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.


Show Us the Hope

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times editorial page on the day following the passage of the second bailout or rescue plan of $700 billion in the Senate after it was voted down in the House of Representatives. It points out that the bailout bill does little to prevent a wave of foreclosures which the NYT estimates at six million people expected to default in the rest of this year and 2009. It faults lenders unwillingness to reduce the loan balances amount. At a Congressional hearing for the Hope for Homeowners program in which the governmet wold insure upto $300 bilonin new affordable loans for troubled borrowers if the lenders voluntarily refinance delinquent mortgages by reducing loan balances to 90% of the homes' current market value, lending banks were lukewarm about taking these losses in exchange for bigger losses in foreclosures. These lenders include Wels Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. The FDIC's Sheila Barr has also advocated reducing loan balances in her proposal for tackling the housing crisis presented after the Bear Stearns crisis. She is taking this approach to banks that like IndyMac were taken over by FDIC. But the numbers are not large letters were sent to 28,000 delinquent borrowers of IndyMac recently to reduce loan balances. This is a serious problem and either Congress and Treasury are leaving this problem to the next administration taking office 3 months from now as there is no real consensus on this issue even today or they are missing the impact this has in dropping home price values even further in neigborhoods across the nation as foreclosures drive prices down even further compounding the problem. For the financial institutions it would appear that they are letting this drag out because their capital is at frighteningly low levels and taking losses at one time is harder than taking the foreclosure losses dragged out over 1-3 years and they are also looking for a way in which they can let the government bear the burden of losses as the crisis intensifies which can make sense from the point of view of each institution. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 2008, Sheila Barr told Congress this month that in recent years troubled loan portfolios have yielded about 32% of book value, compared with more than 87% for loans in which the borrower is current. These are strong statistics in favor of lenders taking an informed decision to lower loan balances voluntarily with some government help along the way but the fact that this is not happening leads one to think that something is falling between the cracks, initial lender reluctance to take losses through voluntary balance reduction at the time of Bear Stearns crisis given taxpayer reluctance and lack of government initiative to help lenders in doing this, sort of what Martin Feldstein suggested in a series of articles during the time before and after the Bear Steans crisis. And then as the credit crisis worsened with collapse of Lehman, WaMu, Freddie, Fannie and Wachovia in September 2008 fear gripping the markets and LIBOR interbank lending rate at close to 8%, banks gripped by the fear prevailing in the market, frozen practically about any steps other than preserving their hammered capital, and reluctant to take losses which would further impair their capital. Also in the WSJ Sept 8, on help for homeowners, Deutsche Bank estimates 40% of homeowners or about 20 million households will owe more than their home is worth by the time the housing market stabilizes. This will lead to some homeowners making the rational decision as Martin Feldstein argued to walk away from their homes, leading to more foreclosure losses for th banks. This article Rescue Includes Steps to Help Borrowers Keep Homes by Ruth Simon also has some information that confirms the NYT editorial. An analysis it says of 144 mortgage modifications by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office found that none reduced mortgage balances and onoly a handful reduced monthly payments. Even with interest rate reductions, the study showed borrrowers wound up paying more because of missed paymmets penalties and fees. Another study by Credit Suisse mentioned in the same article points out that the percentage of borrowers who were behind 6 months after loan modifications dropped to 17% when lenders reduced the loan balances and 13% when mortgage companies froze the interest rate of adjustable rate mortgages. A bigger problem is the effect on consumption, if 40% of homeowners end up owing more to the bank than their home is worth as Deutsche Bank estimates, combined with higher unemployment and higher parttime employment, by the time things stabilize. And this is the big looming problem for a new administration in January even if the bailout plan passes Congress this week after revisions and eases the crisis in the credit markets. ...

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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Edward DeMarco is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is the independent regulatory agency overseeing U.S. housing lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA was formed in 2008 after merging two existing agencies. Later that year Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government. FHFA head, DeMarco, is reluctant to help homeowners with underwater mortgages on their homes with reduced payments because this would mean losses to the taxpayer. He sees his mandate as protecting the taxpayer. Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, says she understands DeMarco's mandate is not to provide fiscal stimulus, and the Obama administration has been all over the place when it comes to providing homeowner assistance. The result is that there is little help by the U.S. government to homeowners with underwater mortgages since 2008, and this creates larger headwinds for the Federal Reserve Bank to provide momentum to the U.S. economy. Many experts see this as a serious problem and a well respected economist, Martin Feldstein, has made repeated proposals for structuring the help to homeowners since 2008. ...
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Robert Gordon of Northwestern University describes the problems in American Education and how this is the first generation which will not do better than its parents in educational attainment. The cost says Gordon comes in lower potential economic growth rates.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff under President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, former senator from Wyoming, say the U.S. Supercommittee members should remember that their personal priorities and the common good are not at odds. The authors of the Bowles-Simpson Presidents Commission for deficit reduction say there is growing discontent among voters with politicians who are obsessed with gaining partisan advantage. Using issues of national importance that require a common approach from all parties as a way to score political points will only backfire on these politicians. Personal priorities of members of Congress are now no longer at odds with the common good, they are converging. It is upto the Congress, members of both parties, to push back against the special interests and partisan politics, and show leadership on the deficit. The eurozone crisis has shown the dire consequences of any sluggishness or procrastination. The failure of the political class and leadership in Italy and Greece, and in other nations of the EU, has put the fate of these countries in the hands of markets, which have relentlessly pushed up the borrowing rates of Greece, Italy, Spain and other countries, and taken future direction out of the hands of politicians. Erskine and Bowles say don't wait for a fiscal crisis to take action because it will be disastrous economically and politically, with everyone as losers and no winners. Timidity is not an option, leadership is required to take action that is big and broad, tackling tax expenditures, entitlement expenditures, defense, across the board....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Frederick Harris of Columbia University says there is a price to be paid for a black president and it may just be too much for the average black person. There is a difference betwen symbols and substance, betwen a role model and accountability in a representative democracy, which is sadly lacking when the black elites, clergy and politicians fail to debate the issues about the problems facing the black community. Problems related to the increasing poverty among black Americans, and the 14% unemployment for black people. There is he says a strange reticience among the black elite to hold the president accountable on these issues just as they would have done for any Democratic president, even one who was as popular with blacks as Mr. Clinton. He says the experience with Obama is not even remotely comparable to the transformative nature of the work of Rev. Martin Luther King in the black community. It may stem from Obama's multiracial background, growing up in many countries, his elite education and being part of a liberal elite more than of the black community. The price is too high in economic and social terms for the poor or average black person and it has created a divide between the average black person and the black elite, with different concerns and different priorities. Harris points out that poor and poverty are words not mentioned often by Obama. Related to this is the foreclosure crisis in which ordinary black people were hardest hit with no effective help from the president to homeowners badly needing relief. Sheila Bair of the FDIC and Martin Feldstein advocated aggressive help for homeowners under water which did not come from the president. Showing not just the limits of a black presidency, but false hopes, inexperience and lack of leadership in issues that mattered to all Americans in the housing and foreclosure crisis. A populist from Kansas, as Sheila Bair describes herself, had the right instincts and courage of convictions which the president lacked and the entire country needed....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
About 680,000 homeowners applied for the Home Affordability Modification Program, or HAMP, and had their loans modified so that their mortgage payments are reduced. This is only one in four of the 2.7 millon homeowners who tried to to join the program. This according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data released by the Treasury Department. In 2009 the Obama administration launched the program to reverse the rising home foreclosures in the U.S., by reducing the monthly mortgage payments through lower interest rates and extending the term of loans. About $75 billion was estimated as the cost of the program at the time. Only $1 billion of this has been spent by the Obama administration. The program offered payments to 100 mortgage servicers as inducement to complete loan modifications. About half the applicants or 1.3 million were declared ineligible from the beginning, and the program used stricter qualification criteria than loan modification programs offered by individual banks. Applicants were rejected because the necessary paperwork was not submitted or it was lost by the mortgage company- 266,000 falling in this category. An additional 770,000 homeowners who started the program were later disqualified mostly for the paperwork and eligibility problems, with only a small number rejected for failing to make trial payments. Mortgages less than 31% of pretax income were considered affordable and considered ineligible-255,000 were in this category. Over 80% of homeowners in the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, received no loan modification....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Washington Post editorial on the Obama Georgetown speech of April 13, 2009. It questions whether President Obama has the candour and courage to tackle the tough issues of deficit reduction and entitlement reform. New healthcare spending for coverage itself will add to entitlement, and it says some of the savings mentioned by the President are phony or already needed for new spending for the economic recovery and health care. At the same time the paper gives Obama good marks for his clarity and grasp of the crisis and steps for recovery, and the policy agenda in the areas of health care, energy and education. The questions about courage and candor also raise all the questions about facing upto the facts about insolvent banks that Krugman, Rosenfeld, the Economist and others have raised. Is Obama dodging the hard choices, is he dithering? On the toughest issues like foreclosures, insolvent banks, global regulation pushed by the Europeans, will he end up making inadequate or faulty choices, and when he comes around to making the tough choices, will he have lost so much valuable time as to prolong the crisis and stretch it out to many years....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera of the New York Times, says that it is the Attorney Generals of the 50 states in the USA, that have taken up the rights of homeowners, not the federal authorites. He points out that the Obama administration, the Treasury department and the federal agencies, have failed miserably in getting the banks and servicers to take loan modification seriously. It was the attorney generals of the states that were with homeowners from the beginning, to prevent predatory lending and outright fraud. Until they were stopped by federal bank regulators, who sided with the banks in court. The subprime lending crisis might never have ocurred, says Nocera, had the states not been obstructed in this way. As the subprime lending mounted, the state AG's were talking to people in their communities, and knew the reality on the ground. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, two primary regulators of the banking industry, saw their role as protecting banks from consumers rather than protecting consumers. Professor Prentiss Cox, of the University of Minnesota Law School, who was an assistant attorney general in Minnesota in charge of consumer enforcement, says federal regulators should have been listening to us, instead of trying to shut us down....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Peterson of Harvard and Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, authors with Woessmann of the book "Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School," offer some startling reminders about the importance of education to economic growth and incomes in countries. Simply by raising the math standards in the U.S. to the higher standards in Canada would raise GDP by three fourths of one percentage point. One advantage that the U.S. enjoys comes from its good university systems, open markets, rule of law, tax rates, and open immigration policies, which give it about two thirds of a percentage point in higher GDP growth per year. The estimates are from the authors calculations. For the period 1960-2009, a period of rapid growth in Asian countries Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, higher test scores in math and reading compared to the wrold average as measured by NAEP test and PISA, have led to 2% higher GDP growth. NAEP shows only 32% of U.S. high school students proficient in math compared to 45% in Germany and 49% in Canada and 63% in Singapore. By contrast to Korea and Taiwan, Peru, Argentina, the Philippines and S. Africa have about 2% less in GDP growth because of lower scores compared to the world average....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum talks to two researchers at the University of Chicago and Princeton, Prof. Sufi and Prof. Mian, on the record of U.S. president Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and underwater borrowers, comparing that record with their record in helping the banks. The issue is relevant as the policy and handling of homeowners had to be part of an overall effective plan for recovery in the U.S. economy, because ultimately without the U.S. consumer any recovery would be weak in the long run- a situation the U.S. faces in early 2014. The response to the issue of irresponsible homeowners borrowing beyond the limit without an equally robust response to irresponsible bank management that allowed wildly excessive leveraging of assets, and successful aggressive lobbying by banks in a shortsighted policy of going through with a wave of foreclosures; besides creating questions of fairness and equitable handling of the problem, also had major ramifications for the future of the U.S. and global economic growth. Here Christina Romer and other administration advisors say Bernanke was right in tackling the problem from the perspective of the banks needing to be recapitalized. Thoughtful advisors looking at the entire problem, Martin Feldstein and Sheila Bair strongly pushed for providing the same help to homeowners without getting caught up in the issue of who was responsible home buyers or the banks, and looking at the interests of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people. Proposals by Feldstein and Bair were equally robust in helping banks as they were in helping homeowners, only the banks understood their interests narrowly and had more access to policymakers in the Bush, as well as the Obama administration, Paulson as well as Geithner. This leaves us with the ultimate irony of the Obama administration pushing for the minimum wage, even to the point of electoral posture, when lasting damage had been inflicted on homeowners from the weaker portions of America's middle class by a policy that went against what two respected financial and economic experts from the Reagan period, Sheila and Bair had strongly advocated. See links and groups on Feldstein and Bair. Applebaum has followed most aspects of this problem closely and continues to provide exceptional reporting including the piece on the thinking of new Fed chairman, Janet Yellen. Private enterprise rules that require management at banks just as for other companies to take responsibility for failures, and be replaced with new management, was largely avoided leading to a fundamental failure in how a free market economy such as the U.S. and western European economies are supposed to function. Rules aggressively pushed by Geithner's mentor Treasury Secretary Rubin for a vigorous cleanup at banks in South Korea during a similiar situation in 1997, were not followed in any way here, also setting wrong precedents for the long run. ...
New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Galston cites a Federal Reserve Board of Chicago 2014 study showing setbacks for black people in achieving improvement in income status. Even for children born into middle income black families about 55% are expected to fall below middle income status compared to 36% for children of white middle income families. The problem is not just the gap as Galston points out but what it says for the declining income mobility for the white middle class when 36% are likely to see declining status and prospect for the future, and 23% will see no improvement. Overall it shows a lack of income and social mobility for whites and minorities alike compared to the past improvements since the 1960's, not a bright prospect and less hope for the future the way things are, and why so many of the establishment candidates and existing policies are being questioned by voters.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rep. Dave Camp, House Ways and Means Committee chairman, representing northern Michigan, says every deduction in the tax code is there because of a reason, and powerful lobbies will oppose any changes. The best he can do is work himself out of this job as he will have to tackle the Democrats on entitlements, the business lobbies on tax loopholes, and other lobbies protecting their preferences in the tax code. He plans to achieve a simpler tax code with lowered rates of 25% for business and earners above six figures, and 10% for everyone else. The approach he is taking is to be revenue neutral when tackling tax reform, in the belief that the economic growth generated from a simpler tax code and lower rates would generate revenues of 18 to 19% of GDP, up from about 16% today. He says the economc cost of not getting this done to get the economy rolling again is so high that he is upbeat that both sides can come together after the election no matter who wins. He is also looking at a repatriation tax of 5% on profits kept by American companies overseas, which would boost revenues for business which could be reinvested in stead of sitting idle. Today the much steeper tax rate on repatriation makes businesses reluctant to bring it back....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporters Corkery and Yoon give a remarkable account of the individual homeowners and investors inside one toxic subprime mortgage security from Countrywide Financial Corp. named CWABS- 2006-2007. There is Amanda Gavini of Fort Myers who continued making mortgage payments against the odds after a illness and death in the family. And a couple Donald Mudd- Patricia Starr who were approved by Countrywide for a $171,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan at 8% with a $10,000 down payment for a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. The approval came only 3 months after the couple emerged from personal bankruptcy in 2006, and by 2009 Mudd was missing payments. Other borrowers such as Mrs. Gavini in Florida took out two loans at 7% and 11% in 2006, have continued making payments and are still unable to refinance under the HAMP or HARP government programs. It is because of these homeowners who continue to make payments helping the security price recover, that one of PIMCO's funds which owns a stake in this security has made good returns. Hedge fund Marathon Asset has also made good returns on this security because of the U.S. government's Public Private Investment Program to help banks recover by providing government incentives for purchase of these securities from banks. This was a way to get banks holding these subprime securities to resume normal lending in financial markets....

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