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 ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
BusinessWeek Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
GDP growth in the eurozone was 0.3% for the 4th quarter 2014. For 2014 eurozone GDP growth was 1.4%, according to Eurostat. Growth in GDP for Germany was 0.7% for the 4th quarter and 2.8% for 2014. Retail sales in December were particularly good in Spain and Germany, with sales up 2.8% for the eurozone over the prior year. Italy's GDP growth was stagnant and France's was 0.1% for the 4th quarter, showing that Germany and Spain are leading the way for eurozone recovery.
Hindustan Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With the aggressive actions taken along the 1600 kilometre border in eastern Ladakh by China's People's Liberation Army, India needs a younger soldier to protect the border at high altitudes in below freezing temperatures. The entire 3500 kilometre border in the high Himalayan regions from east to west need technology driven surveillance with soldiers fit and ready for such duty. Agnipath's goal is to bring down the average age in the army from 32 years to 26 years to better reflect the youthful population in India. A tighter better disciplined force with high tech is needed. Bringing in more and new recruits is intended. Both the 25% of recruits retained after 4 years benefit and the 75% benefit. The 25% will have opportunities to move up the ranks. The 75% who come back out of the military will have the advanced technical training and courses, certification, that would make them attractive to the public and private sector companies in 2026 and beyond when India's economy will be 50% larger than today at growth rates of 10-12%. This is already seen in the way technologically trained military recruits from World War II in the US Army, Navy and Air Force were quickly absorbed at high salaries in the high growth period of America 1950-1970, with incentives like the GI Bill. Modifications that could be discussed- The 25% retained after 4 years. There is no magic number it could be raised to 30 or 40% during these post pandemic years and then lowered to 25% as the economy grows rapidly by 2025, or kept at 30% without changes, a number of options could be open.The financial aspect of the training can be modified where the 25% retained could have these 4 years added to their years for calculating pensions. The 75% are given 1.2 million rupees and even this can be adjusted upwards so that they could start businesses as entrepreneurs or have the time to pursue higher education before taking up for example with free education to enhance their education in areas of interest as was given by the GI bill to Americans in the armed services after World War II in 1946. Ideas from the GI Bill signed by president Franklin Roosvelt in 1944- Adding one year of unemployment payments, low interest loans to start a farm or business, full tution and living expenses for college. In 2008 the Veterans Act in the US continued support for education of servicement by making eduction free at a public college or university.  The Roosevelt GI bill benefited about 7.8 million servicemen in the US armed services. 2.2 million went to college, 7.6 million took training programs. It was an impressive achievement. No scheme is perfect there are budgetary constraints such as how to manage pensions to give the armed services the best possible funding including the training and course capabilities that also need good financing and the higher pensions for armed services. Every political party  government around the world without exception will have to face these budgetary constraints and the goal is to do right by the armed services providing the income and opportunities they deserve. Was a decent effort made with the right goals set? This is how these matters of national interest for India and the Free World that includes South East Asia, Africa and Latin America, should be discussed.    ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ report looks at how China is run today with attention to details by president Xi Jinping. Mr. Jinping takes interest in all matters that relate to wellbeing, reducing gaps in wealth and privilege, coronavirus pandemic, corrupt businessmen or officials, climate change, and the economy. Some decisions have to be reversed after they appear not to be working. In some situations goals conflict such as climate change action on coal requiring shutting down intensive coal dependent factories, and economy jobs goals requiring use of coal intensive factories. Leading to a complete reversal of the original decision to cut back on use of coal as happened in 2021 when factory shutdowns affected the economy.  Jinping does not see it as micromanagement. Previous leaders such as Hu Jintao had little interest and did not put in the effort to seek out areas where policies were not working for families and workers, delegating this to lower level officials. Jinping's style is hands-on and energetic to act on issues that affect how China should be run so that the quality of life of ordinary Chinese is improved. Jinping says that if he did not take action there just is'nt the level of initiative on the part of local officials. Many officials are not competent to tackle complicated issues. Jinping says that "some officials only act when the central party leadership has instructed them to do so." And that he acts as a last resort- "I issue instructions as a last line of defense." His willingness to reverse decisions or let them be implemented with local officials using their discretion if he thinks that would be wise also shows a level of flexibility and humility. Basic to his decisions is a general idea that the original vision of China of the founding leaders in 1948 was forgotten in the headlong rush to modernization of the last 20 years. This means a balance was needed to restore some measure of equality and empowering of the disadvantaged. Xi Jinping's father was one of these founding leaders under Mao and under premier Deng during the market economy founding in the 1990's. Xi Zhongxun, Jinping's father was an energetic leader who also took a keen interest on a whole range of issues for China's modernization drive, a trait now found in Mr. Jinping. The first market economy experiment was done under Xi Zhongxun with premier Deng's encouragement. Xi Zhongxun set up the Guangdong and Shenzen special economic zone in 1979, as governor of the province in an effort to liberalize the economy and slow the exodus to Hong Kong. At the time wages in Shenzen were 1/100 of wages in Hong Kong. Some of this style can be seen in India with Mr. Narendra Modi delving into details of policy and taking intitatives that local officials had neglected to do on a whole range of issues related to modernization, development and technological progress. One of the decisions made by Jinping was to tackle Covid aggressively with a zero Covid policy, which means frequent lockdowns and restrictions even with a few cases. Mr. Modi has also acted vigorously on Covid after warning in March 2020 that this could set India 20 years back, with a policy to get over a billion people fully vaccinated. In both situations the only two countries with over 1 billion population needed this kind of strong leadership with an interest in a whole range of issues that relate to lives of ordinary people during the pandemic to inspire some essential level of public confidence and build public wellbeing.     ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Apple maintains its grip on the tablet market with its iPad at $499. Experts at Wharton and the Stern School of Business say Apple has found the strategically right price to maintain a dominant share of a rapidly growing market. So rapidly growing that some estimates show tablet computers surpassing PC sales by 2013. Apple CEO Tim Cook, has the logistical expertise that helped him work out the right price. The Kindle at $199 is hardly profitable by some estimates. Samsung has a smaller tablet at $499. In 2011 Apple saw its tablet market share decline from 87% to 68%, according to IDC Research, but still able to get a dominant share of sales. Apple uses the same approach to pricing for the iPhone. The profits generated on large sales and higher margins helps Apple invest in new products.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The tax plan offered by Jeb Bush in September 2014 is based on simplifying the tax code to three rates, lowering the corporate tax rate to stimulate business investment and growth. It will pay for this by limiting itemized deductions to 2% of adjusted gross income, removing state and local tax deductions, by generating higher growth of estimated 0.5% per year which translates into higher tax revenues, and by increasing the deficit by $1.2 trillion. In the last tax debate economists such as Martin Feldstein and other experts proposed removing or limiting the itemized deductions. Simplifying the code and lowering corporate tax rates has been favored as a method to jumpstart growth by many experts, but was not taken up during the deep recession following the 2008-2009 financial crisis when the stimulus added to the deficit. The 3 tax rates changes the current 7 brackets to 10 percent, 25 percent and 28%, with the coporate tax rate lowered to 20%. The plan removes the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax, marraige penalty tax, leaves charitable deductions as now. To help the people at the lower end in incomes and the middle class- the standard deduction is doubled, the earned income tax credit expanded. Companies would be allowed to deduct capital investments, and there would be a gradual phase out of taxation on income American companies earn overseas. Hedge funds will not have access to a loophole called "carried interest." The plan comes as the American economy is in recovery mode, making it more likely that increased growth would generate extra tax revenues....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This important WSJ report shows how the CDC labs failed to come with the test after contamination of a component and failure of the third part of the three part test components. In the absence of a working test from CDC where delays cost three weeks of February the private labs all over the country and state labs could have developed their own test, yet HHS and FDA required approval for these labs to develop their own test and use it. From Feb. 8 when state and city public health labs detected problems with the CDC test to Feb 29 when solutions were developed including simply excluding the third part of the three component test, and letting labs around the country do their own test, were 3 crucial weeks that let the virus spread out of control. The CDC, HHHS, and the FDA and their managers and heads of departments bear responsibility for these errors. Week after week the delays continued, instead the two component test which detects if the genetic material in the sample is coronavirus material, could simply have been approved at the outset instead of the approval for this given weeks later. The third component of the test checks if the virus mutated, according to this report. There is no explanation why the labs all over the U.S. were not allowed to go ahead on February 9 itself or within a few days after that to develop their own tests once it was clear the CDC test did not work on that day. CDC officials failed to recognize that there was a possibility that they may not be able to fix the faulty third component of the test and the risks if they gave false reassurances. There is also no explanation of why a German designed test was not used once the CDC test failed on Feb. 9, which would be a proper way for action considering that this pandemic had already shutdown parts of China by this time. Alarming also is the mention in this report that on Feb. 22 a FDA official in charge of lab diagnostics  flies to Atlanta where the CDC Respiratory Diagnostic lab which developed the test is located. His boss FDA medical device center director is cited from later information as describing the lab as "filthy" meaning the lab had the potential to contaminate, and going so far as saying that if it had been any other lab it would have been shut down. Considering that investment in public health has deteriorated over the last two decades and that there has been a massive misallocation of capital in the country away from public infrastructure this is appalling. The thought of critical labs for emergency health needs as not being up to high quality standards in the U.S. as a result of two decades of misspending, that this shows, is very disturbing.  This WSJ report is based on interviews with people who know about the testing crisis, and undisclosed emails, correspondence on the issues involved. Community transmission began in January 2020 in the U.S. These delays were costly in February and could have been prevented either by going with the German design on Feb 10 or asking labs across the U.S. to develop their own test, and letting other labs immediately use the modified 2 component test of CDC that worked instead of doing this action weeks later. Mardi Gras on Feb 25 and other places where large crowds gathered in sports stadiums could have been stopped had testing gone forward and shown the true extent of the community transmission in these critical weeks.  First China delayed a U.S. team of experts coming into the country for weeks, and then the CDC, FDA, HHS, failed to get testing started, creating  a false sense of complacency. Two crucial errors outside and inside the country that caused so much damage to America and the world.   ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
India's Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar said at an Atlantic Council event in Washington D.C. that estimates have been made of what the British took out of India over two centuries and this has come to $45 trillion in today's value. India suffered humiliation for two centuries from 1756 to 1947 with British rule. The country was "bled" and this was first documented by a member of parliament Dadabhai Naoroji in 1901 in London in his book explaining the causes of India's deep poverty in his book with the title- Poverty and Un-British Rule in India. For the first time detailed financial figures were put together on what Britain took out of India and India's Mohandas Gandhi says this was how he learned about how much India suffered economically under British rule with the neglect of agriculture, the peasants and landless laborers making up the vast population of India. Taxation was burdensome on a poor population during most of the period. Railways and mass communication only helped keep the vast region together under British rule and most of the budget went into security and policing for the Empire. Investment in industry or agriculture was neglected for most of the nineteenth century and half of the twentieth. Strangely the first Indian edition of Naoroji's book was only in 1962 with most Indians unaware of what had happened and where this was first documented. Even Cambridge educated Nehru looked at the railways and mass communication as British contributions to india when in actual fact this was of a strategic security aspect for the British in a vast region, and little was done to improve the standard of living of the people in the villages who worked in subsistence agriculture. Gandhi's task was to increase awareness at the grassroots level of the condition of the country. Something he never hesitated to do even writing to the Viceroy who was in charge directly showing how the budget in the 1920's was entirely lacking in any funds for India's development. This letter can be seen today in the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, the museum for Gandhi in his home state of Gujarat. One of the lesser known facts about the independence struggle is that Gandhi wrote a little book in 1910 with title "Hind Swaraj" on a steamship making its way back to South Africa from Britain where Gandhi led a deputation for rights of Indian coolie laborers in South Africa. I picked up this book at the original home of Gandhi and his parents in Porbandar, India, recently. In this book "Hind Swaraj" written in 1910 we find astonishingly all the details of the planned struggle for independence that were to happen over the next 20 years. In 1930 with a new edition Gandhi wrote that he had followed this unchanged for 20 years and would change nothing except one line in the book. The book in 1910 was promptly banned by the government of Bombay, yet Indian editions appeared soon afterward. It is written in question and answer format with Gandhi himself posing the questions which he answers, some challenging his view of India, Britain, Indians and the British. He did not blame the British, and called for Indians to take responsibility for letting the British rule in India happen and what was the best way out.  ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fisher and Taub of the NYT look at the populist politics in Europe and the U.S. following the French election first round. Trump won in the U.S. with the deep polarization of politics in the U.S.- leading to the Republican Party to decide to support him to avoid the result of four more years of an administration led by Democrats, and with the support of discontented voters in midwestern states with falling living standards. The situation in Europe is different as the mainstream parties have united in the past to block populist politicians with negative messages on immigration and an open economy. This happened in the Dutch election, by the co-opting of the nationalist message of populist politicians by mainstream parties and mainstream politicians, and is likely to continue in the French and German elections in 2017. Fisher and Taub point to another development that is happening- shifting the debate to ethnonationalism vs. open economies, which has happened with Brexit and the UK Independence Party. They cite the 2015 British elections in which UKIP won 13 percent of the vote, as having influenced prime minister Cameron to call for a referendum on Brexit, in a effort to revive the fortunes of the Conservative Party. In the end this resulted in the 52 percent vote supporting Brexit.  Another way of looking at the populist movement is that with Trump it called attention to trade and the way working class Americans were being marginalized especially in the industrial midwest. With this problem being addressed in a Trump administration and a reviving economy, the mainstream parties have an opportunity to reassert themselves. In Europe the AfD called attention to immigration issues, and the Merkel coalition government of CDU and SPD by making changes such as the deal with Turkey, and returning economic refugees, is able to assert the role of mainstream parties. In Britain the situation could be a result of a brash decision by a Conservative prime minister Cameron, in making a bad miscalculation, that has put Britain on a course that is likely not in its best interest. The Brexit referendum yes vote galvanized opinion by showing an endless stream of refugees in their advertising- a development following the opening of borders by Germany and Austria to address the plight of Syrian war refugees. That situation has passed and is unlikely to happen again as both the SPD and CDU parties in Germany have pointed out that this was a one time situation that they responded to following the exodus from Keleti rail station in Hungary under special circumstances. With this kind of perspective populist politics can be seen as reflecting other voices in a democracy, that are heard and responded to, yet keeping the sense of balance and openness necessary in today's global economy and societies. This is also the perception of Germany's outgoing popular president Gauck in his final address, pointing to the need to listen to other voices in a democracy, and the need for openness in a democracy, as well as democracies always in the process of Becoming and evolving to adapt to new situations in economy, society, and politics.     ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Keller reflects on Putin and Russia's effort to pull Ukraine away from the European Union as protests continue in Ukraine.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Cancellation of orders or delayin delivery of orders with Boeing and Airbus are expected to grow as airlines around the world see the situation worsening.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The German people offer a warm welcome to refugees from Syria and North Africa suffering enormous hardships to make their way across seas and overland through Eastern Europe to Germany's borders. Germany of its own accord waived the right to deport Syrians back to the first European nation entered, and supported Syrian refugees right to stay with an 87% acceptance rate for Syrians seeking asylum. In August 2015 alone 100,000 refugees were accepted. Chancellor Merkel and Germany lead the European Union by example, and what an example it has been. Faiola of the Washington Post tells the story of Abed Almoen Alalie, a civil servant from Syria who fled with his family, and after being roughly treated in Budapest, Hungary, cannot believe his eyes seeing the welcoming crowds as he gets off the train in Munich. Never has a nation in such a short time made its way into the hearts of so many as Germany has done in 2015. The crisis found Germany, or Germany found the crisis, either way Germany embraced it and the people who came with it in a way hard to imagine. With chancellor Merkel leading the way using strong words and courage of her Lutheran convictions- "The fundamental right to asylum does not have a limitation. As a strong, economically healthy country, we have the strength to do what is necessary." Many Germans have responded in a degree and manner that is hard to imagine . They say this was Germany's effort at redemption after the war. In a poll by ARD released September 3, 2015, 88% of Germans said they would donate money or clothes to refugees or have done so, and 67% say they will volunteer to help. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The decision of Norway's parliament to divest holdings of its $890 billion national pension fund in companies with 30% of the revenues coming from coal, is important say experts because it renews the discussion on the use of coal and its damage to health and the environment. Some endowment funds such as that at Harvard, Middlebury and Pomona College, have stated they do not see the funds as a tool for social and political changes, other investors see the moves as symbolic. At the same time the Church of England, says it will cut coal or oil sands from its $14 billion portfolio, and insurer AXA plans to cut $560 million in coal related investments from its portfolio. Norway's decision is broader than climate change, as it looks at the financial aspects as well. Svein Flatten, a member of parliament from the Conservative Party, says lawmakers are not just acting for political purposes, suggesting it could end up being a move to improve returns in the long run by reducing financial risks. The 30% threshold would cover mining companies, and the power companies with a mix of coal in their energy generation that makes them dependent on coal for 30% of their revenues. The effect of this is to nudge the shift away from coal at power companies. Bevis Longstreth, a former commissioner of the SEC under Reagan, says Norway's move is designed to shift the mixture of power generation at power companies, and in this sense is likely to be effective when combined with moves by other companies in sequence to reduce the use of coal. This process is already underway, especially where it makes a huge difference such as in China, because of the damaging effects of large dependence on coal for energy on health in China....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Heathrow was built haphazardly as traffic increased since its opening in 1946, with a capacity to handle 45 million passengers at its 4 terminals it was congested and handled 68 million annually. The building of Terminal 5 will ease congestion and increase capacity by 45% making a big difference for British Airways which will operate out of T5 and a big difference in baggage handling ( a million bags weren't ready for passengers at destination in 2006), in the lounges and lounge environments for waiting passengers 2500 at a time) ., and after an annex is built by 2010 passengers will not have to be taken by bus to waiting planes. other airports like Schipol with 4 runways compared to Heathrow's 2 and built with a better layout and plan, and airports in Asia of Singapore Airlines and in the Middle East at Doha are upgrading so BA will only be doing what places are doing. Because the terminal hangups have been costly for British Airways leading to a shrinking of about 20% of its flight network, as it concentrated more on upscale customers, and lost passengers to more efficient airlines., ithe cost will likely be paid off quickly for BA. Demand. is so high at Heathrow that a pair of takeoff and landing spots can cost as much as $50 million and would be going up as Star Alliance and Skyteam member airlines move ito BA's old facilities. Considering the losses from th inefficient setup at the old terminal BA's estimate that T5 savings would cover its cost of 330 million pounds ($660 million) to equip the new building in in the next 10 years may even be understated. Of this 62 million pounds was spent on the new lounges. BA leases the T5 Terminal from Heathrow's BAA owned by Spain's Ferrovial SA, which spent $4.3 billion to build T5. ...
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
If Morse's thinking holds and crude prices drop to $90 range per barrel (see the link to Morse) then we have another major problem on our hands as the incentives for conservation diminish and there is less money invested in energy conservation, and investment, effort and enthusiasm for new technologies for conservation also diminishes. This risks the environment and carbon dioxide emissions and keeps sending money on expensive oil imports to Saudis, Russia and the middle east which could be better invested in the US for innovation and R&D or returned tothe public. For energy saving conservation technology investors the drop in incentive through a return to cheap oil or expectations of prices that are below $100 for instance can be the worst of both worlds high prices and low investment says Vinod Khosla. He advocates a floor on the price of oil. Stanford Professor Hillard Huntington, executive director of the Energy Modeling Forum, a group of energy experts, says energy saving initiatives could easily take 4 million to 5 million barrels a day of demand off the market in 10 years from the 20 million barrels a day that the USA uses to heat homes, power industry, and fuel cars, trucks and planes. It would be a huge loss for that not to happen. And this has happened before as the oil crisis in the 1980's became a dim memory once oil prices hit a low of $11 in the mid 1980's after conservation kicked in at the time. The idea then is to have some sort of gasoline tax that would keep a floor on the price of oil that Europe already has. And British Columbia has shown how by having a small tax and returning money to the taxpayers with a $100 check refund and in other ways to small business and other txpayers....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Geithner in written testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, stated that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists- believes that China is manipulating its currency." What is noteworthy is that experts are generally in agreement that something should be done about this in cooperative fashion, from Obama's economic team, Obama's own views on this, The National Association of Maufacturers, Labor and so on. The trade deficit with China has continued at high levels even with the current economic slowdown, so this issue remains as one that the Bush administration never really addressed. Simon Johnson, a MIT Professor, and former IMF Chief economist says that even the IMF has not addressed it, and that the Obama administration needs to call China to account. He says this could lead to a spat with China, and if the US does not back down to a row. The concern has been that China would not buy up Treasury debt the way it has in the past, at the same time the question is whether there is some point where the deficit is so large and the US so dependent on foreign buyers of Treasury debt, that it needs to be addressed on a number of levels. Including addressing currency and fair trade issues, a more rational balanced consumption of everything from oil to goods from lowcost Asian countries, to reduce the toll on the overextended American consumer and on the extent of US borrowing needed. From China's perspective there may also be the same concern about export led growth, which may come to be seen as undependable anyway, because with or without some currency advantage the overextended US consumer is not buying anyway, holding off on purchases of everying from cars to flatscreen televisions. With growth at 6.8% in 4th quarter 2008, according to the Chinese Government Statistics Bureau, and expected to drop to 5% in 2009, the export growth model is no longer the panacea for China's unemployed as it once was at 12-13% growth rates in 2006-2007. In fact it may now look to be a better wiser policy if China had increased the value of its currency even more than its slow gradual approach to slow the growth rate from 12-13% to a more sustainable 9-10%, and lower American imports and lower the American trade deficit. Part of the problem in China was the difficulty of applying any sort of brakes once the local governments were set free to expand as much as they could, and prevented any controls from being effective. Steel production continued to grow even after there was evidence of large overcapacity, and government direction failed. Buy some time to shift to domestic consumption based recovery, is what the Chinese policy may be now. Indications of this are evident with its grappling at the issues it has not tackled like giving ownership of land to farmers in rural areas, and to building a healthcare system for the country, both of which are part of a host of issues to shift to domestic consumption based recovery. So unlike the way the media and some experts portray it its not a tough line that the US is taking against Chinese unwillingness. China may want to cooperate.That may be true if China was missing out on 10-13% growth rates, but these were unsustainable anyway and bad policy. At growth rates below 5% as projected by analysts China may want to jettison the export model of growth and build an alternative one. In that case as China shifts to domestic consumption, currency adjustments may be seen quite differently than they were in the past....
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Over the last ten years average growth in real per capita income has averaged 1.6%, with declines only in two years of the last twenty years, 2008 with the global financial crisis, and in 1991 a year before President George H.W. Bush lost the election to Clinton. A forecast by Mark Zandl of Moody's Economy.com shows real disposable income per capita is expected to increase by 0.4% by the end of the third quarter of 2010 from a year earlier. This will show up in consumer spending and will weaken the recovery. It is also likely to be reflected in elections in the latter part of 2010.

Of Braveheart and Bush

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A sobering view of international conflicts looking at the ones in the English experience, with the Scots and the Irish. The conflict with the Scots actually went on from 1296 when King Edward I tried to claim the throne of Scotland with resistance from William Wallace and Robert Bruce, with terrorist tactics, frequent burning, looting and killing on both sides. And many battles that were inconclusive. The accession of Scottish person to the English throne as James I did not end it and it was'nt till 1745 till it ended. A referendum was held in the 18th century in Scotland and the commercial interests of Glasgow and Edinburgh prevailed in the end. Scotland saw the rich opportunities in trade and commerce from the expanding British Empire. Something that can be seen in exhibits at the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. In this sense political rapprochment fails when the time is not ripe, and when there are other changes in society and economy things can change enough to create an entirely new situation in which old conflicts simply take a backseat to something else. For Ireland the economic changes of the recent years creating a vibrant Irish economy gives Ireland enough confidence in itself to work with England, and set things on the path to peaceful development on the Irish isle. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
All sides joined the President at the White House, as part of his consensus building efforts, and to get aseat at the table in restructuring health care. The insurers and health care providers, including technology providers, all committed to cutting the cost of health care. New social insurance programs to cover 45 million uninsured Americans, and to make health care affordable for businesses and individuals, will be unworkable at currently projected rate of increase in health care costs of 6.2% a year for the next decade. The industry promised to reduce that by 1.5% through voluntary efforts, even though there is skepticism about whether they will deliver. The insurers are against a government sponsored health plan fearing it will drive them out of business. Insurers and health care providers are lobbying against the cuts in their Medicare payments, and insurers are fighting Obama's cuts to their private Medicare Advantage plans by a total of $176 billion over 10 years. Doctors are fighting a 21% cut in their Medicare fees scheduled to take place in January 2010. Pharmacuetical companies and makers of medical devices are concerned that new products will have to pass a cost-benefit test before being approved for coverage under Medicare. Its just that they all see the continued rise in costs as somehow unsustainable, especially in the current economic crisis, and share the feeling with business and the rest of the country that the system is broken. At the same time like the banks and bank executives, health care companies and their executives go on lobbying aggressively and doing things the old way, which raises questions about how well these systems that are broken can be put on the right path....

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