008 Stimulus of $586 billion. The Stimulus was put together in November 2008 to pay for infrastructure, construction and social spending, at a level that was 3 times the stimulus proposed in the European Union. Critics say that the initial signs of a crisis that might affect the government are magnified in China's authoritarian political structure, with one example being the size of this stimulus. With this kind of hasty spending a common problem is that not enough good projects can be found. One example of wasted spending is the $930 million spent to build the Shanghai West rail station from a older structure that had fallen into disuse. With three other stations serving Shanghai this station gets little traffic. The Jinping administration promoted the stock market as a way for companies to issue equity and reduce debt, and make less reliance on bank loans. The result was to push the Shanghai Composite Index up by 150% for the one year gain by June 12, 2015. The government also made it possible for individual investors to borrow money to invest in the market. About $354 billion of margin lending to finance stock purchases is estimated by Goldman Sachs, which now poses problems with a one third decline in stocks after June 12, 2015, leading to losses for individual investors. The loss of the boost from the stock market is likely to hurt GNP growth by 1% percentage point, according to Capital Economics. As China's real growth according to experts is closer to 4%, because of statistical errors and overestimates, according to experts, this could pose a serious problem for the economy. Countries dependent on commodity exports to China such as Australia, Chile and Brazil are likely to feel the effects of a decline in demand for iron ore, copper and other metals....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. takes in 70,000 refugees a year, but only 1500 Syrian refugees have been taken in by the U.S. by Sept. 2015, as a huge migrant refugee crisis unfolds in Europe. Germany has to make the same background checks and is moving quickly, the U.S. takes 18-24 months. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Middle East under the Obama administration led to the collapse of the fragile situation in Libya, Iraq and Syria, and the unraveling of these countries, a direct cause of the massive refugee crisis in the region with about half the Syrian population and large parts of Iraqi, Kurdish, and Libyan population dislocated. The result is a massive humanitarian crisis, turning the hopes of the Arab Spring into something no one could have imagined across North Africa. In a small Lutheran church in Frankfurt, Paulskirche, is the German story of a popular movement that spread throughout Europe in 1848, for a transition from autocratic governments to parliamentary democracy. Aspirations similiar to that expressed in the Middle East and North Africa in 2013-2014 in the Arab Spring were expressed in Germany and many parts of Europe in 1848. In the centre of Berlin on the Kurfstendamm lie the bombed but preserved ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, telling the story of the intervening years 1848-1949. It took many years before the same aspirations for liberty found shape in Germany's Public Law of 1949, finally finding a safe resting place after years of failing to unify a people around the ideas of liberty and justice for all, and not nationalism. Germans who had the hardest time waging that fight, by embracing the refugees in a spirit of openness carry on that fight into this century. Paul asks the question- who will lead? A Lutheran pastor's daughter takes up the fight without the slightest hesitation, and full measure of confidence with the words- "Europe will have failed on the question of refugees, if the close connection between it and universal civil rights is destroyed." ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
At a time of volatility and anxiety in financial markets Americans put their trust in Vanguard Funds. Vanguard funds took in 40% of the entire cash flow of the mutual fund industry in the first half of 2012, $87.7 billion went to Vanguard excluding money market funds. This was largely because of the index funds which Vanguard originated and which were Bogle's invention. Today Bogle, 83, still speaks up for investors and investing for the long run, on staying away from speculation and protecting U.S. financial markets from speculative behaviours. He says the financial industry has to put investor and client interests first, with no excuses made for behaviour, period, at a time when the financial industry has lost its compass and direction. Bogle heads the research center at Vanguard Funds following disagreements with his hand picked successor Brennan, and leaving the Board in 1999. The current head at Vanguard Funds, CEO McNabb, says Vanguard owes its success to all the foundations set by Bogle. Bogle says strategy follows structure, and the structure he built of investor ownership of Vanguard Funds prevents a situation where owners can siphon off funds, or engage in activities that would hurt investors. Bogle's differences with Brennan came from his efforts to institutionalize other ideas such as investing for the long term, and shunning frequent trading which could happen with the creation of exchange traded funds (ETF's). Bogle has had several heart operations since 1999, and a successful heart transplant. This has not slowed his adocacy efforts on behalf of investors, with 11 books on investing and safeguarding financial markets from excesses of the kind seen in the 2008 financial crisis. The most recent book is "The Clash of Cultures: Investment vs. Speculation" (Wiley & Sons, $29.95). In the book he calls for a grass roots effort by investors to protect America's retirement system, and finances of younger parents with children to send to college, from the damage that is happening with the financial system in acute stage of dysfunction. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Higgins tells the story of the China Power Investment Corporation's hydro electricity generation project on Burma's Irrawady river. The project is located in the northern part of Burma, in Myitsone, Kachin state. This was to be the first of seven hydroelectric dams on the Irrawady river. Initial opposition to the project by local people turned into a national opposition movement against the projects as it became clear that the huge project which would generate as much electricity as the Three Gorges dam in China, or seven times the Hoover dam in the U.S., would for the most part benefit China. Burma's economy was too small after decades of neglect to need this much electricity. The fears of ecological damage, uprooting the people living in the area, took on a new dimension as national opposition coalesced around the issue of Burmese sovereignty. The former general, President Thein Sein, who assumed the position in March 2011, had second thoughts. One former military officer, leading one of the opposition groups, expressed fears that Burma would become a colony that helped China meet its energy needs under the arrangement with China Power Investment Corporation. China was already working with regimes in Sudan and Angola to meet its energy needs. In September 2011, President Thein Sein halted work on the project. This happens just as the country's military is relaxing its hold on the media and allowing opposition leaders to express their views. The two developments may be connected as the military sees the need for getting public support to counter China's pressure to go along with the project. Years of external pressure failed to create an opening for democracy in Burma. This event appears to create the atmosphere for a genuine expression of Burmese feeling and desire for protecting its sovereignty, which would help it join the world community, with the military finding a common ground with public sentiment....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Timothy Egan points to the huge gap between a T.R. in 1910 making the speech in Osawatomie, eastern Kansas, and Professor Obama making an election speech in 2011. T.R.'s was an election manifesto that brought up the issues of conservation, child labor, a plea for an income tax, call for worker protections, limits on corporate power and influence on the laws and direction of the country. The speech was made in 1910, after Taft had assumed the presidency with Roosevelt's backing, and would lead to T.R. running against Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Most of what T.R. advocated became part of the country's social and economic fabric, much of the work beginning with Theodore Roosevelt's two terms as president, and also pursued by Woodrow Wilson, the president elected in 1912. By contrast, in line with the timidity of today's politics, Obama's speech called for approving his nominee for consumer protection bureau chief, and continuance of tax cuts for the middle class. Egan calls it a curse of today's politics and national debate that no politician can set the course for revitalizing America the way T.R. did. Some of what T.R. said in Kansas that day is: "There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done." "The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted." Jackie Calmes covered the extensive ties of both candidates, Obama and McCain, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in her report for the New York Times, on September 9, 2008- "For 08' Rivals a Skein of Ties to Loan Giants." Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, who with his reporters did some of the difficult reporting on Fannie and Freddie, wrote in one of his columns with a note of pessimism, that he wasn't sure that either of the presidential candidates were interested in what was happening. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Floyd Norris says the announcement by the ECB on Dec. 20, 2011, that 523 banks borrowed 489 billion euros under the newly created Long Term Financing Operation goes a long way towards giving Europe time to address the debt crisis. A major problem is recapitalization of European banks and the ECB's action helps address this problem. This is one of the achievements of the December summit of European leaders, though it was not the way markets had expected. Markets were focussed on large scale bond buying by the European Central Bank or issuance of euro bonds. ECB head, Mario Draghi, aware of widespread opposition in Germany to such proposals made it clear this was not going to happen. The Long Term Financing Operation of the ECB provides unlimited amounts of loans to European banks at 1% for 3 years, and accepts sovereign government debt as well as other types of securities as collateral. The result of this action was to lower the yield on a recent Spanish bond auction to 1.7% for three month bills from 5.1% the prior month. Spanish and Italian banks can now buy government debt of their countries and use the bonds as collateral at the ECB for three year loans at 1%. This Norris estimates will generate profits of about 37 billion euros for European banks from the difference between the ECB rate of 1% and the rate on two year bonds of Spain and Italy of 3.6% and 5.1% respectively for the bond purchases of 489 billion euros- calculated on a spread of 2.5 percentage points over three years. Another infusion of funds from the ECB will occur in February 2012. The new capital infusion gives European banks less reason to reduce lending in the eurozone as they work to meet the higher capital reserve requirements set under new Basel III rules. This is especially important given the austerity measures being implemented across the eurozone countries and Britain to reduce government deficits, and in light of the lower growth expected as a result....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The engineering changes in the design of the 787 Boeing Dreamliner provide an experience in humidity levels, altitude levels, turbulence, and roominess that is not dramaically different but enough to provide a noticeably better experience. Nobumi Matsuda, who runs an eye clinic in Japan and is studying the eye health of pilots, says he expected more, that humidity levels were not enough. Boeing used the construction of the body of the jet using super strong plastics instead of aluminium, to create a small increase in humidity levels. The humidity level inside the Dreamlier is 10-15% compared to 4-7% in other airplanes. By pressurizing the cabin to lower altitudes there is a 6% increase in oxygen absorbed at the 6000 feet level at which it is set than the 8000 feet level, according to Boeing. Michael Grepo, a computer systems expert taking the Tokyo to Frankfurt flight on ANA, says he experienced an improvement in breathing, dryness of the nose and contact lens, but it was not a huge difference. Thorsten Hoffmann, a German sales executive says he did not notice till he got off the flight, when he realized that he felt good, had slept better. Othe changes are big overhead bins. The large windows are supposed to reduce motion sickness and provide great views on takeoff and landing. Boeing says "while it can be argued that the passenger comfort improvements are incremetal, the combination of so many improvements in one airplane is revolutionary in our opinion." At the customer level these are proving less revolutinary and more of a subtle type that add up to a noticeable improvement. Boeing now has on its hands a remarkable sales success, with 870 Dreamliners ordered by 59 of the world's airlines. A big factor from the airlines point of view is high fuel prices. The 787 is 20% more fuel efficient than the comparable size Boeing 767....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions are being raised about the lack of fairness in the cuts imposed in Greece - and the IMF acknowledges this- where the minimum wage was cut by 22%, but the most highly paid civil servants had their salaries cut by 10%. Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schauble told the German daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel: "I really feel for the people of Greece. The vast majority now hard-hit by reform and austerity measures... can do nothing about the backup in reforms, the loss of competitiveness and the unproductive use of funds in the past." In Greece there is a separate wage scale for the highly paid public sector employees such as doctors, diplomats, professors, and uniformed personnel in the military and police. This is different from what the ministry bureaucrats, hospital support staff and local government administrators get paid. This group took only a 10% cut, even though it makes up one third of the payroll according to IMF and EU estimates. The cuts to the minimum wage were made to improve Greece's competitiveness and because in Greece during the last decade wages went up much higher compared to Germany. Brian Carney pointed out in a Journal article Feb. 14, 2012, that nominal private sector labor costs went up by 62% in Greece from 2000-2008 compared to 15% in Germany. Showing the nature of the fight to make the cuts more equitable, is the resistance to the IMF-EU insistence on cuts to the highest pensions which amounted to $178 million. In the end prime minister Papademos said the monthly pension of $1975 was reduced by $32 or 1.6%. The lack of fairness creates more uncertainty about the cuts as elections are expected in April, only 7-8 weeks from now, and fears that this may not hold when a new government is elected. For this reason the IMF-EU officials are considering putting the $170 billion bailout money in an escrow account....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gretchen Morgenson of the Times distills key insights from 633 page report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Morgenson points to the role of the Federal Reserve in Washington and New York in being as she describes it, defiantly inert and uninterested in controlling the mortgage bubble even when it had grown to enormous proportions.The problem now is that the same Fed has received more regulatory powers under the Dodd-Frank law. The same Fed repeatedly did not exert its authority on predatory lending. Page 94 of the report cites a total of only three institutions referred to prosecutors by the Fed from 2000 to 2006. Page 164 shows why there have been so few prosecutions for mortgage fraud from the bursting of the mortgage bubble. William Black, a former fraud investigator and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, says the FBI has received virtually no assistance from the regulators, the banking regulators and the thrift regulators. The report contains some outrageous comments by one of the key players in fueling the mortgage bubble, Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial. Morgenson describes him as a lender that roped unsuspecting borrowers into poisonous loans. Mozilo says in an interview on page 105 that his company prevented "social unrest" by providing loans to 25 million borrowers, many from minority groups. Never mind that this wave of poisonous loans has clogged the arteries of the nation's financial system, and resulted in foreclosures for millions of homeowners, creating a troubled housing market that hobbles the economy. Neil Barofsky, special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, sees further bailouts ahead. He said in a report to Congress in late January 2011: "Unless and until an institution like Citigroup is either broken up, so that it is no longer a threat to the financial system, or a structure put in place that it will be left to suffer the full consequences of its own folly, the prospect of more bailouts willl potentially fuel more bad behaviour with potentially disastrous results." ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The crisis of late 2008 and early 2009 in the global economy saw huge stimulus programs, resposible economic management, and rapid recovery by the end of 2009 in developing countries. China put in place a large stimulus program, and in most developing countries, India, Vietnam, Brazil and other countries efforts were made to strengthen the safety net for the poor and to introduce stimulus for creating jobs. India and Indonesis saw the return of ruling party governments and in Brazil Lula da Silva had favorability ratings above 60%. So contrary to earlier fears in late 2008 their was both asense of political stability and asense of confidence in the developing countries. Capital is flowing into these countries and the IIF says that net private capital inflows to developing countries will double in 2010 to $672 billion. Russia which saw capital outflows of $50 billion in the first 9 months saw $20 billon of capital inflows in the fourth quarter of 2009. Half of the 140 million laborers working in Chinese cities returned home in early 2009, a fifth stayed there and another fifth counld not find work when they returned to the cities. But as the stimulus in China kicked in, and infrastructure development surged, (see link to the rail infrastructure spending) by the middle of 2009 jobless ness among rural migrant workers went down to less than 3%. This shows in the Pew Global Attitudes Project wth more than 40% of respondents in India, China and Indonesia saying that they were satisfied with their lives, in China this was 87%. In France, Japan and Britain the share is below 30%. In America 49% of those in the Pew pollingfelt that America should mind its own business internationally, 30 points higher than in 1964. When asked "Are you better off in free markets?" the respondents share fell in 2009 in Germany by 4 points, in Spain by 10 points. Shares rose in India and China, and stayed flat in Brazil and Turkey, so there is no backlash against free markets in developing countries....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As Washington Post writer points out from personal experience- he is one of those who put up 15% to buy ahome inDenver at the top of the market and now has negative equity as prices drop- negative equity is one of the most serious problems facing the US economy. It has the potential to undo many of the encouraging things from the stimulus, as rising foreclosures continue to act as adrag on the overall economy. As he says about one fourth of Americans with home mortgages, or about 11-15 million people, owe more money on their homes than the market value of their homes. As Hoffman says the administration's approach has been a Band-Aid at best for a serious injury. The Obama administration set aside only $75 billion to get banks to modify loans and also made this voluntary for banks to modify loans. Treasury Secretary Geithner testified in Congress: "This is a conscious choice we made, not to start with principal reduction. We thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, create much greater risk of unfairness." But making it voluntary means very little of this $75 billion has gone to help achieve modifications- banks had no incentives to do this. Only 31,000 permanent loan modifications have been made. Of the 750,000 temporary loan modifications made as of Dec 2009 only 4% of homeowners signing up have qualified for permanent federal relief. See the links to Martin Feldstein's proposals for this on the pages of the Wall Street Journal in 2008 and 2009 which called for aggressive program of relief for the sake of the economy. With 2.4 million Americans likely to lose their homes in 2009 according to Moody's Economy.com estimates, following the 2 million in 2009 and 1.7 million in 2008, this may be a serious mistake of the Obama administration and drag out this recovery....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the whereabouts of Masataka Shimizu, president of Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the Fukushima nuclear plant. Shimizu was last seen in public appearances at a news conference on March 13, 2011. The chairman of the upper house of Japan's Diet, the parliament, calls this "inexcusable." The governor of Fukushima prefecture, Yuhei Sato, tells Japanese television that the people there cannot accept apologies, "because their anger and anxiety are extreme." Protestors walk past Tepco headquarters, chanting "No more Hiroshimas."Toko Kanoh, a former Tepco vice president, and for 12 years member of the Diet upper house, says Shimizu should talk to the public as soon as possible. This kind of disappearance is not uncommon in Japanese corporate circles. During the Toyota recall crisis, the chief of Toyota was also unavailable. Shimizu like other senior executives in the corporate elite is a lifer, having joined Tepco at 23, after graduating from Keio University. Because of the size and influence of Tepco, it produces one third of Japan's energy, he is also vice chairman of the Nippon Keidanren, the Japan Business Federation. Shimizu's role at Tepco was marked by an effort to restore profitability after the 2007 earthquake that damaged a nuclear plant. Shimizu decribed Tepco's core mission in the last annual report as "cost-cutting. He describes the need to construct "disaster resistant nuclear power stations," but at the same time in somewhat of a contradiction, says that the company had cut the cost of inspections not "by postponing them but by reducing their frequency." Just as Toyota went through a wrenching crisis after cost cutting and insulated corporate executive behaviour, which combined with technology and user behaviour put its safety reputation in risk, Tepco finds itself in severe shock. Tepco has lost two thirds of its value on the Tokyo stock exchange, and is looking for $25 billion in emergency loans. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The ABX Index which tracks subprime bonds is showing signs of recovery. The prices for representative parts of the subprime bond market have doubled from a low of 30 cents on the dollar to about 60 cents. This is happening as investors and some companies are taking on more risk and finding lenders. This is helping push up prices of commodities, junk bonds and stocks. The larger yields on the subprime bonds are attracting investors. Non-agency bonds- bonds not backed by Fannie and Freddie- yield between 5% to 7%, above the 4% yield on high quality corporate bonds and the 3.5% yield on U.S. government bonds. Demand for these bonds is growing. Companies that invest in these sub-prime bonds such as MFA Financial were buying $100 million of these bonds in 2010, and have increased this to $300 million a month recently. MFA Financial is able to do so because it can find funding from lenders who are now not as worried about the risks of these subprime bonds. Another development in this market is the offer of AIG to buy back apool of bonds that the Federal Reserve had taken over from AIG during the financial crisis of 2008. AIG offered to pay $15.7 billion for the pool of bonds with a face value of $30 billion. The Fed cited a high level of interest from investors and rejected that offer. The Fed will now let investors bid for these bonds to maximize its gain on these bonds. In another development even conservative investors such as four large life insurers are looking at buying these subprime bonds. Scott Robinson, a senior vice president of Moody's Investors Service, says the high levels of capital available is leading to a re-risking of balance sheets, even though it is not back to the old days yet. Considerable risks still remain in the housing market according to Nouriel Roubini and other experts....

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