LyrArc Article Gist
Italian born Canadian Sergio Marchionne, a former tax consultant turned auto executive who joined Fiat in 2004, planned the acquisition of Fiat in 2009. GM's payout to Chrysler following a decision not to acquire Fiat, and the U.S. government's need to merge Chrysler with another auto company after a bailout, gave Marchionne the opportunity to acquire Chrysler on favorable terms. Hard bargaining with the government led to acquiring Chrysler for free, using the $2 billion from GM to show the government that it would make the needed investments to bring Chrysler back from bankruptcy. This decision, the bringing in of outside talent, and the revival of the auto industry following the bailout, has led to the success of Fiat Chrysler.  Sergio Marchionne had the right instincts to persuade the government that Fiat with its small cars including the Fiat 500 was the right company to run Chrysler, and supporting president Obama's fuel efficiency goals gave him the right credentials with the Obama administration. A chain smoker of cigarettes who also gulped down espressos, her was a workaholic sometimes carrying 5 smartphones. He passed away at the age of 66 from health complications. Ironically the Dodge Dart was presented as the car that would get 40 miles per gallon. Other efforts at fuel efficient automobiles have not happened in the way it was envisioned by the Obama administration. The Dart did not become popular. Only the redesigned Fiat made it as a hit in Europe. The plan to import small Fiats to the U.S. remained only on paper. As the auto industry revived Marchionne canceled plans to make nearly all of the Chrysler cars and shifted production to more popular Jeeps and Dodge Ram, a move followed by Ford and GM. Fuel efficiency issues from the bankruptcy period are still alive today with the decision to leave small car manufacturing to Japanese and German carmakers, and the efforts of the Trump administration to turn back the Obama administration fuel efficiency targets.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, was appointed chief economist at the IMF in 2003. He presented a paper, titled "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier," at the annual Jackson Hole meeting of economists and central bankers for 2005. Rajan says he had planned to write about how financial developments during Greenspan's 18 year old tenure had made things safer, but the more he looked the more evidence came up that the risk reward relationships in a normal functioning financial market had been terribly distorted. Market participants were being rewarded for wins but were not being asked to take on commensurate risks and impacts on their bonuses and rewards. He also cautioned about the use of credit default swaps which acted as insurance against bond defaults, and said insurers were generating big returns on this but with the appearance of little risk- even though the pain could be immense in a default. Banks were carrying credit securties on their books that posed risks to the whole financial system if things went wrong with the credit securities. Reaction from the gathering was unfavorable. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury Secretary said, "the basic, slightly lead eyed premise of the paper was misguided."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Galston cites a Federal Reserve Board of Chicago 2014 study showing setbacks for black people in achieving improvement in income status. Even for children born into middle income black families about 55% are expected to fall below middle income status compared to 36% for children of white middle income families. The problem is not just the gap as Galston points out but what it says for the declining income mobility for the white middle class when 36% are likely to see declining status and prospect for the future, and 23% will see no improvement. Overall it shows a lack of income and social mobility for whites and minorities alike compared to the past improvements since the 1960's, not a bright prospect and less hope for the future the way things are, and why so many of the establishment candidates and existing policies are being questioned by voters.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jenna Wortham asks the question do tech companies have undue influence in Washington especially when they are pursuing their own ecosystem expansion, citing an example from Facebook app Free Basics. There is another question that comes with the election campaigns of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, and issues of upward mobility. With this issue raised also by Janet Yellen of the U.S. Federal Reserve of the loss of intergenerational mobility in the U.S. at a conference in Oct. 2014. This question is whether the tech world in California can be sensitive to the problems of cities depending on manufacturing in the midwest and the eastern U.S. that are recovering from deep recession, because the environments are so different. Working in the tech world in California is so different from the rest of the country, almost a different way of life. It also has deep political implications, because the priorities are different. Sometimes as with the TPP trade agreement they may conflict- this includes an industry such as the auto industry that also is incorporating technology at an accelerating pace and which has employed many times more people than does the tech industry in California, and in many states. This leads to president Obama's support for the TPP trade agreement, an agreement which analysis by some experts shows is more beneficial to the tech industry in California than to the auto industry in the midwestern states. The NYT's Krugman says overall for the U.S. it is marginally helpful as most of the gains in free trade are already behind us. See Lyrarc using search terms-Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership. Yet it remains a mystery why president Obama has made it a part of his legacy, when Hillary Clinton realizing the issues in this election has clearly stated she will not support it. It has other implications as well, as it has given rise to demagogic rhetoric in this election, where other issues far more significant such as the condition of western democracy are at stake. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman compares the anti-corruption movements in India and the U.S., the world's two largest democracies. The Occupy Wall Street anti-corruption movement in the U.S. focusses on the excessive influence of banks on lawmakers, regulators, and the government, through the use of campaign money, revolving door for government officials and regulators to join banks, and intense lobbying. The anti-corruption movement focusses on corruption in government at higher levels, such as the handling of government licenses, and at the basic levels of needing to bribe officials for something as simple as getting a birth certificate or other government document. Both have pernicious effects, in the U.S. excesssive bank influence leads to taking excessive risk for higher bonuses, putting the entire financial system at risk and creating a crisis in housing that delays the economic recovery. And in India the corruption leads to retarded progress, as funds to invest in infrastructure and development are siphoned off, business and entrepreneurs are required to pay bribes at each step, and ordinary people face the need to pay bribes for the most routine interactions with government officials. In the process this creates more unequal societies by skewing the distribution of benefits from wealth created to groups that are better equipped to game the system. The economic system once distorted in these ways has tendencies to take talent away from productive activity and innovation which create wealth, and direct it towards speculative activities....