LyrArc Article Gist
Why is this important? Because America needs a future and investing in the future meets investing in new technologies and investing in infrastructure, and in mitigating cost of living for families that are struggling. Mr. Trump's claims on cost of living, oil and gas production, and job losses from electric cars at a rally in Texas and fact check: Oil and gas production is 12.9 million barrels a day compared to 12.3 million barrels a day during the Trump administration- source: Energy Information Administration. Energy costs are up a lot by $2250. (Mr. Trump said). Energy costs per household up $1520 not $2250 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. $1520 compares 2022 with 2019 as baseline, $2250 uses Jan 2021 as a baseline when energy use dropped because of the pandemic. The Ukraine war and taking Russian supplies off the market pushed oil prices higher which were mitigated by policies of the Biden administration on how shipping of oil takes place in international markets setting a lower price for oil than what the Russians and Saudis were expecting. Autoworkers won't have jobs in 3 years because everything is going electric. (Mr. Trump said).It takes fewer workers to produce electric cars than fossil fuel cars. Yet the world is moving to electric cars and even companies like Toyota that lagged are falling behind. The 146,000 workers at GM and Ford secured a 25% wage increase over several years to meet rising cost of living with the support of president Biden on the picket line. No jobs are expected to be lost in 3 years and America is gaining leadership in electric car technologies to build a healthy automobile industry and well paying jobs for the future.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that in American history even presidents who did not read much and were not very qualified were able to perform well in office because of very qualified people in the cabinet positions. Reagan was not a avid reader yet he had Shultz at State and James Baker at Treasury. Mnuchin is not anywhere near being qualified as James Baker. Tillerson may be qualified as a CEO of a large energy company, but lacks the experience of Shultz. During the last years of his presidency Reagan may have felt the effects of early Alzheimers. Checks and balances also helped to make the system work under presidents so that they did not overreach their powers.  Krugman is skeptical of the way checks and balances would work under president Trump and sees some second rate appointments in the administration. He points to the departure of Mike Flynn and the controversies surrounding the Russian meddling as very different from the situations faced by other presidents with weak qualifications.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Peter Baker shows President Trump only reluctantly agreed to certify the Iran Nuclear Agreement. He opposed it in discussions with the Secretary of State Tillerson. It took the combined effort of Tillerson Dunford of the combined chiefs of staff, Defense Secretary Mattis, and of National Security Adviser McMaster, to get Trump to agree to go ahead with the deal. President Trump wanted a new strategy to counter Iran in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister Zarif has not yet met with Tillerson of the U.S. Zarif says Iran may withdraw from the deal if there is significant nonperformance by the U.S. Trump advisers are wary about the influence on Europe as the EU is not interested in taking a new look at the Iran nuclear deal. The EU sees things differently- that the issues of Iranian influence in the war torn Middle East is a separate issue from the nuclear deal, and that in any case a nuclear constrained Iran is better than one with nuclear weapons. Another factor is that the Middle East is now a complicated place with relations crisscrossing in different and even conflicting directions. The U.S. played a part on the Iranian side in the retaking of Mosul in Iraq with U.S. bombing strikes against Islamic State. In Iraq the U.S. is supporting the Abadi government which is mainly Shiite in its structure and is supported by Iran. The Trump position is that president Obama gave away too much in negotiating the deal and was not against the negotiating process.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration proposes a zero policy for Iranian oil imports which says the U.S. will grant zero exemptions to countries importing Iranian oil.  Big importers China and India are likely to resist this policy.

LyrArc Article Gist
The commodities boom allowed Brazil under president Lula to commit to heavy state spending, subisidies, protection of favored sectors with large tariffs, that led to inefficiency and high debt. The policies continued under president Rousseff. Corruption scandals in the latter part of the Lula administration led to more populist policies for the Workers Party to stay in power, says Porter. Compared to Mexico and Chile, Brazil and Argentina under presidents Lula and Kirchner moved in the direction to closing up their economies to trade and foreign investment that would make corporate sectors more competitive and less dependent on the state for subsidies and favors. Mexico's economy other than the automobile sector is struggling, as mismanagement also plays a part as with the handling of Pemex and huge capital injections needed. Mindfulness and thoughtfulness is needed in setting policy direction, aware of the risks free of illusions about rosy scenarios, knowing that ideology plays less of a part than exercizing good judgement....

LyrArc Article Gist
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University economist, author of the well researched book on the 2008 financial crisis, "This Time Is Different," gives his thoughts on the economic prospects for the U.S under the new Trump administration. He says 4% GDP growth and 3% inflation is possible temporarily for a while with stimulus policies, less regulation, and increased private investment. After 8 years of not investing in much needed infrastructure because of concerns about the deficit, the timing is right for such investments, especially as the economic effects of the crisis of 2008 gradually fade.  This is about taking advantage of ultra low interest rates to invest in infrastructure. He says it helps that Trump policies are pro-business. He sees drawbacks as the stimulus program adds a 25% increase with extra debt, adding $5 trillion over 10 years, but adds that for many years Nobel prize winning economist Krugman and others have said that there is good reason to increase borrowing to invest, and this is now being tried. Inflation remains an uncertainty- if there are large quantities of underutilized and unemployed resources it would raise prices less than its effect to increase output. The reverse would apply if the U.S. economy is closer to full capacity. One factor that would help- increasing confidence for business and increasing investment. Against this what he calls optimistic view or spin, is the idea of mistakes under a Trump administration, errors made and a degree of incompetence which he says is a real possibility. Overall his view is that some risks are appropriate now, and from his deep study of financial crises sees the slow growth of the last 8 years a result of a financial crisis that now begins to fade, creating the possibility of higher growth under prudent policies.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ford is facing a sales disaster in the China market after lagging in coming up with new models and falling behind in adopting new technology in the hyper competitive Chinese market. Sales dropped from 1.27 million vehicles in 2016 to 752,000 vehicles in 2018. In 2018 sales dropped by 37%, when the Chinese market declined by 3%. In 2019 the car market in China shrank by another 12% in the first half.  The problems stem from poor management. Alan Mulally started the China project, his successor from a Michigan furniture company CEO Jim Hackett was unable to grasp the challenges in China with new technology a key feature of keeping abreast of the Chinese market. A succession of new executives in China from U.S. or EUropean operations compounded the problem each group lacking the touch needed with local Chinese conditions. Some experts say Ford is now becoming irrelevant in the Chinese market after being a late starter in coming to China and then investing billions in a catch up effort. GM and VW started much earlier. Ford reported loss of $1.5 billion in 2018. From 5% in 2015 its market share dropped to 2.1% in first quarter 2019. Ford was complacent and applied a global strategy in China when local Chinese car companies were moving with lightning speed. Ford was asked to locate in the far interior of the country as a late comer to China and its partner Chang'an Auto was more concerned about keeping car jobs than introducing the latest technology and models. China is obsessed with new technology and there is no way Ford could be allowed to get away with outdated models. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
With the strong positions taken by Clinton and Trump on China in the 2016 election campaign, U.S. relations with China enter a new phase. The strident tone in the campaign on China on trade deficit, women's issues, human rights, comes with the issues relating to China's role in the South China Sea and cyber espionage already in the background.