LyrArc Article Gist
In China since 1981 the poorest people making below $1.25 a day fell to 207 million in 2005 from 835 million in 1981. In India the number of people below $1.25 a day increased to 455 million in 2005 from 420 million people in 1981. The share of the people in poverty fell to 42 percent from 60 percent during the same period. Corresponding figures for East Asia including China show a drop from 80% of the people in poverty in 1981 dropping to 18% in 2005. The proportion of people living below the $1.25 a day poverty line worldwide fell over the nerarly 25 year period from 1981 to 2005 from 52% in 1981 to 26% in 2005. In subSaharan Africa, now the poorest region half or 50% of the people live under the poverty line of $1.25 a day in 2005 almost where it was in 1981. In absolute numbers the region had 380 million people living below the poverty line in 2005 compared to 200 million people in 1981. Note that the World Bank this year changed the poverty line from $1 to $1.25 a day, to make allowance for the inflation that is hitting the poorer countries. Is China a rich nation after the Olympics? Some parts of China, the coastal regions and the regions around big cities like Shanghai and Beijing are relatively affluent with pockets of poorer people but in the rest of the country there is poverty as defined perhaps in terms of deep poverty, poverty, poor middle class without health insurance or any kind of savings for emergencies. With 200 million people in 2005 below the poverty line a question could be asked how many people in China below say $2.00 a day which could be seen as being poor at a time when inflation in food and fuel costs has been significant in developing countries. If its somewhere in the range of 300 and 400 million people in China this explains why in relative terms China would identify with India and the rest of the developing countries and it also explains its stand in the WTO trade talks acting as a developing country protecting the rights of agriculture and farmers within China. And it also explains the reasons why China sees a long transition before it ceases to be a poor developing country and why there is real concern that these 300-400 million people as well as others adversely affected by the rapid industrialization and exercize of state authority, corruption and increasing gaps between rich and poor, adverse effects on environment, that these people adversely affected are listened to and accomodated in the interests of stable progress and fairness. Much of recent history has shown that countries open to foreign trade have done better given the right conditions and careful policy measures. China opened up around 1981, and India around 1991. Also progress and gains are more significant in infrastructure building and in poverty reduction in the latter phases of development as the synergies increase, capital pool increases, and the development accelerates, this shows why China's gains look significant compared to India's at this point in time. In ten years or fifteen years a better assessment could be made and then some points may favor China and some India, and the results will be a result of different history, experiences and problems faced and routes taken because of prior developments in each region and varying complexity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Porter who is an authority on competitiveness and national strategy, is a Professor at Harvard University. He last servedin a national economic strategy advisor capacity in 1983, as a member of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. His view is that the USA badly needs an economic strategy. And the political system of the USA discourages developing such a strategy. The political dialogue also discourages the discussion from focussing on the key aspects of a strategy and because of the ideological slant the discussion between Republicans and Democrats tends to cancel each other out leaving the important work undone. What is an economic strategy? Its thinking clearly what are the advantages or strengths America as a nation has and how best to preserve these advantages in the future? And its thinking clearly about the weaknesses, and how to address the weaknesses, and where money and other resources should be allocated and what actions need to be takento get results. As strategy is a long term thing, it requires patient and perseverent effort and allocation of resources. The strengths he goes on to list are, an unparalleled environment for starting new companies and the science and technology, and the regional universities and clusters of high tech workers and resources in different regions of the country,the educational institutions for higher education, and the committment to competition and free markets, efficient and deep capital markets, and the acceptance of the uncertainty and cost in the huge job churn (restructuring of industry that destroys millions of jobs per year with net positive job creation). The problems that have arisen with these advantages have compromised some of them. Free markets are not really free as anti-trust enforcement has been lax resulting in mergers dominating markets and weakening compeititon. Many times the "free market' talk has become rhetoric and distorted for individual purposes. And regulatory oversight has been weakened in the name of "free markets", as if the market system could be run with no government regulation at all. The weaknesses are: remaining an energy inefficient nation even as countries like Japan have become increasingly and way more energy efficient, and doing nothing about it, not having any policies to fix this and assign a big priority to it. In the area of access to education, which is critically important to national competitiveness, the US ranks poorly in the number of college graduates and in the opportunties for access to college across the middle and working classes. Says Porter, the US ranks 12th in the college or higher educational attainment for 25-34 year olds. And the US he says has made no progress in this area for 30 years. This is a disturbing trend in a economy that must have the education and skills to justify its high wages, and how will Americans compete for jobs that can be moved elsewhere in these circumstances he asks. Strategy requires honesty with ourselves in identifying and addressing the strengths to be preserved and the weaknesses to be fixed. Solutions have to go to the heart of the problem, with the patient effort needed for longer term solutions, when problems have become embedded in the system, and in the habits, culture, and way of doing things, that will produce disaster down the road. Wen it comes to spending on priority investments, Porter prefers to tax rebates the spending that goes into educational assistance and into logistical infrastructure. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Basel 2 got its start in 1999 in the midst of the Asian banking crisis. By 2004 financial regulators had come up with a set of rules for Basel 2. The idea was to make banking safer and reduce unsafe lending. It makes lending safer by requiring banks to match the size of their capital cushion to the riskiness of their loans and securities. Because banks are in such a precarious state with amny risky loans and securities the implementation of Basel 2 in the USA in 2009 would mean that the banks have to set aside an even bigger capital cushion and this would mean an even lower lending for capital needs of business than otherwise in a lending environment that is already constrained, thus making the economic conditions worsen. Critics point to this to show their concern that this would be a good thing but at the wrong time leading to a bad result. But Basel 2 is so far along that its likely to be implemented especially since the current crisis is partly a result of extensive leveraging and not enough capital has been set aside to account for higher risk for loans and securities. Basel 2's plus point is that it requires more shareholder capital for riskier loans a bank makes, and its shareholders who are first on the hook in a default protecting depositors and tapayers and creating an incentive to lend with due diligence and carefully. In the current situation though once a credit crisis has started its extremely difficult to get more money from shareholders. European countries have implemented Basel 2 starting in January 2008 and no adverse effects on credit have been seen. But the US credit crisis much worse and is expected to worsen in 2009 so the timing for Basel 2 is sure to cause concern. Regulators can ease up on implementation of Basel 2 if this is the case. Note that these regulatory rulebooks are always a work in progress as for instance Basel 1. Under Basel 1 financial firms were not required to have capital backing up lines of credit if they were for less than 1 year, so banks decided to game the system by issuing short term lines of credit and rolling them over. And banks learned to get the loans off their books so they were not required to have capital to back these loans by securitizing the loans. Basel 2 also uses mark to market acccounting which would put more pressure on securties prices in times of distress. But Stefan Walter of the Federal reserve Bank of New York who is secretary general of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision says theree are built in stabilizers such as letting banks estimate their risks on average using historical data and lets national regulators use their own judgement as to what is acceptable. Note that a research paper by greenlaw of Morgan stanley Hatzius of Goldman Sachs , Kashyap of the University of Chicago, and Song Shin of Princeton Unicersity, 4 leading economists, released feb 29, states that highly leveraged financial institutions reduce their lending by $10 for every $1 of capital they lose. by this estimate bank lending could be down by as much as $900 billlion from the $90 billion in mortgage loans losses that have been seen. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
First signs that OPEC may relent on production increases, as price of oil takes a new turn and becomes driven by forces that are beyond what OPEC may either foresee or be able to control. OPEC's different oil countries' senior officials are probably studying these new signals. Shukri Ghanem of Libya, a former prime minister and former head of Libya's national oil company, comments on new developments and shows willingness to increase production, to support a meeting before September and to look at the option of increasing production is his comment to Bloomberg News, May 8, 2008. Shukri was trained at the Fletcher School, Tufts Unversity, with a Masters degree in International Economics, and may have a better understanding of what is happening in international oil markets than senior officials of other OPEC countries. The signals that OPEC as well as the rest of the business community are watching are first the estimate by analysts at Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and CERA's Yergin that prices are headed in the direction of another spike to $150 to $200 per barrel before coming down sharply. Ghanem and others at OPEC may find that it is not in their interest to actually lose all control of prices if this happens, that is lose the market stability that enables a cartel to do well. Price spike would generate huge spike in revenues for a short period 6-12 months before setting up for a big fall as a result of setting in motion a whole set of new forces in the use of oil. Some of this are much higher and aggressive automobile fuel efficiency targets for Europe, the US and also in places like India and China, conservation in a big way, fuel efficiency in other uses such as generating electricity and other industrial uses in plants and so on, almost like the race to the moon, with new urgency. The spike in revenues followed by a drop may actually hurt OPEC long term revenues over next 5 years as the moderation in growth in developing countries like China and India is quite likely as the US slows down and this would only accelerate the pace of this moderation. With focus on efficiency in the use of oil worldwide, accelerated new production in non-opec oil fields, and moderated growth worldwide, enough savings could be generated in 24-36 months to bring oil prices down from the demand side and reduce speculative investments. The second signal was a WSJ survey of 53 respondents n this case economists, and 51% of the economists surveyed said that the oil price rise's key reason was on the demand side from developing countries. And speculation was a smaller factor attributed to by 11% of the economists. So the combination of these 2 factors added up to 62%. Foreign exchange was cited by 15% of the economists, adding all three factors would attribute 77% of the rise in oil prices to demand from developing countries, speculation based on rising demand, and the weakness of the dollar. If demand the key element in this drops as a result of an even bigger spike in oil prices to $150-$200, with demand moderating in developing contries, and the dollar strengthens in 12-18 months, then the spike would be temporary, leading to significant correction afterwards. This sharp correction would then become entrenched as the world would look at oil in a new way entirely different from the way it did in the years 1945-2007. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In his plain talk on Syria Trump said the primary message to Russia was: "You should have peace in Syria; its enough." This is the message foreign minister Tillerson is delivering in Moscow. He described the Russian support for the Syrian government as: "I think it's very bad for Russia, I think it's very bad for mankind, it's very bad for this world." He also described Chinese president Xi Jinping's response at a state dinner during dessert when Trump told him about the U.S. missile attack on Syrian airfield, as expressing the sentiment that it was OK considering the chemical attacks by the Syrian government on civilians and children. The closest any president gets to the plain talk given by Trump is during the period of the Cold War when Truman also had this kind of plain talking style to deliver the message that needed to be heard.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The major provisions of the Republican House healthcare bill that passed by a vote of 217-213 are- 1. To help people buy insurance coverage the bill offers $2000 to $4000 a year, upto $14,000 a year in credits based mainly on age, reducing them for families making $150,000, individuals making $75,000. 2.  Under the Affordable Care Act insurers cannot charge older Americans more than 3 times for same coverage they offer to younger people, the new bill makes this 5 times. This would increase premiums for older Americans and reduce it for younger Americans. This is the most controversial part of the bill. Older Americans supported the Republican party in the presidential election. 3. The new bill ends Medicaid as an open ended entitlement and places this on a budget with cuts of $880 billion over 10 years. 4. To mollify conservative Republicans a provision allows state to opt out some provisions of the ACA that requires minimum benefits such as maternity care and emergency services. It retains coverage for pre-existing conditions to mollify moderate Republicans. The bill provides states with $138 billion over 10 years to subsidize premiums, provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, mental healthcare and drug addiction. 5. The bill removes the taxes imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on high income people of about $300 billion over 10 years by repealing a payroll tax increase and tax on investment income. This bill and the ACA offer 2 competing visions on healthcare, both bills passed only by a margin of 4-5 votes in the House. The ACA overlooked the impact on premiums causing discontent among middle income Americans. The new bill lets premiums rise for older Americans in order to keep premiums down for other Americans. This shows the many tradeoffs involved and choices being made, and the lack of a consensus on the issue of healthcare in the U.S., becoming a highly politicized issue instead of the way it is treated in western Europe.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Barboza of NYT describes the hidden subsidies China gives to Foxconn for its plant in Zhengzhou, in a poor region of China. The factory there makes about half a million iPhones a day. These subsidies include incentive packages, infrastructure building, local government help of about $1.5 billion. As a result Apple has high margins. For a 32 gigabyte iPhone 7 that costs $400 to make, the retail price is about $649 in the U.S.  The hidden subsidies is why Apple can maintain dominance as profits are reinvested. And the result is that with only 12% of the smartphone market Apple can take in 90% of the profit, according to Strategy Analytics. Barboza looks back at Apple before co-founder Steve Jobs left in 1985 as focussing on manufacturing at plants in Colorado and California. By 2001 with iPod sales soaring the move to China under Cook, who previously worked for Compaq, was underway. With the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, the move to China for manufacturing accelerated. The reason: only China offered the kind of subsidies, the speed of approval and building of infrastructure facilities, the local government support, the hundreds of thousands of workers, and the best tooling engineers, to produce in huge volumes with speed, and maintaining quality levels. Earlier plants including one in Colorado Springs that this Lyrarc editor was invited to visit just prior to Jobs rejoining Apple had many quality problems, so much so that Apple had a large part of the manufactured personal computers set aside for rework. The quality levels were dismal, defects were unbelievably high. This is the Apple manufacturing process and plant that Jobs must have seen when he returned, and which he hired Cook to fix. Not only were costs higher in the U.S., (subsidies in China came later) when Jobs looked at the manufacturing quality and the inability to get the quality he needed from American workers and engineers at that time in the 1990's, only then did he turn to China- and the more he saw what was possible to accomplish there he sensed an unusual opportunity to finally put the ghosts of memories from competition with Microsoft at rest, and to surpass everything that had been done in Silicon Valley. The result one of the most ingenious and large manufacturing networks in the world, huge profits for an American company, except for one thing- it would not do much for American workers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Blake of the Washington Post says president Trump finds himself in the same situation as president Obama, who came into office wanting to scale down the effort in Afghanistan, and early in his presidency signed off on a troop surge under commander McChrystal. Trump in the election campaign expressed strong disapproval of interventionist policies. The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan makes it necessary to make an infustion of American troops- a policy being developed by Gen. Mattis. The change now is to insist vigorously on anti-corruption measures and good governance in return for aid. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The debate in Germany on admitting refugees intensifies after the attacks in Cologne. Austria limits its refugee acceptance to 37,500 for 2016, sharply down from the 90,000 admitted in 2015. Chancellor Merkel is under pressure to reduce the numbers of refugees for 2016.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, says 24 days is enough time for Iran to wipe out traces of nuclear work, such as working with explosives to trigger a weapon or construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. A situation actually happened in 2003 when the atomic energy agency wanted to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, where Iran was using centrifuges received from Pakistan. Iranians removed all traces of illicit work at the time while delaying inspectors. This case was cited by Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency. Heinonen says smaller scale activity such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon can be carried out and the traces deleted in 24 days. Senator Corker points out that the time allowed would be more than 24 days when all the time is added up correctly.

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reminds readers that Newt Gingrich- who criticized Romney's record at Bain Capital- was himself on the advisory board of private equity firm Forstmann Little. This editorial describes Santorum, Romney and Gingrich as corporate candidates who had close ties to private equity or lobbying firms.