World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld sees the largest blunder of Roger Smith and Rich Wagoner at GM, as that of packing the Board of Directors with people who were friendly to him and likely to back him, so that few independent voices were heard during their entire time running GM. Both Smith and Wagoner were protected by staffers. Their opportunities to see and hear what was happening in the the outside world was limited, even as the world around them was changing rapidly. See the links to the incompetence of the Board at GM.
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Policymakers have alot of mistakes and errors to avoid in the years ahead, things are by no means normal. And the normal of the future after the crisis is going to be one of slow growth, large deficits and high unemployment.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A congressional oversight panel reported in October 2009 that fewer than 2000 of 500,000 loan modification applications in progressunder the Making Homes Affordable program of the Obama adminsitration had become permanent. When Treasury reports on the program in December 2009 its expected to report that the number of permanentloan modifications are in the tens of thousands out of 650,000 borrowers in the program. Mortgage companies are collecting lucrative fees on long term delinquencies so there is not enough incentive to make permanent loan modifications according to lawers defending homeowners.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A small tax on the $800 trillion foreign exchange industry of 0.005%- with the tax on currencies where the leaders of these countries approve like Merkel of Germany and Sarkozy of France- would generate much needed money to help the word's poorest, says Philippe Jouste-Blazy, a former foreign minister of France. For instance he says tuberculosis killed nearly 1.8 million people in 2007, and caused the GNP of some countries to fall as much as 7 %. THis would bring serious gains to economic growth in the poorest countries. Look at the $1 to $5 tax imposed on airline tickets in France and 10 other countries since 2005.It has raised $700 million and financed three quarters of the AIDS treatment now being received by the world's HIV positive children. Unitaid, is an organization Blazy leads. It manages the money from the airline tax, and has negotiated 50 to 60% reductions in the price of pediatric anti-retroviral drugs in low income countries. The reason why the banking community should support this tax. One it is tiny, 0.005% on a foreign exchange transaction, and should not affect the flow of transactions. It is done automatically by computer systems. The currency trading system right now is untaxed. More importantly the bankers says Blazy have been benficiaries of taxpayer money. Isn't it time to give back to those worst affected by the global crisis the bankers helped create? Does'nt it create more credibility for the global financial, monetary and trading systems? He says the tax money could be managed by the Global FUnd to fight AIDs Tuberculosis and Malaria, with upholds programs in 100 countries to high performance standards....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Meltzer says a Fed QE III woud be bad monetary policy. He puts several questions to Bernanke- how the Fed and Ben Bernanke can know now what is the right interest rate policy in mid 2013, and what reason can the Fed give for adding excess reserves when U.S. banks have $1.6 trillion in idle reserves at the Fed. Meltzer cautions the Fed and other policymakers not to pay attention only to short term forecasts, which can be susceptible to large errors. And calls for attention to the long term consequences of their actions. One point he emphasizes is that the unemployment problem cannot be resolved with short term policy actions nor can it be resolved in a short time. It will take population growth, falling housing prices and rising rents to create opportunities for new construction. Another change is the transition to a less consumption driven and more export oriented economy. This transition which has started will also take time. He urges the Congress and the administration to focus on: reducing corporate tax rates by closing loopholes, long-term reductions in entitlement spending, a 5 year moratatorium on new regulations, and the Fed adopting an explicit inflation target between 0% and 2%....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS gives his views about reviving European industrial competitiveness.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Proposed ideas being considered at the EU headquarters in Brussels include the European bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), being made a bank with funding from the European Central Bank. The EFSF would be able to buy the bonds of Spain and Italy in primary and secondary markets alongside private buyers. As an alternative the ECB would be able to buy Spanish and Italian bonds directly. Here the problem is keeping private investors in the market given the large financial needs of Spain and Italy. In the restructuring of Greece's government bonds the ECB took the position that it would subordinate the claims of private investors in Greece's government bonds and not take loss. Concerns of private investors could be addressed by the eurozone governments giving an explicit indemnity to the ECB to cover any losses suffered in the purchase of Spanish and Italian bonds. Both steps, the direct purchase of Spain's and Italy's bonds by the ECB or through the EFSF would mean doing something that is not in the ECB's charter- the financing of government debt- and would be done cautiously and only in a crisis situation. The caution would also be motivated by the need to ensure there is action to improve the competitiveness of Spain, Italy and other eurozone countries through specific measures, and no backtracking bygovernments....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Russian president Putin tells Russians at an annual news conference on Dec. 17, 2014, that the West wanted to deprive Russia of its natural resources. He says steps taken by the central bank and his administration were proper, including avoiding capital controls, except that the decision to raise interest rates to 17% in mid-Dec. should have been taken earlier. He deflects criticism that the sanctions and the decline in the ruble were "payment for Crimea" (Russia's takeover of the Crimea) by saying it was "payment for our independence, our sovereignty." Putin expressed unease with the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. He told Russians to expect that the crisis will last for 2 years and during this time the Russian economy will adapt, in particular shifting its heavy dependence on oil exports. During the 10 years of the Putin administration since 2004, Russia has not made a vigorous effort to diversify away from oil dependence. Progress was made primarily in better integrating the economy with the European Union, entry into WTO, building a sovereign reserves fund, until the crisis in Ukraine. The Putin years may be seen in the future as the transition years towards a more diversified economy, and may lead to a shift away from the kind of management of economic and foreign policy by a single leader that may have led to the disruption in relations with Germany, a critical economic partner for Russia. Chancellor Merkel said Germany would continue to support sanctions as long as Russia opposed the right of self- determination of people in Europe and European values. Germany continues even now to maintain dialogue with Russia through Social Democrat Foreign Minister Steinmeier, which is why Putin continues to refer to it as "our partners" and cites the differences with our partners, very different from the Cold War period when no such close relations with Germany existed. ...
FRANCE 24 Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
"Defend blue sky and breathe together" says a painting on a brick wall in the coal producing region of Shanxi, northern China. China is finally acting seriously to impose strict environmental rules from the top. Old coal stoves are thrown into a dump as China shifts away from coal stoves to heat homes. So many new homes shifted to natural gas in Shanxi province. population 37 million, that demand overwhelmed natural gas supplies. Results are to be seen in cleaner air in Taiyuan, capital of the province and in Beijing itself.  President Xi's commitment to climate change accord reached in Paris is seen as firm in this report in the NYT. The head of the gas, coal and power markets division of the International Energy Agency, Mr. Peter Fraser, says that even though homes use only 6% of total coal used in China, the effects are disproportionately high because homes do not have any emission reduction mechanisms. Natural gas demand has increased by 16% in 2017 as provincial officials eager to meet the demands issued in Beijing to cut coal emissions even let some homes and schools go without heat in an early winter spell. This extraordinary report shows how in cities in northeastern China the people welcome the change to natural gas and cleaner air. Even in coal country, in cities like Linfen population 4.4 million, the change is seen as people welcome the clean air and officials build natural gas connections to execute the plans issued in Beijing. In Beijing itself Greenpeace estimates show 54% reduction in PM 2.5, harmful particulate matter for breathing by 54%, a startling fact showing Beijing's determination and effectiveness of its actions. Natural gas is more expensive and citizens do not complain in neighboring provinces near Beijing because the state provides adequate subsidies to compensate people. Decrees are being enforced to avoid coal stove use with people knowing they could see action by authorites if reported. Compare this to the problems of crop burning around New Delhi, in Haryana and Punjab provinces, and one can see that centralized control and direction has advantages when used in the right way for a good purpose and supported by people who want to breathe clean air. ...
BBC News Original article ›
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.  ...
The Telegraph Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This article in The Telegraph shows the debate in the House of Commons on Syria and comments by various MP's. It also reveals the impasse on Syria with Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party using it to score points against Jeremy Corbyn of Labor Party by calling for demonstrations by peace groups at Russian embassies, and Corbyn's response to this saying all parties embassies including the U.S. should be included. By October 2016 with about 100,000 children and 275,000 civilians trapped inside the Aleppo region in northern Syria, and Russian bombings of Aleppo, the situation is dire. With U.S. president Obama's inaction on Syria, the refugee crisis in Europe from Syrian refugees exceeding 2 million in the Middle East, the situation in Syria is at the point where lacking an effective option to setup a no fly zone at this late stage the political parties in Britain and in the U.S. trade charges against each other. German chancellor Merkel and foreign minister Steinmier visit Ethiopia and Nigeria to stem the flow of refugees from economic crisis at the source with aid and support, as Germany works on its own efforts. France's Hollande tells Putin a visit to France would have only Syria as topic for discussions and calls for Syria to be brought up as war crimes. Even the Telegraph's title is misleading as the article covers the debate in the House on Commons on Syria, but the title appeals to Telegraph readers critical of Corbyn when the debate is about Syria and what action to take about the bombings.   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Here are 11 big infrastructure projects that are planned across the country. They are part of the $2.2 trillion of projects to build or repair infrastructure, that is estimated by the American Society of Civil Engineers as needed by America today. But there is only $100 billion for infrastructure spending in the Stimulus Plan, and much of this will go to keeping existing infrastructure, a dilapidated bridge here or road there in repair. Only $50 billion is available for transportation projects. The rapid transit planned for California with trains twice as fast as Acela for a 800 mile track is estimated at $45 billion, but there is only $11 billion in the Stimulus for mass transit aand cities like Washington DC for Dulles airport with its need for a airport train, and other mass transit projects around the country wil compete for the same money. As a result most will go unfunded. The Second Avenue Subway in New York at $4.35 billion, Miami Port Tunnel at $1 billion, Bridge to Canada from Detroit for $1.8 billion, Hudson Rail Tunnel for New York at $8.75 billion, Seattle Highway Tunnel at $4.24 billion, Gulf ports at New Orleans and Gulfport, Mississippi at $2.04 billion, tens of billions for new California aqueduct bypassing the delta around Sacramento to bring water from north to arid Southern part of California, NestGen Air Traffic Control for $15 billion to $22 billion, are the other projects on this list. Many of these are badly needed and have been waiting for years to get the necessary investment. This is only a partial list, and suggests that there are a lot of projects that can productively use government investment, so that wasteful spending does not occur. It appears that the projects are there because these areas were neglected for a long period, more like the situation faced during the post Thatcher period in the UK, where infrastructure and services had been neglected for so long that Labor governments could productively channel new investment in these areas to avoid wasteful spending. And it appears that the situation is very different from Japan where the Liberal Democratic Party had a vested interest in keeping its farm and rural base happy with new projects, like a bridge to nowhere, that led to wasteful spending for a decade or more, leading to rising deficits and investments that did not create productive returns in terms of economic growth. By contrast these projects have potential to generate productive returns for years into the future and also are large enough to create jobs and be spread out over a number of years. This could end up being a real bright spot in the current situation. Felix Rohatyn, who helped New York rebuild its finances afte a crisis, has a new book "Bold Endeavors: How our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now", using examples like the rebuilding of the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, and the Interstate Highway System, and says the US needs to build for the future with more ambitious, better planned projects today. He says, that infrastructure is not an expense, it has to be seen as a vitally needed and productive investment. People like Rohatyn and others see the Stimlulus plan as a missed opportunity because a lot of these projects mentioned here and the numerous others not shown here will simply not see much money from the government to support them and get them off the ground. The idea that this is wasteful government spending that is spreading, may be a danger to this vision and opportunity. At the same time the reality is that if all this was happening during the time of the Erie Canal or the postwar period of the Interstate Highway System it would have been much easier to support. The banking crisis fix is taking away so many of the dollars that could have gone here, that this may be the missed opportunity, the lack of room for visionary investments because of the danger of pushing the government deficit to 60% of GDP with the current spending plans. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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. ...
WSJ Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A shift in priorities away from focussing on high growth to lower sustainable growth was announced by China's premier Wen Jiabao at the National People's Congress, China's parliament, in March 2012. This shift will reduce investment in infrastructure, power generation and exports, which will affect the level of imports of commodities from commodity producing nations in the Middle East, Australia, Canada and Brazil. It should increase imports of software, computers, entertainment, tourism and high tech goods from the U.S. and Europe. Chinese leaders have said they would make this kind of shift for some years now but growth has consistently increased more than the target rate, and domestic consumption as a percentage of the economy has actually decreased in the last decade. Now 9-10% growth rates may be a thing of the past and the target of 7.5% set this year may be actually closer to the real figure. The Chinese leaders have belatedly realized the need to make these changes now because slowing markets in Europe -which is seeing declining growth and high unemployment- and in the U.S., make the issue impossible to avoid. Wen told the Congress: "Accelerating the transformation of the pattern of economc development... is both a long term task and our most pressing task at present... Domestically it has become more urgent but also more difficult... to alleviate the problem of unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable development." This is his way of saying that its unavoidable and better to start in earnest now, and at the same time recognizing the resistance to change from the stateowned companies and the other interests who have benefitted from surging growth, and now occupy a central role in the power structure. An opinion article in the People's Daily, China's official newspaper, said: "imperfect reforms are to be preferred to a crisis caused by no reforms." The World Bank's president Zoellick is respected by the Chinese leaders. He also urged them to make changes now. The recent report of the DRC, China's planning research arm, and the World Bank, also laid out the new direction away from a focus on infrastructure to domestic consumption. The fear is sudden deceleration in the absence of policy action. The impact of this will be negative for commodities over time, leading to slower growth in Australia, Brazil, and Canada. It should boost imports from Europe and the U.S. of high tech, consumer, pharmaceutical goods over time....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us