LyrArc Article Gist
There appears to be a conscious deliberate decision by the Chinese government and policymakers to shift the economy from low-end technologically unsophisticated and polluting industry, that pays low wages with little worker protections, towards technologically sophisticated, environment respecting, and higher wage industry. This does not mean textiles are out, but textile companies that are larger better managed, able to introduce newer technologies and produce higher quality product- that command higher prices in the world market and therefore also able to sustain decent wages and worker protection- are in. Phasing out the smaller shops and the poorly run or deliberately polluting and labor exploiting companies run from Hong Kong or elsewhere. The general shift is to be a leader in products which are value added either by technology or human capital, such as better trained more knowledgeable workers. This is similiar to the shift Japan made after the sixties, as it moved from a rural to a urbanized society and textile companies like Kanebo became technologically sophisticated, while small shops withered out, and Japan gradually shifted into automobiles, electronics and chip making. The noticeable difference is that Japan with a prewar industrial base and a smaller market protected its home market for Japanese companies, whereas China lacking this prewar industrial base let foreign investment and companies overseas bring in equipment and use low cost Chinese labor to supply western markets. And it turned a blind eye to labor protections, at least till it had built up its own industrial base and knowhow with policy requiring Chinese partners in industry and technology transfer. Economic winds are also doing the job. Inflation, Chinese goods prices increased by 4.6% in May according to the U.S. Commerce Department. This is a result of the Chinese government requiring worker protections and decent wages and stricter pollution enforcement resulting in increased energy costs. For years the U.S. and other countries depended on China for low cost goods and the demand for low cost goods depressed margins which resulted in legitmate costs such as pollution control technology, worker protection and decent wages, being ignored. China is now left with heavy environmental cleanup costs, and a bad image internationally as a heavy polluter. The huge external trade surpluses China has built up exceeding a trillion dollars have pushed up the value of the yuan making Chinese goods costlier in world markets, and apparel and shoe makers in developed countries seeing Vietnam as a better lowcost alternative. The story of this phase of Chinese industrial development can be seen in a town like Honghe, a 90 minute drive from Shanghai, which has half of its 100,000 residents working in 100 factories and 8000 shops that knit, dye, package and ship some 200 million sweaters a year, bringing in according to local government estimates $650 million a year. Now many of these shops are idle and mirant workers are returning home. To see the subtler signs of the Chinese policymakers hand note that even visa policies have been tightened to make it harder for foreign buyers to visit Chineses factories and trade shows. Also the Chinese government has raised the minimum age for workers in these factories from 16 to age 18 and so on. And the impact is being felt in places like Honghe near Shanghai, Shengzhou another city near Shanghai which makes one third of the world's neckties, and in Dongguan in Guangdong where its toy, shoes shops close. The change also shows how quickly things can change in the world economy. Only 3 years earlier in 2005, Jiaxing Yishangmei Fashion Company, a family owned company was booming and had just landed Walmart Stores as a customer. Now Walmart no longer sources from this company. Analysts say that the Chinese sweater industry was probably overbuilt, with about 6 cities in China claiming to produce more than 100 million sweaters annually. A wave of consolidation could boost efficiency, and bring pressures to innovate rater than compete only on price. And many Chinese economists, and policymakers think China has relied too much on cost-cutting and simple production models to increase exports. A researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences thinks such a high dependence on foreign trade is not good for China. For the US and Japan this researcher says that trade is equivalent to 20% of gross national product and by contrast for China trade is equivalent to an extreme of 75% of GNP. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, is coming under increasing criticism for supporting the Conservative-Liberal coalition government's austerity plan, and for lack of efforts to fight inflationary pressures. On a major issue on which King has taken a clear stand- that the largest British banks should increase capital levels exceeding the international standards- not much has happened. Consumer prices in Britain were up at a 3.7% annual rate in December, and the government's austerity policies will also cause pain. In a recent speech King said that the Bank of England had limited ability to fight the higher unemployment and increased inflation. It was an admission of the limits of central bankers in the current situation. King said "a squeeze in living standards is the inevitable price to pay for the financial crisis and the subsequent rebalancing of the UK and world economies.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has balanced the rhetoric of president Trump on trade in the NAFTA debate by saying the U.S. is looking for win-win solutions in trade relations with Mexico. At the WSJ CFO network Ross says the trade regime from the post war years is now an anachronism and does not work well especially for the U.S. Many experts agree that the trade framework from that period is problematic. It does not take into account, for instance say experts, the situation where a command economy such as China could help manufacturing industries with state policies, including currency policies. The rapid growth in China was different from the rapid growth in an earlier period of Japan, in terms of its impact say experts. The U.S was the dominant economy during the sixties, and the growth in Japan was not at the accelerated pace and of the magnitude that happened in China. As a result the impact on  some communities in the U.S. was much more intense in the last two decades, as documented by prominent trade studies, leading to the sense that trade did not work for these communities. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Moody's Ratings company downgraded banks in the U.S. and Europe on June 21, 2012. Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup were downgraded two notches. Morgan Stanley managed to stave off a three notch downgrade. Credit Suisse was downgraded three notches. Bank of America was down one notch, and Wells Fargo which has only a small trading operation was not reviewed. This is the first time since 2007 that Moody's has conducted a sweeping downgrade of banks. About 100 banks were reviewed by Moody's. Banks being downgraded have large trading operations or investment banking business that is subject to higher risks. Greg Bauer, a managing director of global banking at Moody's said in his statement: All of the banks affected by today's actions have significant exposure to the volatility and risk of outsized losses inherent to capital-markets activities." For Moody's the main issue was that the capital bases of banks are maintained, considering that government support is less likely than before, according to Mr. Wassenberg, Moody's managing director for European banks. The impact on banks will be fewer opportunities for trading revenues for some banks, and will raise borrowing costs for banks. Moody's also cut the ratings of large European banks with significant trading operations. This includes Deutsche Bank, Barclays, HSBC, RBS, BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole, Societe Generale, UBS, and Royal Bank of Canada....

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's Economy minister Zypries warned that Germany would take legal action by taking the case to the World Trade Organization if president Trump imposes tariffs above that allowed by WTO rules. She said this before a meeting at the White House between president Trump and Chancellor Merkel. The U.S. is Germany's largest export market with 107 billion in imports and the U.S. exports 58 billion euros of products to the U.S. Zypries accepted that the large trade surplus of Germany was "a problem," but that America "needs our machines and industrial plants" for the time being. Germany has insisted that it does not provide unfair advantages to its companies, and that German companies were simply more competitive. Trump has focussed largely on China for anti-competitive practices, though he mentioned BMW by name during the campaign. In the last 2 years the euro has depreciated significantly against the dollar giving German companies competitive advantage, largely as a result of the ECB- in opposition to German economic policy- trying to stimulate the economy of other southern eurozone countries such as Spain, Italy and France. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Peronist candidate Alberto Fernandez wins Argentina's election with 48% support. Mr. Macri's economic policy led to mismanagement of the economy, and recession, high inflation. Mr. Macri took on $100 billion in foreign debt and had to turn to the IMF for a $57 billion bailout. The shift in administration happens as the peso tumbles. By lifting capital controls in 2016 when the official rate was 10 to the dollar Mr. Macri shifted direction but failed to manage this in a prudent way leading to a jump in the foreign debt. By the second half of 2018 this policy led to the peso falling to 45 to the dollar and another drop by mid 2019 to about 60 to the dollar. The central bank has burned about $22 billion or a third of the central bank reserves to defend the peso, including $4 billion only last week. A third of this decline in reserves is due to withdrawals as capital controls were reimposed., the remainder due to interest on debt and bank interventions in currency markets to defend the peso. Customers are now limited to $100 in withdrawals leading to demand in the black market pushing the rate to 75 pesos to the dollar. Argentina is no stranger to these crises, yet they repeat every 10-15 years. The earlier Peronist administration of Mr. Nestor Kirchner came in when there was economic collapse in 2003 and had to suspend debt payments as a last resort. Negotiations were begun with lenders only after 2007 when Mr. Kirchner's wife Christina Kirchner assumed office. She won the election in 2011 but was defeated in the 2015 election by Mr. Macri, and reelected in 2019 as vice president running under her former chief of staff Mr. Alberto Fernandez. The Peronists are a socialist party and restored a degree of stability to the economy, limiting foreign debt and managing the economy with a rebound in commodity prices such as soyabeans exported by Argentina to meet growing demand in China. By 2015 the country appeared ready for a change, but Mr. Macri's austerity policies and mismanagement of the debt led to a repeat of earlier crises with high inflation and collapsing peso, hitting working class Argentines.    Argentina has a long history of alienation with IMF loans with policy strings attached for austerity spending, starting in 1957.  About 58% of the people who voted Macri into office opposed turning to the IMF in May 2018 after interest rates were raised to 40% by the central bank to stem a drop in the peso. The IMF loan this time was a shorter duration loan on better and was supposed to help Mr. Macri stabilize the economy and its cash and payments position. The jump in foreign debt including issue of dollar denominated bonds, lack of caution and prudence in managing the finances, lack of currency controls, drop in foreign investment by 2019, and the fall in commodity prices from the commodity boom years especially soyabeans, combined to create another collapse in Argentina. It was thought that the 2003 crisis that hit the working class and poor hardest was behind it once and for all. Yet only 15 years later the country is in a similar mess and hardships, showing that prudent management of finances, maintaining social programs to support the middle and weaker segments, and ways to create sustainable growth from within, are still the major problems facing not just Argentina, but also Brazil, Chile and other nations of Latin America.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The government bailout of Fannie and Freddie was expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars according to some estimates during the financial crisis in 2008-2009. The costs peaked at $187 billion in 2011. The transfer of $59.4 billion by Fannie Mae to the U.S. Treasury in 2013 lowers the net cost to $60.5 billion. The net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP has decreased to less than $23 billion. At one point the cost of TARP reached $419 billion for the U.S. Treasury. The government sold the last of its shares in private insurance company AIG and made $22.7 billion in gains. Treasury and Fed loaned $182 billion to AIG and at one point owned 90% of the company. Chrysler exited the TARP bailout program in 2011 at a net cost to the U.S. government of $1.2 billion. So far in May 2013 the GM bailout cost $19.6 billion, this would come down to about $11.82 billion if the U.S. government sold its GM shares at the price in May 2013. The U.S. Federal Reserve says it has not lost money in any of its emergency lending facilities, even though some loans are outstanding. The FDIC says its fees from rescue programs exceed losses....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in DW.com cites experts who point out that the Republican Party always had tensions within it because of the diverging interests of three groups that have allied together to form the party- Wealthy businessmen and corporate interests, evangelicals, and white working class people who have seen their incomes decline for several decades. The interests of each group have some overlap, are sometimes masked but frequently they diverge. Nigel Bowles, former director of the Rothermere Institute at Oxford University, says there is no particular reason that this coalition would hold together, that it was unstable to begin with, a wonder that it did not split up earlier. Scott Lucas, an expert on American Studies at the University of Birmingham, says that Reagan showed great skill in holding this coalition together, and Donald Trump has taken it apart by mobilizing only one constituency of white working class voters and leaving out others. The break between Republican party leaders Ryan, McCain, and state party leaders, with Trump is unprecedented in post war American politics, and putting it back together now looks like a lost cause in the medium term.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The comparison of the British economy and the American economy with Japan, where debt constantly eats away at the economy, a long period of stagnation, is one possible outcome, says Buttonwood in the Economist. Central banks in both countries are allowing the banks to earn more money to replenish their capital, by letting them borrow short term at very low rates and invest the proceeds in higher yielding longer dated government bonds. Its acozy relationship where the banks are rescued by the government and they in turn finance the government by buying government bonds, but in the long run this means diverting lending from productive private sector projects and productive investment.

LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin of NYT provides some counter intuitive ideas on U.S. Fed interest rate policy. He says it can't be take as a given that the Fed will raise rates in 2017-2018. This depends on how much punch there is in the Trump economic policies for stimulus, and for infrastructure spending, tax cuts. He cites Senate Majority Leader McConnell who said he would like to keep "tax reform revenue neutral." Getting large spending and pushing up the deficit is likely to run up against Republicans in Congress who have for 8 years opposed large spending increases and large deficits. Trump has given few details about his stimulus or infrastructure spending plans. He says the scale of the spending might not match the talk. Irwin cites JP Morgan Chase economists who have kept their forecasts for GDP growth just under 2% for 2017 and 2018. And he points out that even Trump appointees at the Fed might act independently. The Fed might look at being cautious considering that increased trade tensions with China, and the unpredictability of a Trump administration could hurt growth. Irwin does not mention the uncertainty in other areas such as policy towards Russia on which the Republican party and Congress have very different views than Trump, tensions over Taiwan, that can also affect growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Binyamin Applebaum cites different experts on how U.S. Fed policy could play out in 2017-2019. He cites Fed governor Dudley that there is increased uncertainty under the Trump administration, and other economists who say that aging population, lack of innovation, and steady growth under the Obama administration with falling unemployment, make it unlikely that growth will jump well above 2%. The Fed's own forecasts are for for under 2% growth in 2017 and 2018, and Applebaum says this is not expected to change by much. Janet Yellen does not see a huge stimulus as a positive, says Applebaum, because it would increase the deficit at the wrong time. He cites Yellen who prefers to see more fiscal space now that unemployment is down to 4.6%. Steady growth in the view of Fed officials has taken up much of the backlog of people looking for work since the 2008 crisis. Yellen sees some fiscal space as desirable with high debt to GDP ratio at 77 percent, so that the government could respond to some adverse event in the future. A Republican Congress is also averse to sudden increases in the deficit. See the link to views about the uncertainty of how things can play out in a separate article by Neil Irwin of NYT. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The lack of economic opportunities for an increasingly urbanized African younger generation is a major challenge. The median age of 19 makes Africa the world's youngest continent. Megacities are growing up in places such as Lagos and Kinshasha as millions leave subsistence farming to go to cities. Unlike Asia and Latin American countries men and women are coming to shantytowns in cities at a time when Africa is much poorer for a similar level of urbanization that Asian and Latin American nations reached decades earlier. In 1993 this WSJ analysis and graphs show the Asian emerging economies and sub Saharan Africa had similar GDP per capita of $2415, by 2019 this was $4000 for Africa and $12,000 for Asian emerging economies. Latin America was at $10,000 in 1993 and in 2019 was at about $15,000. The gap widened considerably between Asia and African countries. Asian emerging economies increased GDP to 5 time from the same starting point as Africa in 1993, Africa doubled GDP over the period of 25 years to 2019. Latin America started from a much higher point and increased GDP by only 50% over 25 years. Asian economies that performed better over this period did better because of stable even entrenched governments such as in Singapore with Le Kuan Yew and in China with stable successive governments under CPC leadership of prime minister Deng. The difference in Asia was a commitment across all classes and groups to development, a sense of development as a way to make up for the years lost under colonialism of foreign powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A sense of correcting historical injustice and wrongs. This is a missing ingredient in the processes unfolding in Latin America and Africa in the last 25 years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Abut 3 million homeowners are expected to default on their mortgages in the 30 months ending in mid 2009, and two thirds of this or 2 million will go into foreclosure, according to Moody's Economy.com. So what led to all this which eventually hit the financial markets in the U.S., and also to a lesser degree in Europe, through the opacity of the mortgage securities created from bad mortgages with falsely tagged triple AAA ratings that ended up in the assets of banks and investment firms? The motivations of each group were perverted as things unfolded. When the packagers of securties were not responsible for what they were doing they pursued profit before ethical behaviour and all sorts of securities were created. As these packagers were allowed to shop for ratings the ratings companies gradually lowered their standards to attract business. Politicians failed in the free market atmosphere of the Republican Bush administration and Republican led Congress. Senator Bachus and Congressman Frank introduced legislation during the later period of the bubble but failed to draw support to curb the bad lending. Republicans blocked a new antipredatory lending law in North Carolina from being enacted for the country from 1999 onwards. And Bush without realizing the ramifications prodded HUD to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require higher percentage of loans to go to low income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie in turn met this requirement by increasing the demand for these subprime loans by buying the mortgage securities, which the packagers of these securities backed by subprime mortgage loans and incorrectly rated AAA by conniving ratings agencies were happy to supply. It was a sad situation with a happy -everyone could say the were bringing home ownership and the American dream to low income people, and business was signing up for this ride with short term gain in mind. And in all this financial innovation lost its legs as packaging these securities and constructing new investment vehicles like the conduits were being used in perverse ways. The basics of labeling something correctly was torn apart. You could not turn a subprime loan to low income borrowers or a loan without documentation to flippers and speculators into something different by simply labeling it as AAA. What the confidence in financial innovation in the American system did was help spread these securities all over the globe, where they were held with confidence by towns in remote parts of the Scandinavian north country as well as financial centres in Europe and Asia. At the state level politicians in California saw this as one of the state's star industries and protected it from legislation to curb bad lending, as most of the big lenders were based in California. Due to a strange set of affairs the Department of Corporations was left with the tasks of oversight of mortgage lenders in the state. It was concerned more with issues like protecting senior citizens from financial scams and was not staffed to meet the supervisory role of a huge mortgage lending business. When it comes to the Fed's role Greenspan also took the laissez fairre stand of not interfering with free markets, even when a lot of the bad lending was obvious and one Fed Governor Gramlich was pushing for better lending standards. The Fed supervisory role was over banks and banks were required to follow lending standards, but most of this lending had shifted to mortgage brokers and financial companies which were beyond the supervision of the Fed. Had the Fed extended its supervision to mortgage affiliates of the banks this could have increased the level of supervision and made a difference. But state regulation mechanisms in California by Department of Corporations show that the regulatory mechanism did not take into account the realities of mortgage lending and how it had changed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
International issues took on larger significance for the U.S. Federal Reserve in September 2015 as it looked at a small increase in interest rates. Schwartz points to the memories of the 1997 emerging market crisis and how fragile economies like Mexico were adversely impacted by rising rates in the U.S.. Mexico needed a large bank bailout and contagion spread to other countries. Kenneth Rogoff says the risks are real with declining commodity prices and falling currencies of emerging markets such as Brazil, Indonesia and Russia. Ripple effects would carry over to India and other countries. The sharp slowdown in the Chinese economy in the second half of 2015 was too recent for the Fed to take any sort of risk in September 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
European banks have been slow to get rid of risky assets such as collateralized debt obligations, subprime mortgages and other risky assets after the 2007 financial crisis. As a result sixteen top European banks hold 386 billion euros of suspect credit-market and real estate assets, according to Credit Suisse analysts. The Royal Bank of Scotland has 79.6 billion of assets dating from the 2007 financial crisis. Over the three year period since the 2008 financial crisis, the top three U.S. banks shed 80% of this type of risky assets, compared to 50% for European banks. The four largest British banks have reduced these risky assets by more than 50%, and four French banks have reduced these assets by only 30%. At 29 billion euros, French bank Credit Agricole had the largest amount of such risky assets among the leading French banks. This adds to the difficulties facing French banks which also have large amount of loans to customers in Greece and Greece's sovereign bonds. Deutsche Bank has 20.2 billion euros in commercial mortgages and whole loans and 2.9 billion euros in U.S. residential assets including subprime loans. Mediobanca analysts estimate that Deutsche Bank's exposure to such assets is more than 150% of its tangible equity....

LyrArc Article Gist
The FDIC acknowledges that it has not been able to get banks interested in a pilot program called the Legacy Loans Program. That program was designed to give the banks an opportunity to sell off $1 billion of troubled mortgages. Since November with the efforts of the Troubled Asset Program under Secretary Paulson to have the banks sell off these assets in an auction or some other way, the whole issue of getting the toxic or troubled assets off the books of the banks has been effectively shelved. The Obama administration's version of this was the Geithner Public Private Partnership program, but this like Paulson's TARP never really got off the ground. Instead several things have happened that have enabled banks to show higher profits and improve stock prices. The period from March 2009 to June 2009, a period of several months has seen bank stock prices recover and banks are now able to raise capital on their own from investors. The government's "stress tests" gave the banks credibility with investors and they were designed not to be so stringent as to affect confidence. The mark to market rule has also been relaxed so that banks are no longer required to show these toxic assets at prices that reflect large losses. Bank executives also are wary of the new executive compensation rules of the government. All of these things have combined to create asituation where some confidence has been restored, but at the same time experts are pointing out that the underlying problems of an estimated $1 trillion in troubled assets remains. Banks are even less likely to want to part with these assets at lower prices now that some semblence of confidence is returning, as they would then have to show large losses. What this implies is that if the economy suffered a setback, these problems would return and be just as intractable as ever....

LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...