LyrArc Article Gist
The tensions that exist in Australian society, as a result of the large Chinese investments and imports of infrastructure building commodities such as iron ore, natural gas and other commodities. Australia's Pilbara region in the northwestern part of the country, has become one huge quarry for China, as an estimated 1 million tons of iron ore raw material is loaded onto 2 story high trucks each day- with automated driverless trucks system being implemented- and shipped by 2 mile long trains to waiting ships on the coast. Australians remember this done on a smaller scale in the 1980's by Japan. At the time Japan brought in Japanese workers. The same is true today but on a bigger scale, with China bringing in workers with lower pay. The concern now is what it was then, as one local leader put it- are we going to have towns with mines or mines with towns, he asked. The mining companies are looking at it purely as a commercial venture, and not investing in the towns. The towns now fear they will find the boom times gone someday and nothing tangible to show for it, no schools, hospitals and no infrastructure. And because the mining project companies fly people in and out, the 8000 aboriginal people in Pilbara- the original people of this land- see little of the mining expansion's benefits. Wandoan, a small place with 300 homes in the outback in Queensland, in eastern Australia, is an example of the gut wrenching change taking place in the mining areas. The lives of the people from the local pharmacy, the local supermarket, and the local ranchers, depend on the mining decisions made in China. This area was part of a planned, on again off again, $6 billion coal mine -part of a A$150 billion complex of natural gas and coal projects for exports to Asia in Queensland- and involved Xstrata buying 70,000 acres of the best grazing land for 7 coal mines. With the locals selling off, the mining uncertain, the supermarket closing, the whole town has the feeling of being up in the air, and fading out someday. Australian public sentiment recognizes this feeling, and at the same time is ambivalent about the impact. Polls conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, show 73% of Australians feel Chinese economic growth has a positive impact, and at the same time 57% feel that there is now excessive Chinese investment, and 46% feel China will be a military threat in 20 years. Australians remember the same feeling about Japan's investments in raw material sources in the eighties. In 1988, polls then showed 70% of Australians saying there was too much Japanese investment, even though they also recognized that Australia had benefitted. The difference now is that there are also fears of China's influence, and foreign investment guidelines limit investments in Australian mining companies to below 50%. China's investment in Australia's natural resources comes in several ways: in the year upto July 2009 A$42 billion in export demand, A$3 billion in direct investment in Australian companies, and about A$5 billion in project financing. Iron ore sales to China amount to A$22 billion each year, and about one fourth of Australia's exports went to China, growing at a rate of 31% in 2009. According to the chief economist of Austrade, the government trade organization, Australia benefits from the economic relationship with China- this adds A$3,400 per year to every Australian household. Efforts to use some of the profits made by mining corporations for infrastructure and other public purposes, by increasing the mining tax have failed; as the mining industry launched a campaign against the government of Kevin Rudd, who was removed from office by his party. In the recent national elections, the ruling Labor party lost its majority, after losses in the resource rich states of Western Australia and Queensland. In the meantime the Australian currency has become the currency used by currency speculators who cannot use the yuan to make a bet on the currency- as the yuan is pegged to the dollar- and instead use the Australian dollar as a proxy. This makes it volatile, with the Australian dollar losing 10% of its value in a single day, when pessimism increased about China's growth forecasts. It also shows how much of the good story of employment and gdp growth in Australia is tied to the story in China, and the extent of the negative impact a reversal in this area can mean for Australians; especially now that the bad debt in the post-2008 explosion of bank lending poses risks to China's banknig system. ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions and Answers about Islamic State on the BBC website give a short and simple look at Islamic State or ISIS in Syria and Iraq, its origins and how it developed upto the Iraqi government's efforts to retake Mosul in northern Iraq in Dec. 2016.

LyrArc Article Gist
Brexit and Scotland's referendum both have similar consequences economically for Britain and Scotland. This hurts both countries in unwinding relationships built over many years, unwinding 44 year membership for Britain, and 310 year union for Scotland. Britain exports to EU are 45% of total exports, and for Scotland the number is 63% for exports to the rest of the UK.  Scots benefit about 1200 British pounds more for average citizen than a average citizen of UK, and pay 400 pounds less to the government. Scotland would start with a 90% debt to GDP ratio if it takes a proportionate share of UK government debt from the beginning of independence. Fidler correctly points out the economic risks to Britain and Scotland which are being ignored or not fully taken into account by politicians.