LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ Dollar Index , which shows the strength of the U.S. dollar against a trade-weighted basket of currencies, jumped up by 22% from July 1, 2014 to March 17, 2015, according to FactSet. Since that time the dollar has risen slowly by 2.7%. Scott Mather, chief investment officer, U.S. core strategies, PIMCO, says the dollar normally rises faster in the period when there is an expectation of rising rates than when the actual increase of rates takes place. Analysts say if the Fed raises rates in 2016 this could strengthen the dollar further, complicating the Fed's rate increase plans with slower increase in inflation. U.S. S&P 500 companies have reported lower earnings by 10-12% in the third quarter of 2015- when actual earnings dropped by only 1.5%- because of the stronger dollar, according to Binky Chadha, chief global strategist at Deutsche Bank. He says core goods inflation would have risen by half a percentage point more without the stronger dollar, meeting the 2% Fed target, had the dollar not strengthened....

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT tariffs are selective and reciprocality makes them fair. This also cushions the impact on consumers and countries. Countries who have blatantly unfair tariffs for decades can then decide as in EU, China, India, Japan, S. Korea, Mexico and Canada, can decide how they will respond by looking at what they need to do for fair trade. Some tariffs are intended also as domestic policy for failure to control of fentanyl into the US as with CMC countries Canada, Mexico and China. US producers will make goods sourced from these countries at home and as DJT says about autos from Mexico this will lead to American producers in Detroit picking up production and bringing manufacturing back home to USA. Most goods Americans use were made in the US in the postwar period from 1950-1980, American manufacturing will get the boost it so badly needs after unfair trade practices from other countries in the EU, Japan, Taiwan and China. By April this policy will be in place, by June in 6 months the policies will be fully operational at entry ports in the US including Los Angeles and Long Beach. All tariffs are selective, carefully evaluated for individual countries and products and regions based on reciprocality a principle that is fair to all countries and the principle on which the world trading system is founded. Individual companies and industries that gain this or that benefit may present it differently saying is good or bad based on their interest and profits- for the US and American people the principle of reciprocality provides a yardstick that is both fair and in the long term interest of bringing jobs and higher wages to the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BBC's Mark Tullly reflects on the period of coverage from 1962-1994 of South Asia. He says of Indira Gandhi that she took the democratic process out of the Indian National Congress party, and set up her sons as future leaders that was undemocratic. Here he reflects on that period in an intervew with the BBC after he left the BBC.  He has deep connections to the Indian period after 1800 as his great grand father on his mothers side was around 1840 in a part of Uttar Pradesh where British planters had farmers plant opium that would later be bought by planters for export. This coincides with the period when Britain in Hong Kong traded in opium as part of British trading in the emerging colonial culture British Empire. There is mixed legacy for Britain in India and China. The history of the Opium Wars in the 1850's and opening up of colonial ports ended with the 1900's revolution and the emergence of the CCP in China by 1950. In India the legacy was mixed bringing together this part of Asia into a new nation and bringing parliamentary traditions of Britain that provided the basis for good governance.  Tully is a softspoken thoughtful Englishman who revolted against British classical education in his youth and studied history and religion at Cambridge, made friends with the future bishops of Canterbury and Lincoln at Cambridge. He is not the Englishman of the Empire as his fondest memories are of the servants verandahs on the bungalows of Britishers and the smoke from their quarters, and the language. So it is a thoughtful view that he gives of the undemocratic nature of Indira Gandhi and mismanagement of the economy that could have changed if India had gone in a different direction under other leaders in the the 1990's. Why is this significant? China's modernization drive started in the 1990's. India's by the undemocratic nature and mismanagement under Indira Gandhi did not start its modernization till 2010, about 20 years after China, opening up a huge gap that is only now being corrected leading to problems for world security, US security, European security and Indian security. And delaying the aspirations of development of 1.4 billion people for 2 decades. Vikshit Bharat cannot come fast enough for both Merz in Germany and Leyen at the European Union, who last week and this week visit Ahmedabad and India for the Kite festival and for Republic Day 2026. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in ProPublica on October 13, 2020, by Lydia DePillis was written near the end of Robert Lighhizer's term as US Trade Representative.  Bottom Line: It is human behaviour that no country, no kingdom or group will give up its money advantages secured when the opposition was weak or disorganized till the last fight is fought. The British were not giving up India, a source of financing the war against Napoleon in 1800's and then the Industrial Revolution in 1850's, the Dutch were not giving up the financial advantages of their Spices Empire in Batavia (Indonesia). History has shown this. Once gained under a state capitalism Japan was not going to give up its financial advantages gained by the 1980's when the US was weak or disorganized, till the last battle was fought.  Lighthizer who for the relentless Japanese was equally relentless till the goal of fair and level playing field for America was secured. This is true for China today on Liberation Day. This entire report by De Pillis in 2020 shows the Chinese would be relentless in 2020 like the Japanese in the 1980's, the Dutch in Indonesia  in the 18th and 19th century and the British in India in the 19th century and 20th century. China turned Mexico and Vietnam into supply routes into the US market. It continued its efforts to gain US technology in other ways. USTR older officials from the Bush Obama years of failed negotiations with China and endless hours putting together minute details of agreements including the TransPacific Agreement of Obama were not going to like the new approach of Lighthizer so stuck were they with the old approach of no clear goal and not getting an even playing field from China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Already Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan are negotiating. India will join South Korea. Britain will follow. Only Canada and China are holding back because of the imbalance in trade heavily in their favor and a failure to see that it is about fairness. In the EU only Germany has a surplus many nations have a deficit, it seeks to start negotiating at the first opportunity. Contrary to what most of the American and British media says Lighhizer and Jamieson have thought this thing through for many years before arriving at the Tariffs advice they gave the US president as his 2 USTR. It is these two not the president acting on his own whim as the media like to show. And Lighthizer has done this before- as Deputy USTR in the 1980 with Japan on the opposite side and come out of it with winning solutions for the US and for the world.

LyrArc Article Gist
What this Editorial board opinion in the Indian Express is saying is that India should concentrate its efforts on modernizing its economy on a scale that is similar or surpasses that of China because of its access to the latest technologies. Just as China capitalized on the opportunity presented by its entry in the World Trade Organization in 2001, through an economy wide effort to build a manufacturing and export logistics base. India is presented with the opportunity of building its own manufacturing and export logistics base as supply chains are being redesigned in 2023. This requires a longer term plan with clear thinking and concentrated effort with the entire resources of the nation. What looks like a small or gradual shift in supply chain with the US and EU adding India and Vietnam to their Chinese manufacturing base is going to change with every change in world events, as the US concentration of manufacturing in China becomes a situation that is impossible to to maintain. The only logical way for the US and following the US the EU to create a proper balance in its political relationship with China is to change fully its lopsided concentration of manufacturing in China. Biden is only making the initial moves, the EU is only waking up to the need to make its own changes to reduce this concentration. How much distance does the US need to cover to reduce its concentration in China? By a large amount because the shift of manufacturing was excessive and ill advised done as companies in the US raced in a competition to shift outside over 2 decades and simply outdid themselves and performed a disservice to the workers and families of America whom they served. Just for the US to get workers and families to benefit from return of good manufacturing jobs to the US and restore its manufacturing base that has shriveled, it will have to be a massive enterprise, where day by day it becomes more evident that more and more needs to be and accomplished in an accelerated way. What this also means where appropriate to leave a progressively year after a year larger base in India, and also Vietnam, much larger than is envisaged today. This situation is even more acutely felt in Japan which to bring a proper balance in its political relationship with China needs to even more urgently reduce its concentration of manufacturing in China. It must be the task of the Modi government to have a clear view of the road ahead- build the needed logistical base for exports using the latest technologies and set higher and higher targets for manufacturing.  If you look at the map of Asia this is the Global South- India is 60-70% of the Global South with its population of 1.4 billion people mostly young with aspirations for a modern economy like that of the US and Germany. Add to that Indonesia and Vietnam, and other nations already in the redesigned supply chain in 2023 and you have 2 billion people in Asia. Concentrate on this for the next 2 decades for a complete transformation of India, that is what the younger generation demands of its government. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the US, and China a significant $439 billion in additional exports to US, which makes it incredible that for so long it did not take effective action to stop fentanyl flows, and Mexico allowed migrant trafficking across it's borders through 2016-2024. Even in the face of this becoming an explosive issue in the US with DJT elected in 2016 and the Border Wall being built. A silent but still existing in plain sight idea that the US would tolerate such flows became part of the culture in media outlets in the US and Europe and China and other parts of the world, even when there was a storm of discontent building about manufacturing shipped overseas hurting communities in the US since 2010, with added burden of safety endangered in these neighborhoods from fentanyl, drugs and illegal migrants. What worsened this situation and pain in the US was the idea that somehow it was the US's fault, an incomprehensible disdain for the US, US that enabled the modernization of China, Mexico, and Canada's economies. China sends $439 billion in exports more than the US does to China (US exports $143 billion China $582 billion in 2024). It is only surface presentation of indignation of face saving that these trading partners are showing when the real facts point to an extraordinary and incomprehensible disdain for the US as a nation in decline. There is a feeling in parts of Europe of American disdain for  Europe, without mention of the disdain for the US in Europe, China, Mexico and Canada and other parts of the world. Particularly disdain for neglected communities in the US that have suffered for far too long under previous administrations of Clinton-Bush-Obama with shipping of manufacturing and jobs overseas and inaction on drugs and illegal migrant flows. The EU Canada retaliatory approach has not worked. When DJT proposed doubling the tariffs imposed by US in the face of Canada EU retaliatory steps, the EU and Canada pulled back. Part of the reason is that in the case of Canada it is an economy one tenth the size of the US. The other is that there are real concerns on the US side that Canada EU are not playing fairly in trade. And Canada, Mexico, China, have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the US.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Comments on X that cause difficulty for DJT chief of staff Susie Wiles to keep a clear narrative and the loss in the Wisconsin SC election are leading to a sense that Elon Musk could be a political liability. DJT focus is on the midterms and keeping the majority in the House, which is also why Elise Stefanik was asked to not accept the job of UN Representative and remain in the US Congress. The immediate focus is on tackling the Tariffs Liberation Day action April 2, 2025 so that followup negotiations with about 50 countries including major ones with Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Britain followed by European Union, South Korea and other nations. This would reassure markets as country after country is developing a new trade relationship that respects US manufacturing goals. China could then be tackled as a special case with America limited to loss of $146 billion in energy and grain sales which would be diverted to Europe's energy needs and farmers could be given a $50-100 billion support package. China would then have to find a way to preserve its $1 trillion surplus without the American market  which would require it to find other markets, and create a domestic market, if it chose not to negotiate and accept American manufacturing goals. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Entergy is one of the largest energy companies. Its CEO for nine years, Wayne Leonard, talks to Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal. Its the No.2 generator of nuclear power in the USA, and uses coal for only 7% of its energy. He has made his name in nuclear energy, and here he talks about the government's cap and trade program and nuclear energy. He points to today's technology as far superior to the technology that was used in the Failed Three Mile plant, that put back nuclear energy plants in the USA for decades. He believes that price signals are needed for CO2, and the cap and trade program helps to do this, so he supports the cap and trade program. He admits that self interest colors perception of Entergy, compared to coal using utility producers like Duke Energy and American Electric Power. With coal only 7% in its portfolio of plants, and big in nuclear energy, it stands to gains from a cap and trade program, whereby Congress will set a ceiling on emissions, then allows businesses to sell any of its extra allowances that stand for the right to make emissions. And in doing so creating the largest commodity market, in carbon backed securiites. He and the government agree on the point that the allowances should be auctioned off, rather than given away as the companies with many coal plants believe. And the billions in new revenue from these allowances would be returned to the public. He understands that the view of companies like Duke and AEP, that use coal and would have to increase rates, and face the anger of ratepayers as they pay more for the allowances. He also thinks the bill should be written with a fine pen, so that if Congress mandates 20% of energy come from renewables. That it should specify replacing coal not natural gas as what this replaces, to get rid of the most polluting sources. He points to the real need for looking at things globally, as doing things locally, even to show responsible leadership in the world community, can lead to no progress in the global picture. The reason is that China is going ahead with the rapid construction of conventional coal plants. It has surpassed USA coal capacity, and is on track to double it sometime in the next decade. If the USA closed down every single coal plant, and all the time new coal plants are going up in China and India, then we would have ruined our economy, and it was'nt making much difference globally. And he says, if we just say lets lead and people will follow us, "its silly", because China isn't going to follow us, especially when they have $2 trillion invested in their coal plants, and they still aren't feeding feeding all their people. So how to deal with this? Develop the new technology for carbon capture for existing conventional coal plants, and help the Chinese with retrofit technology to curb emissions in a realistic manner. At this time most current funding is devoted to technology for second generation systems, that are still 10-20 years away....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fox News and WSJ are taking differing positions on Epstein case with Fox News ignoring it and the WSJ carrying the story. Murdoch and DJT have a complicated relationship in July 2025 following the $10 billion DJT lawsuit against Murdoch filed in late July after a story in the WSJ. WSJ parent company Dow Jones says it stands by the story and will defend the accuracy of its reporting. Both the DJT Republicans and the Fox News network appeal to conservative viewers of television, and people in business. WSJ has carried stories questioning the tariff policies of the president, and is critical. It is also not fully supportive of policies to handle migrants. Fox News another Murdoch news outlet is through programs like "Hannity" supporting the president and DJT supports it. This creates a dichotomy in the support when DJT and Republicans are putting forward an agenda that is moving fast on the economy, migration, crime, and world trade requiring support to keep the conservative groups together in the US. This is not a situation encountered before as the nation is moving to a crossroads in which direction it should take. And this does not even take up the issues of climate protection which will come up, and of pharmaceutical companies overcharging Americans for healthcare, other battles that will take place.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A few events in the last 50 years are rewriting the rules for business, finance and economics, says the WSJ in this analysis. The admitting of China to the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 was one, another was the global financial crisis in 2009 with the selling of bad mortgages by the financial industry, the euro currency financial crisis with the bad accounting, real estate industry speculation, and lack of financial oversight in countries such as Greece, Ireland, Spain. The coronavirus pandemic is one more addition to this string of crises and events that have made the working class and middle class in US and Europe poorer and in worse shape after the recovery following World War II.  The changes indicated here are some of the surface changes- such as the shift to the suburbs for cleaner air and better living, the work at home as a serious option, the new focus on health care, wellness, exercise, nutrition and mental health, remote learning and community college as a realistic option to high tuition costs by the education industry, and a pharmaceutical industry refocused on public health and vaccines as it was in its early years before its shift into a simply profit driven industry. The underlying thread for all these changes on the surface is a deeper change in the public mind- a change that redefines what the people believe in just as happened after World War II. Rebuilding the devastated economies of Europe, America and Asia required a new vision at the time after World War II. And reconstruction could only happen with all the people involved and working for the public interest.  This also created a new hope for the future. President Biden's vision is for a new set of priorities that make child care, women's position in the economy, community college education as a right for all as a first step to opening the access to education that existed after the war in 1945. Investment in infrastructure, in building new roads, bridges and rail, water, internet connections, public services in transport, better layout of urban areas, better lives for retirees, are all part of an effort to improve quality and ease of living for all parts of society, not just those who can afford it.  This is uppermost on people's minds and administrations or governments that fail to deliver or simply talk with no action, will not have the support of ordinary working men and women in all countries. This is true for countries and regions as varied in their level of development as the US, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Japan, India, Brazil and Mexico, and African nations. Democracy, government adminstration, technology and business structures exist for the people, to improve the ease of living, quality of life, through better health, education and public services.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Alexandra Stevenson provides this exceptional account summarizing the reasoning in the minds of Argentine negotiators and holdout bondholders over a debt dispute remaining from the 2001 Argentine debt crisis and default. Over a decade later the repercussions of Argentina's 2001 debt crisis and default are still taking new twists ant turns. Holdout bondholders won in U.S. courts and Judge Griesa ordered Argentina to make full payment demanded by holdout bondholders. Argentina responded by depositing $539 million in Bank of New York Mellon as instalment payment to exchange bondholders. Judge Griesa responded by ruling that if Bank of New York Mellon made the payment it would be in contempt of court. Griesa also called for court mediated negotiations between Argentina and the holdout bondholders to come up with an agreement. Argentina and hedge fund holdouts negotiated in July 2014 but talks faltered. Legal experts say that if Argentina makes an agreement with holdout bondholders led by NML Capital which is asking for $1.5 billion, the risk is that the exchange bondholders could also ask for better terms. After the 2001 crisis following which Argentina defaulted on its debt, agreements were reached for bondholders to be paid about 25 cents on the dollar. Not all bondholders agreed, the bondholders who agreed are called the exhange bondholders, and the ones holding out holdout bondholders. From the Argentine government's point of view the risk of reaching agreement with the holdouts suing Argentina is that the other holdout bondholders not represented in the lawsuit could also ask for the same terms, and Argentina would have to pay all the holdouts costing it $15 billion. Risks if Argentina allows it to go into default are that exchange bondholders would come together to pressure the Argentine government to make a full payment of their discounted bonds quickly. This would cost Argentina payment of as much as $28.7 billion, according to JPMorgan estimates, under the right to "accelerate" payment if Argentina is considered as having missed a July 30, 2014 payment deadline. Legal experts say Argentina has to weigh this risk, which may or may not occur depending on the exchange bondholders taking such action, against the risk of having to pay out $15 billion to all the holdouts. Paying all holdouts would be politically very unpopular in Argentina, posing political risks for the socialist Peronist Kirchner government, already facing difficulties with the trade unions and the stronger opposition from centrist parties in Buenos Aires province. Default would affect Argentine access to capital markets, which is already highly restricted. Yet because Argentina has made the payment to Bank of New York Mellon, blocked by Judge Griesa, the nature of this default would be different. A worse case scenario for Argentina's Kirchner government is reopening negotiations with exchange bondholders for higher payment on debt than the 25 cents on the dollar already agreed to. Argentina faces an acute cash shortage with international reserves of only about $29.5 billion in May 2014, and a slowing agricultural export dependent economy. This is why the prospect of a technical default is being treated with relative calm in Buenos Aires....

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

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration sends an official notice to Congress that it intends to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty with Mexico and Canada. The new U.S. Trade Representative Mr. Lighthizer served as Deputy Trade Representative under president Reagan in 1983. He says the focus of the negotiation will to promote economic growth and jobs by making improvements to the treaty. The notice does not mention major modifications of the type that were hinted at by president Trump earlier. The leaders of Canada and Mexico had asked president Trump to renegotiate. Republicans in Congress and business in the U.S. favor improvements instead of the drastic changes. Mr. Lighthizer's approach is stated in his letter that said "NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and business has changed considerably in that period, NAFTA has not." New provisions will be needed said Lighthizer for intellectual property rights, state owned enterprises, labor and environmental areas, with effective enforcement.  Because of the rhetoric and language used in the election campaign, it is important to note that Lighthizer has in the past negotiated favorable terms for the U.S. steel industry to prevent dumping from overseas. His style is the opposite of the president. He has stated- "I am friendly when negotiating. I am not theatrical. The art of persuasion is knowing where the leverage is." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The South China Morning Post, SCMP, looks at China at the 40th year of the great economic experiment  that changed China. This started with the Deng reforms by the then Chinese leader that opened up the economy in 1978. As this report points out in 1978 Deng Xiaoping's efforts at loosening the state control of the economy and business was actually a way to get out from the effects of the Cultural Revolution and prevent another Cultural Revolution. Deng was removed from office during the Cultural Revolution. Instead of unquestioned acceptance of Mao the new criterion was "Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth." In economic and business matters this was followed so that if it worked then the experiment was expanded, gradually giving life to the Chinese model of state capitalism, economic expansion under the state with the state supporting state corporations that operate in a market economy.  This means the Communist Party was to continue its control but with experimentation away from the planned economy in the coastal provinces of Guangdong and Fujian, and then into Shanghai. Experts close to Jiang Zemin, the next leader after Deng, say China's Communist state would not have survived without the changes started by premier Deng. Farmers still did not own the land but they were free to plant and own the yields for their efforts.  Deng established the Three Benefits Principle in 1992 trip to Guangdong, whatever helped increase productivity, increased the strength of the country and improved living standards was good, you did not judge it by whether it was socialist or capitalist. Jiang Zemin's work was to follow Deng's ideas and help negotiate the entry into World Trade Organization and set up the new economic regulations. Capitalists were allowed to join the Communist Party for the first time. State and local government ownership of land was turned into an advantage as this provided one of the critical inputs in terms of land for setting up new factories, with capital coming from savings, and other inputs of technology and investment coming from the U.S. after entry into the WTO brought American and European companies to China. A steady supply of labor poured in from the countryside and urbanization became a goal of Chinese development policies. Today India and other countries in Africa, Latin America, can look at the Chinese experience and effort and look for ways to modernize, urbanize and improve living standards, productivity and strength of their economy. One key is to experiment and look for what works that can then be expanded to other locations, and build on the advantages that may open up as the experiment makes progress. Following entry into WTO China was able to take advantage of overseas markets and build an edge in manufacturing, something that was not evident even in 1992.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Brazil's currency, the Real, moved up to 1.7 per 1 US dollar, on the eve of the Presidential election in the first week of October 2010. Brazil's overnight interest rate of 10.75% attracts speculative foreign capital in the carry trade, where investors boorow cheaply in the US and Japan and invest it in Brazil. The central bank has kept these rates high to finance a current account deficit of $46 billion in 2010 -which is forecast to hit $60 billion in 2011- and to finance a high level of government spending. This spending is likely to continue with Ms Rousseff as the new President, as Rousseff plans to invest in infrastructure such as bullet trains and river dams, as well as the FIFA world cup and the Olympics. Government spending has increased by 18% so far in 2010. Exporters are affected by the artificially high value of the Brazilian real. Goldman Sachs economist, Alberto Ramos, says the real is overvalued by 55% compared to its fair value of 2.65 to 1 US dollar, based on a computer model that incorporates factors such as trade, inflation and productivity. Sao Paulo is already the most expensive city in the Americas, according to one survey....

LyrArc Article Gist
The bottom half of all U.S. households have only recently recovered the wealth lost in the 2009 financial crisis. They still have 32% less wealth than in 2003 when inflation is taken into account. The top 1% of households have more than twice as much as they did in 2003. Wealth is defined as net worth that includes houses , savings and stocks minus any debt. The wealthy have 85% of their wealth in stocks and bonds. For the bottom 50% half of the assets are in the house or family home. Economic and regulatory trends have happened in ways that favored the people investing in stocks, and rescued people investing in stocks with policies designed with this purpose by central banks and the U.S. government. By contrast for the bottom 50% buying a home is more difficult today. The problem this WSJ report points out is that the next recession would most hurt the bottom 50%, even before they have recovered from the last one which was a result of shaky practices of banks in financial lending and not some cyclical swing in the economy. Policy was then geared to provide a recovery first for stock markets as a way to economic recovery. The bottom 50% have little stake in the stock market, the top 1% have most of their gains from the stock market. Much of the popular anger comes from the way policies by both Democrats and Republicans differed little in past administrations in the way they approached this in shaping economic policy. As a result infrastructure building and investments in public services took less priority in this period of 30 years with trade imbalances with China building up on the external front, in another side to this development. The shift to Trump and to right wing populists in Europe is only the first phase in the corrective action that has to take place to return to a fairer distribution of wealth that existed before the last 3 decades. Eventually it is not right wing or left wing factions or parties, but healthy policies, that matter to create a better balance for society.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The failure of the Obama administration to negotiate a trade treaty with South Korea during the G-20 talks in Seoul. The lack of efforts to lay the groundwork for such a treaty in the last 2 years. The Journal is critical of Mr. Obama's embrace of Federal Reserve policies to buy $600 billon of Treasury securities, which drew criticism from all sides during the G-20 talks. Failure of Mr. Geithner and Mr. Obama to draw attention to China's sterilization of capital inflows and recycling them into US government debt, instead of allowing capital to flow in and out more freely. Overfocus on the call for limiting each nation's trade surplus to 4% of GDP, when attention could have been drawn to a number of serious concerns about China's policies. Valuable political energy lost in defending the Fed's move and calling for the 4% of GDP limit to surpluses. Result is a loss of American leadership for the first time at a summit conference of world leaders.

LyrArc Article Gist
The problem of poor competitiveness in Greece which is stifling the economy. A recent analysis by research firm Variant Perception based in London, shows severe pricing distortions in the Greek economy. The cost of labor in Greece from 2005-2010 was, on average, 25% higher than in Germany. And small business is muffled by the bureaucracy and old rules and restrictions. Compared to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have lower labor costs. This increases the trade deficit for Greece. Greece has one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world, one lawyer for every 250 people compared to 272 in the US.

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial says the summit came up short on both the Stimulus that Europe was asked by the US to commit to, and the global regulation that the Europeans asked the US to agree to. The regulatory reform is not what it needs to be to address the many issues raised by this crisis says the NYT. And Germany it says needs to see that deteriorating conditions will require a strong stimulus. By committing to $1 trillion in funds to backup international trade and to help emerging countries fight the crisis, the summit did achieve its other goal of helping the vast majority of people in the world in the emerging countries deal with this crisis, including countries in the EU.

LyrArc Article Gist
Kamal Ahmwed says in this BBC report that the WTO has belatedly recognized that the losses from world trade for workers in industries that are hurt can be significant, and public sentiment matters especially when there is unfair trade. He visits a small Pennsylvania steel town of 40,000 where the population declined to 7000 after closure of steel mills. This is why the WTO now recognizes that the gains from fee trade are "often uneven," and "may have led to rising inequality." 

Even if the overall gains from free trade are significant as Kamal Ahmed points out the downside and losses are still smaller but significant, and concentrated in certain regions such as the midwestern U.S. or eastern U.S. can lead to public anger that led to the change in administration in the U.S. in 2017.

LyrArc Article Gist
The lack of reliable statistics and production information for China's steel industry. The World Steel Association says China's steel production went up by 7.5% in April 2011 over the prior year. In 2010 it says China produced 625 million metric tons. These figures are based on information from the China Iron and Steel Association, which represents 75% of steel producers in the country. Because much of the reporting is voluntary many smaller producers do not report their production figures. MEPS, a steel consulting firm in the U.K. , says there is extensive underreporting because of political pressure on inefficient mills to shut down. These mills continue to operate but fail to report production, as a result production may be understated by 45 million tons, according to MEPS. This becomes important because if the Chinese economy slows down much of the steel warehoused in China because of higher taxes on raw steel exports could end up being exported. Inventory levels are higher in China because of the taxes and the storing of steel by mills slated for closure but still operating. This would cause a drop in steel prices on world markets. Steel is different from other commodities in that it is not traded on the London Metals Exchange or other Exchanges. Sales are privately negotiated sales between steel mills and users such as auto plants....