LyrArc Article Gist
Biden's student loan cancellation plan is targeted at low income people who are struggling to make a living and for whom it means putting less food on the table. The plan eliminates the debt of millions of borrowers because about one third of borrowers owe about $10,000. The plan cancels $10,000 in debt for people making below $125,000 and extends this to $20,000 for the poorest borrowers who received Pell Mell grant loans. A Columbia University study shows that the loan default rate for borrowers without a college degree is 40% and that for borrowers with a college degree is 8%. Biden said when unfolding the plan that these people have the worst of both worlds no college degree and student loans to pay off. College degrees give borrowers a much higher income. Biden's plan is to also cap payments on loans to 5% of discretionary income as opposed to 10% or 15% that it is today. The effects are also not understood by most economists. For a society to do well over the next 10 years to 20 years, 2030 or 2035, it has to increase opportunities for all its citizens. Young people with these burdensome loans grew up in a period when unrestrained so called "free markets" distorted markets and manipulated public opinion to favor a small segment of the people, leading to a false concept that 12 years of universal instruction were enough. Biden pointed this out and the importance of higher education beyond these 12 years to compete in the world in manufacturing and technology. The income and wealth generated by this investment in the people is what made America what it was in the early post war years. The income and wealth created will more than pay for not just removing a big part of this burden but also extending universal instructiuon beyond 12 years in future legislation. Rerouting some of the waste in capital allocation of so-called "free markets" alone could more than pay for most of these investments, with extra for additional investments in science and technology that would make the US what it was, the most advanced and highly educated society in the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The BBC looks at the divisions left behind by the Brexit campaigns and the healing needed for Britain to look to the future. Prime minister Boris Johnson has called for healing divisions. What is meant by "healing," and what is needed to do the healing. To understand this one needs to know why people feel strongly. One of the dangers in describing people, places and regions as "Leave" or "Remain" is that no place is entirely one or the other. Even in the most pro-Brexit places as Lincolnshire a quarter of people opted for Remain. In London called a "Remain" city more Londoners voted to leave the UK than voted for the Remain supporting Mayor. New polling done for the BBC gives one a better understanding of core beliefs. The phrase "influences from other countries and cultures makes Britain a better place to live" was preferred by Remain voters. The phrase "Britain will be stronger in the future if it sticks to its traditions and ways of life" was preferred by Leave voters. Leave people were more likely to celebrate Britain's history, heritage, Christian tradition and national identity. What the BBC points out is that the two ideas are not exclusive. This is also suggested in the percentage of Leave and Remain supporting their core beliefs, which hovers around 50 to 55%. Part of the problem is the way politics is organized to be for or against, part of it from echo chambers and living in relative isolation from people with other ideas, sort of in different bubbles. This means getting everyone out of their comfort zone to embrace what they have "More in Common." Organizations and institutions need to work to bridge divides not only in Britain, but also in the U.S. and Europe, with more people to people interface and more of the conversation shifting to beliefs held "More in Common." Wanting to value one's own culture and traditions and wanting to be part of the global conversation are not mutually exclusive ideas. This is the key point, and a balance has to be found between continuity and change, between respecting traditions and grappling with change, and most importantly listening to unheard or neglected voices.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Tariffs policy is part of a renegotiation the US is conducting with China similar to that started with Japan by Lighthizer in the Reagan era as Deputy Trade Representative. It does not in any way have anything to do with the tariffs of Herbert Hoover in 1930 that gave tariffs a bad meaning. This is because tariffs were reduced since Harry Truman's efforts in 1945 by 2017 to 1.47% on average on total imported goods into the US and world trade makes up 63% of world GDP, so large is world trade today. What are Lighthizer- DJT tariffs trying to accomplish? As with Japan in the 1960-1970's it is intended to reverse the trends for China in 2000-2017 that allowed it to game the world trading system to gain an unfair advantage by dumping specific products into the US destroying American manufacturing and communities dependent on it. The US tariffs on Chinese goods proposed in 2024 by former USTR Robert Lighthizer come at a time when US tariffs are in 2023 only about 2.2% of all imported goods, $33 billion on 2333 billion of imported goods. In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China. By the time the first tariffs were taken up by the DJT administration in 2017 the total tariffs the US had imposed on imported goods were down to an all time low of 1.47% of imported goods value, $33 billion out of $2333 billion in total imported goods. Compared to the 29-40% under Hoover Act of 1930 raised to 60%.  Today world trade makes up 62% of world GDP, in 1930 it made up 9% of World GDP.  In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gates experience one rainy night in March, at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, welcoming 4 dead soldiers who lost their lives to a roadside bomb on a rutted road near Jalalabad, Afghanistan, provides an insight into what he sees as important for the US military. One is to address the realities of the war that is facing the US in the now, not some theoretical conventional war as the Pentagon is overly focused on. This war is fought in insurgencies in Iraq and in the Pakistan-Afghanistan area. And even the takeover of nuclear weapons by Taliban, is not ruled out with the collapse of the government in Pakistan. So he sees reason for doing things quickly. At Dover that night, Gates expressed his anger to his staff, "find out why they had'nt gotten their goddamn MRAP's yet (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles). Gates went into the 747 carrying the draped coffins, and knelt alone and prayed for 5 minutes. Gates was President of Texas A&M University, before he took the assignment at Defense during the last 2 years of the Bush administration. He knows the ways of the bureaucracy, and is a persistent and effective when faced with lack of cooperation and delays. When the field commanders in Afghanistan said they needed 40 Predator combat air patrols instead of the 12 they had, Gates went around the bureaucratic delays and had his task force set up and and doing problem solving down to details. They went about getting more flying time, and pilots, and control stations in the air force to support this. He keeps presentations limited to 45 minutes, and inists all slides be turned in the day before, for him to look over carefully. And he is decisive in making changes. The Army Secretary was asked to come to Washington immediately, and fired on the spot, not Gates says for the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital, but for not acknowledging that problems existed and taking quick action to fix them. And Gates is using the 2010 Defense budget to steer away from large scale conventional weapons programs, and get more money for the immediate needs of the field commanders in the wars being fought today. He makes it clear in talking with lawmakers, that "listening to our troops and commanders, unvarnished and unscripted, has from the moment I took the job been the greatest single source of ideas on what the department needs to do." In doing this he has to face up to the bureaucracy and set ways of doing things at the Defense Department, things that were never questioned under his predecessor Rumsfeld. In 2008 the generals who run the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps formally "non-concurred" with the classified version of Gates's National Defense Strategy, which said it was necessary "to take additional acceptable risk" in the area of conventional war so that the military could improve its ability to fight irregular wars. Gates met with all the defense chiefs to listen to their objections, and decided to draw his own conclusion after thinking it over, that the reasons given "were non-compelling," considering the grave dangers that the military was facing in existing wars. Gates is convinced that its his job to give the troops in the field the equipment and resources they need, and he is not letting the military brass or officials block the way. He does not let the criticism affect him. Gates is very quiet when he listens to arguments presented on the other side that he does not share, responding in a thoughtful and controlled manner. Last week, Jaffe of the WPost says, Gates flew to Afghnistan to ask for the resignation of Gen McKiernan the field commander there, a man he had chosen 11 months earlier, but now felt was the wrong man for the job. During this trip he visited a new base being built in southern Afghanistan, and met four marines whose MRAP vehicle took the blast from a roadside bomb, all survived with minor scratches and injuries, and one broken arm. Gates was mightily pleased. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
Evern though the Detroit carmakers initial quality as measured by J.D. Powers Initial Quality Survey is slightly higher than Japanese carmakers in pickup trucks, the Japanese carmakers still have a lead in the more popular cars and in crossovers. The Prius is made in a factory in Japan which ranks as one of the highest in quality. Quality is higher at plants in Japan for Toyota cars, and a bit lower here in the states for Toyota plants. Its on a par with Ford for the Toyota cars made in the USA. As the quality gaps shrinks to near zero between the quality of American and Japanese cars made in the USA, Toyota continues to maintain its edge in quality for its plants in Japan over both the Americans and the Germans. And the one carmaker that intends to surprise is Hyundai which surpasses Toyota, Honda, Ford and Chevy in quality and does this with a lower price. Consumers are noticing and making the switch, as Hyundai's market share is increasing. See Hyundai link. Here are some of the results. First the plants that produce the best quality, as measured by the J.D. Powers Initial Quality Survey. A survey of 80,900 cars between November 2008 and February 2009, for the first 90 days thses cars were driven, using the number of problems per 100 vehicles. All numbers refer to problems per 100 vehicles. Toyota plants in Japn that scored highest- Higashi-Fuji at 29 making Lexus SC and Toyota Corolla, Fuijimatsu at 30 making the Prius, Kyushu at 34 making the Lexus ES and Highlander. At the next level German plants, Bremen at 40 making the Mercedes Benz Classes- C, CLK, SL, and SLK. Daimler in E. London, S. Africa at 38, and BMW at 40 in Dinggolfing, Germany. And a cluster of Japanese and American plants in the USA that produce cars of comparable quality. Honda in E. Liberty Ohio at 41, making the Honda Civic, CRV and Element. GM at Oshawa, Ontario, at 42 making the Buick LaCrosse and Chevy Impala at 42. GM at Bowling Green, Kentucky at 43, and Toyota, Georgetwon, Kentucky making the Avalon and Camry at 43. What is notable from the last survey in this highly competitive market is the following. 1. Hyundai at 91 problems per 100 vehicles surpasses Honda at 95. Better quality at a lower price, so its no wonder Hyundai is gaining market share and is the new carmaker gaining a presence in the USA. 2. Toyota is at 101, Ford at 102, Chevy at 103, so the difference now in carmakers quality is perception, perception, perception. Its about lifestyle, what you like to be associated with and what you want your friends and neighbors to think about you in your choice of car, younger buyers who are the next generation that makes or breaks your business, the new trendy things among younger people, and design that appeals to them. 3. VW is at 112. So even though there is aggressive marketing and VW is picking up some market share with the Jetta, it still lags slightly in quality. 4. The American car makers still lack consistent quality. You have the Buick at 117, GMC at 116. Ford with Lincoln at 129. The Koreans with Kia at 112. 5. Chrysler is at the bottom of the list. Dodge at 134, Chevy at 136, Jeep at 137. THe lack of resources, changes in management and ownership, and the distractions of bankruptcy and dealership closings, and most of all dire lack of resources including the layoff of large parts of its engineering talent, all hurt. 6. GM sold Saab, Ford sold Land Rover and Jaguar. The neglect of Saab shows with Saab at 138, and Ford's distraction during the last 3 years shows with Jaguar at 134 and Land Rover at 150. also. 7. In summary Ford has done well overall, Toyota is coming up short in the USA and resting on its laurels, GM has a perception gap with younger buyers, Hyundai looks like a winner with both price and quality, and VW has work to do. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reinhart and Rogoff, 2 eminent economists who worked together on a book on financial crises since 1300, think that the current crisis has much deeeper to go, and the slight recovery in financial markets does not suggest that the imbalances in the economy are corrected. They point to economic weakness as a mechanism by which these imbalances are corrected. For example the economic weakness may be corrected by the weakening dollar resulting in accelerating exports from the U.S. The 1987 crisis had overvalued stock markets relative to earnings as an imbalance, and the 1998 LTCM crisis excessive hedge fund borrowing. Once these underlying imbalances were corrected the economic recovery was back on track. But the Fed's bailout of Bear Stearns has only put the financial markets on a safer footing. It has done little to correct the basic imbalances in the economy of over indebted consumers, and of lost wealth in housing, at the very moment that there is restricted access to credit. The financial market crisis only opened up the weakness from the extremely high leveraging used by the investment firms something like 1:30 by firms from M. Lynch to Goldman Sachs. The Fed's actions gave them time to shore up their finances and recover and the interest rate cuts and government checks help the economy, but not significantly enough to promote investment or increase consumption. The government checks would be used experts estimate for paying down debt and in this way it helps indebtedness a little, but does little to support consumption or promote investment, This the Fed's action also fails to do. The economy contracts and exports help the economy in recovering. The contraction itself say these economists is a necessary mechanism to make the adjustment in every crisis, until something else like exports helps create a recovery. Take December 1997, the Korean crisis. In this crisis the Korean companies invested heavily and were overextended , they borrowed heavily from the banks which in turn borrowed from overseas in dollars. When the Korean currency hit a record low against the dollar it became difficult for Korean companies to pay the increased cost of the dollar loans and many companies failed. As investment was slashed unemployment went up from 3% to 7.9%. Ted Truman, who worked on the Korean rescue effort as a Fed official, is now a scholar at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. He sees as similar to the overexpansion of housing and consumption in the U.S., the overexpansion and excessive borrowing in Korea's corporate sector in the years preceding 1997. After the rescue in Jan 1998, the Korean currency recovered by rising 63% in that year. Did this mean the crisis was over, just as the Bear Stearns bailout leads to gradually settling markets this year? During 1998 the Korean economy sank into a deep recession, the economy shrank 6% in 1998 when it was used to growing at 8%. Nouriel Roubini, another economist, who heads RGE Monitor, a financial and economic forecasting service, sees it this way. First, the mortgage loan imbalances are set into correction mode mechanism, then second, the economy contracts from housing and consumer debt going in reverse mode, then the third effects come into place as this feeds back into the financial system in the form of defaults on industrial loans, municipal bonds, and consumer credit. Additional sequences are in finacial system distress and government and Fed response to set the corrective mechanisms in place, but to also reduce the distress to the financial system and ensure that it is safe. We are where the first effects have ocurred, but before the second and third effects which should take place sometime in 2008 and 2009. The importance of understanding this cannot be overstated for business, planners, and investors because conducting business in this environment or planning or investing will require special skills and temperament which are different from the skills and temperament required in the expansion mode if one is to produce good results....

LyrArc Article Gist
Some insights into the thinking of Robert Rubin from an interview by Ken Brown and David Enrich with the former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration about the 2008 financial crisis. As Justice John Paul Stevens. the longest serving Supreme Court justice on the bench once said, those who administer the judicial system form the backbone of the law. In a like manner those who administer the financial and economic system form its backbone, which is why Rubin faces some tough questions in this interview. At the time he was Treasury Secretary, the NYT magazine ran a story on Robert Rubin, as the kind of person who liked to put things down rationally on a note pad, and think things through on the basis of this rational analysis. This is how he approached the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Here is some of that note pad Rubin, in the context of CDO's and risk taking, with something gone awry. Risks that according to this NYT report Rubin encouraged at Citigroup in 2004 and 2005, on the basis of the idea that Citi's competitors were taking on more risk and making bigger profits. His note pad approach appears to have led to conclusions by Rubin that considering the additional profits that could be made by Citi by ramping up the risk taking in 2004 and 2005 and afterwards like its competitors, it could lead to losses if things went wrong, but these losses would'nt come close to wiping out the profits made during the good times. The cyclical downturn he expected to see in 2004 and 2005 when he is reported to have added his voice to others that the bank take on more risk, was a cyclical downturn of the type he had seen during the 1994 Mexican devaluation and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. He had no idea that it would be a cyclical undervaluing of risk added on to a housing bubble, and to a triple A ratings issuance that was misguided. Rubin says here that there was hardly anyone who saw that low-probability event as a possibility. Was the housing bubble a low probability event, and were the issuance of ratings by the credit ratings agencies compromised by the drive for more business a normal pattern, or would some digging up of facts and some innate skepticism of the prevailing current in favor of one's own instincts that something was overdone missed in the notepad analysis of a supposedly rational approach? Or was there a feeling that somehow the U.S. with its long tradition of technology, its work ethic and sophisticated financial system was somehow immune to something as severe as what the Asian countries were experiencing in 1997, or what happened in the 1930's. Asked about his view of what happened Rubin says that looking back there was an enormous amount that needs to be learned. Rubin is also in a quandary when he has to respond to the public concerns about excessive executive compensation. Rubin made $115 million in pay since 1999, excluding stock options, while under his purview as the highest ranking board member Citigroup let some of the problems that it faces now accumulate. As Citigroup faces $20 billion in losses in 2008, a bear raid on its stock by short sellers who ironically were able to do this because of some of the lax regulation set in motion in the Rubin Greenspan years leading to the suspension of the Uptick rule, and the $45 billion government bailout last week. Rubin may have helped Citi but in a different sort of way. He was able to persuade Treasury- Treasury Secretary Paulson was a fellow executive at former employer Goldman Sachs- through the days before the bailout, ensuring government help was on its way. Citigroup shares had dropped to $3.77 a share in the third week of November 2008, losing 50% of their value in one week, as the discussions took place. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sara Ehrman describes the time when Hillary Clinton worked in Washington D.C. as a 26 year old lawyer working on the Watergate committee, and Bill Clinton was teaching law in Arkansas. In August 1974 Hillary was living for about 1 year with Mrs. Ehrman, a friend who was a congressional aide at the time. She is 97 today, and recalls that time when she tried to discourage Hillary from going to Arkansas to join her boyfriend. Ehrman felt not much would come out of Bill Clinton, though she thought him to be handsome, and later worked in his presidential campaign and Hillary's presidential campaign. Ehrman was 55 then, and describes Hillary Clinton as a bit sloppy in her habits, such as not making her bed and having a lot of stuff strewn about her room, but really intelligent and very hardworking. At the time both lived together. Ehrman describes a daily routine of seeing Hillary go to work with coffee in the morning and come back exhausted late at night, having yogurt and going to bed, day after day.  The two met for the first time in 1972 when Ehrman was co-director of issues and research in the McGovern campaign in Texas, and Hillary was helping with voter registration. This report describes in detail the road trip to Arkansas that the two made together, when Mrs. Ehrman drove Hillary to Arkansas in her old Buick. They stopped at small towns  in the 1200 mile journey, and this journey ends with Mrs Ehrman crying that she could not get Hillary to change her mind about Bill Clinton and Arkansas. About what she thought was a bright woman throwing her life away in the deep South of the seventies. Hillary she remembers insisted she loved Bill Clinton, and having passed the Arkansas Bar exam had firmly decided on settling in Arkansas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's new LDP prime minister, Shinzo Abe, supports targeting the yen at around 90 yen to the dollar to support Japanese exporters. He sees this happening through monetary easing by Japan's central bank. At a rate of 85 yen to the dollar or above Japanese exporters would be in a position to become profitable and pay taxes. Abe says central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, are printing money to support their economies and increase exports. Switzerland and S. Korea pursued policies to keep their currencies from becoming too strong to support their exporters. China has managed its exchange rate to maintain export competitiveness. Exchange rate intervention has not been effective for Japan, and the focus now is on monetary policy and setting a 2% inflation rate target.

LyrArc Article Gist
Freeman contrasts the speeches given by Obama and Trump, one in Cairo after becoming president, and the other in Riyadh. Freeman says Obama did not give enough credit to American leadership and progress on women's rights, and was not critical of Iran during a period in which sectarian strife has led to the situation in Syria and Iraq. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Hilsenrath describes how the Federal Reserve missed the signs of the mortgage financial crisis of 2008, the bubble economy, and how low interest rates and other actions of the Fed to rescue the economy led to a situation which hurt savers. The lack of a serious plan for homeowner rescue as part of the actions by the government further hurt the working and middle class. The rescue also lacked credibility because the banks ended up becoming bigger than they were, and no action was taken in the U.S. which had been pushed by the U.S. in similiar situations overseas- for example on South Korean banks for overborrowing during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.  At the 2014 Boston Fed sponsored conference on Inequality, Fed chairman Janet Yellen described what she called the largest inequality in the U.S. not seen since the 19th century. The average net worth of the lower half of the distribution, said Yellen, of 62 million households, was $11,000, and a quarter of them had zero net worth. These were the shocking statistics that propelled two unlikely outsiders forward- Donald Trump to the Republican nomination for president, and Bernie Sanders who coming close to getting the Democratic nomination settled for a big part of setting the Democratic agenda supported by nominee Clinton in 2016. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The battle in Congress over the Puerto Rico bankruptcy bill. Hedge funds are financing the campaigns of many candidates including Marco Rubio, leading to stalled efforts on the bill. Speaker Ryan has put the issue off till March 2016 by sending it for further discussion to committee chairmen. Senator Orrin Hatch and other Republicans oppose the bill.

LyrArc Article Gist
A study by Chris Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, of 7000 regional and community banks from data presented for the second quarter to the FDIC, shows that the bank's financial picture is deteriorating. Institutional Analytics put afailing grade on 1,882 banks as of June 30, 2009, up 16.5% from the end of March 2009. He says even the best run banks are feeling the bad effects of declining employment and asluggish economy. Whalen says this calls into question whether the stress tests for the "big banks" by the Obama adminsitration are adequate to control the crisis. Whalen says the asummption in those stress tests was that thes big banks had tohave enough capital and earnings to withstand a 9% loss rate, but what he is seeing in the industry is that we are already at a 9% loss rate , and the cycle has not peaked yet. He says any reduction in loss rates as assumed by the government may be shortlived as he sees things worsening in the fourth quarter of 2009. What about the good news that the big banks have raised capital in 2009. He says banks face operational problems, in addition to loan losses and low recovery rates on unloading assets they face rising expenses to carry these properties that generate little revenue. This cuts into earnings and what they can allocate to reserves. In this period banks are setting aside only half of what they would normally put in reserves to offset expected losses....

LyrArc Article Gist
Whitacre is basically blunt about his mission from the Obama adminstration when he attends meetings at the Tech Center in Warren or at the Westin Detroit Airport hotel and the San Antonio club: get GM growing again, he wants to see market share north of 20%. The Obama administration, Bloom and others are clear about the government wanting to get its $50 billion for the USA and $9 billion for Canada back as early as possible. He has told GM's Henderson he will be replaced it things don't change fast enough, and he wants product out faster, 2 year development times for new cars instead of three years today. The same message has been passed on to middle and upper middle managers in diagonal meetings. And what are readers commenting on this- and readers views matter a lot because GM has a wrong perception out there that hurts sales- a third of twelve readers said they cannot understand why young people are not moved up to run the company especially from design and engineering, one mentions Whitacre's age 70 years. A third just don't think much will change, and one says he will buy aFord. And a third says Whitacre is the guy who can shake things up and he should. ...