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.


dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's DW.com says in this report- "However, economists have pointed out that the US benefits from having large trade imbalances with the rest of the world, as the dollar is used in most trade, and offers major tailwind effects to the US economy." Which economists one must ask? Most of these economists had turned their back on the working people in factories in America, on their wages turned into a downward spiral, on their jobs, their factories lost for three decades. Today the American people have a sense of the true cost of this colossal failure to protect American workers and small towns across America depending on manufacturing. The pandemic exposed the risks of supply chain shocks and inflation by overly concentrating manufacturing in China.  The US has 1 trillion in trade deficits each year and it is completing the destruction of manufacturing in the US. Half of this is with China as China exports through Vietnam and Mexico, third countries, in addition to 295 billion dollars of trade imbalance the US has with China. China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam are the largest offenders. No country can long endure with such a loss of its manufacturing base. The US Navy itself is in danger without the manufacturing to compete with China that has taken up over 50% of shipbuilding, and soon will not be able to protect the free world if these types of economists and self serving German or other foreign interests drive a false narrative. Without the US Navy in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans no one is safe, not Germany, not the EU, not India or the rest of the world. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
No country benefited more than first Japan and then South Korea till 2000, and now China till 2022 from the trade and sharing of industrial technology enabled by the American backed system of trade and industry. Walter Russell Mead says in WSJ that China has chosen to challenge the system through which it developed into an industrialized nation with the US running huge trade deficits, sharing its technology and letting Chinese manufacturing displace American local manufacturing. China is seen as challenging the system. Yet what has happened is that this process of displacing American manufacturing and industry was not sustainable anyway and continued for a decade longer than it would otherwise have lasted because American industry could not easily reverse a course it had set of setting up manufacturing in China, once that manufacturing base had already been transferred from the US to China and American companies had grown accustomed to a new state of affairs of making overseas in China. Not much thought was given to how American workers would react to that situation as companies and industries making that transfer made independent decisions. This led to the election of Trump with wins in midwestern states that had suffered from loss of manufacturing communities.  The Trump tariffs on Chinese goods and the Biden administration lining up completely behind American workers and families for the first time for Democrats has sent the signal to China that it finds the situation of China's dominance in the trade system unacceptable. The document of "China 2030" of the Chinese Government with planned dominance in key sectors and industries was met with alarm across America in all parties. The paradox of Apple as a key sector in Chinese manufacturing and the largest American company is the result of policies pursued by America without realizing the true cost of shipping manufacturing out of the country. That process is now being reversed with change of management starting at Intel Corp. and other companies to bring the manufacturing base back to the US. This policy is being resolutely pursued by the US and will speed up following the pandemic which has further demonstrated how much of a mistake the policy of sending out manufacturing in critical areas such as health could be. This is the reality behind the rhetoric and verbal exchange between China and the US. With the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing countries such as India were put in a difficult situation  as this was preventing the local industrial base developing in India with Chinese imports in the same way as it had damaged that of the US and the EU. Worse it led to the use of US and European technology in China's defense industrial base including aviation and other sectors that threatened India's borders with repeated Chinese incursions in the Himalayas, from the Pakistan western Himalayas to Ladakh and the eastern Himalayan mountains. That situation existed long before the Trump and Biden administration and the Modi administration called for a return to America of its industrial manufacturing base and its technological leadership. Both the Bush and Obama administrations and the Indian Congress administrations failed to realize the dangers of letting the US, European and Indian industrial base wither. India is not just a country but a culture that extends from the Himalayas all the way across Bangladesh to the Indonesian islands which shares a common cultural history of Buddhism and the Vedanta. This is a region that has a population of about 2 billion people. In a larger sense the cultural history extends to  Vietnam and Japan with its Buddhist culture whose origins go back to India, and also of China itself. In the larger sense this is a population of close to 3 billion people. The economic development of this region and learning from the parliamentary traditions and scientific discoveries of the modern period since 1700 is a task for both the US, Europe and the people of the region.   ...
ProPublica Original article ›
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. ...
The Financial Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The rise of Japan was a major challenge for president Reagan in the 1980's in the way president Trump is confronting the rise of China. The Reagan administration obtained the concessions it needed from Japan. The negotiator for the U.S. side during the Reagan years - Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is using his experience in winning concessions from Japan in his role as top trade negotiator with China.  As the WSJ points out Japan ceased to be a threat to the U.S. faster than anyone thought possible. 

But there is one problem even if this happens the warning is that the imbalances with Japan simply transferred over time to China. The warning is for America's tendency to spend money it does not have, and for how long.

The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
India's Foreign Minister told a conference that China's forward deployments at Galwan in violation of 1993 and 1996 agreements was an attempt to change the Line of Actual Control. China after years of peaceful development under previous administrations, during which China had gained from the trade relationship with the US and foreign investment from the US business community, sought  to put India at a disadvantage using its larger economy and technological assets obtained through American business assistance. This was done by making forward deployments right at the Indian border to change the Line of Actual Control in progressive steps. Jaishankar made it very clear. "It is hard work, very patient work, but we are very clear on one point, which is we will not allow any unilateral attempt by China to change the status quo or alter the LAC. I do not care how long it takes, how many rounds we do, how hard we have to negotiate- this is something we are very clear of." Going back to the period of independence with Nehru in 1947- China's occupation of Tibet was an occupation of a peaceful country that led to the situation that India faces today of a border stretching from east to west on the Himalayas that faces China. Faced with the partition and refugees from that partition India under Nehru was not in a position to respond effectively to that occupation. Does China gain anything from being at that border through the occupation of Tibet is a serious question? Why? Because it faces a Vedanta and Buddha driven culture and people with population of 1.8 billion stretching to the Indonesian islands that were and still are the fundamental source of  China's own Buddhist culture and tradition.  US business has allied with one country after another Japan, China and now India. The US has faced wars with Japan, and sometimes in a failed attempt to understand the aspirations of  Southern Asia allied with British ideas of the region which were based on the policies of British Empire to divide the region on religious and language, caste based barriers. US business also lacked a true perception of the importance of working class and families in the US as it sent factories and surrendered its own manufacturing to China. The world is now changing following the pandemic and new supply chains and manufacturing policies of the US are being structured. It is in this context where India's pace of economic growth and technological advancement will change its capabilities and its capacity to meet the aspirations of 1.8 billion people in Asia with a common tradition and culture. It is in this context that one can ask the question does China have anything to gain from the occupation of Tibet and being on the border with a country and cultural tradition of 1.8 billion people stretching across South and South east Asia?  ...
Wilson Center Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Anton Harder in this Wilson Center publication of research uses correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and his sister Vijaylakshmi Pandit ambassador to the US in 1950, to show that the US made an offer for India to take a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. India had supported two resolutions on June 25, and June 27, first condemning the invasion by North Korea and second the organizing of a UN force of 29 countries to push back the North Korean invasion. Even though the US is not seen as actively engaging with India during that period and seeing through British eyes the colonial policies of encouraging  different powers in South Asia, that may not be true.  Who was India's foreign minister in 1950? Jawaharlal Nehru was both prime minister and foreign minister till 1964, which means there was less discussion of foreign policy than happens today during the Ukraine invasion with Jaishankar a career diplomat with 30 years experience, Rajnath Singh, and Mr. Modi, in talks with president Biden recently, and in further discussions Modi had with EU's Von der Leyen and UK's Boris Johnson, Kishida of Japan. Who was India's defense minister in 1950? Baldev Singh, a Sikh independence struggle leader was Minister of Defense for 1947-52 and tackled partition of Punjab and Kashmir issues. The rest of the years to 1957 when India faced the Chinese invasion of Tibet India's defense minister was also for most of the period Mr. Nehru, except Ayynagar in 1953, and Kailash Katju in 1955 and 1956. The controversial V.K. Krishna Menon was Defense Minister from 1957 to 1962, when Indian defenses were further neglected leading to the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, and his replacement by Yashwantrao Chavan. The purpose of this is to look back at what happened in earlier periods to understand where India stands today- and what choices it makes today. Clearly the US was looking for allies then and now. Nehru saw things from his own reading of history seeing China and India as both suffering from western invasion, not realizing that China's experience under Mao was different- that of Japanese invasion and bombing of China's major cities not just colonization of Hong Kong and other ports for trade under British trade based policies in 1850-1900. Thus a Communist Chinese version of China's defense involved taking over border regions such as Tibet putting China in direct and open opposition to India. Nehru never really grasped what was happening in Tibet and the war China fought against the Nationalists. American general Stilwell loved China deeply and had an understanding of its people as shown in Tuchman's account in her book Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-1945. Stilwell during that war had a better understanding of China, the strengths and weaknesses of Mao's China and of the Nationalists under Chiang, than Nehru. Some of these errors post 1950's and a concentration of foreign, defense and embassy positions in the person of Mr. Nehru and of Nehru family member such as Mrs. Pandit led to the Indian failure to act on Tibet and see it as see it for what it was -facing a Communist Mao led China that had fought the Japanese invasion as different from Bodhidharma's China of the history books. Bodhidharma's China will outlast Mao's China, yet it is Mao's China that India faces today. This also tells us that India has to think in new ways- as Lincoln said during a period when America was also making its own progress as an industrial nation in the 1860's. "The dogmas of the quiet past are not adequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew, we must act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country." India's values are values of democracy heightened not just by Mohandas Gandhi's ideas with Hind Swaraj written in 1910 just as powerful in 2022, but also by the heights of Ladakh where elections are held in remote regions of the Himalayas. India's values are values that are also shared in the best that America has in its values and culture and in the defense of freedom.    ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Security is at the heart of India's foreign policy. S. Jaishankar points this out at Thiruvanathapuram. He says this was true of the effort at Balakot and even in the midst of Covid at the Line of Actual Control with China when India sent up enormous numbers of troops to defend the border. This is also behind the stand with China that security and LAC comes first in all relations with China. Trade and exchanges all come in the context of LAC, settle the LAC issues first then we can proceed with better bilateral relations, this is what India is telling China.  There are good reasons for this. India has a large border in the most formidable terrain of the Himalayas which is also close to the plains of India in the LAC with China. Any difficulties at the border would weaken India's secuerity and weaken development efforts in the same way that Japan sought to weaken Chinese development through invasion in the 1930's. Tibet looms out of the past. When China invaded Tibet Nehru's couple of pages in Discovery of India on China show that he had no idea of the China that had emerged with Mao and the CCP in its historical struggle against Japanese nationalists and imperialists. He had an idea of China that came from the Buddhist period and India's links from the past. The ruthless Japanese invasion that China confronted on its soil, and British colonial incursions before that, had already transformed the China of the past, which now under Mao in 1948 may have sought more defensible borders by extending them to Tibet as a buffer state. Historically the British had never tolerated Russian or other European or Japanese interference in the border states such as Tibet. There was also the question of capacity. By the time of the invasion of Tibet in the early 1950's China had already fought the Korean War with the US. India's army and defense forces were just coming out of partition and ill equipped for the task of defending the borders in Tibet region. Current governments in a more normal setting cannot change this part of history, yet can take full recognition of the facts that this has created. A strong defense has to be created for defending a border that extends for thousand of miles now that China has unlawfully occupied Tibet. On it also depends a strong and vigorous development effort that helps build the kind of modern defenses as the economy grows and absorbs new technologies rapidly. Both defense and development go together, one cannot have defense without rapid modernization and development, and one cannot have rapid modernization and development without defense. A weak defense would lead to distractions in development leading to the lack of rapid modernization and development as the intruding power interferes in insidious ways in the internal and external links of the country. This is the lesson of colonial interference of western powers in Asia. As Brendan Simms shows in his new book, Europe - Struggle for Supremacy 1500 to the Present, it is also the lesson of a different kind of colonialism inside Europe since 1500, where weaker states inside Europe fell behind with interference in turns by the imperial powers of France, UK, Austria-Hungary, Prussia and Russia. Poland, Finland, Czech Republic in the past and even Ukraine today are just some examples of what can happen when one loses sight of this principle. Poland and the Polish Commonwealth in the 19th century, Hungary right down to 1956, and China in the 1910-1930, India in the 18th and 19th century were weakened internally even after recognizing the problem, so that recognition of the problem is not an adequate condition to prevent countries from facing such foreign interference. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ shows what offices would look like in a coronavirus economic reopening. Till a vaccine is developed in about one year from now what will the gradual reopening look like?   It shows a cafeteria at a company in Seoul with plastic shields separating each person, the Amsterdam office concept of six foot distancing offices at Cushman & Wakefield. This real estate company manages 800 million square feet in China real estate. It has developed a 300 page manual on safely reopening offices with every detail possible. Toyota plants will run at slower speeds because of large drop in demand, with plants reconfigured to maintain social distancing. Many companies are doing this now when it is easier to do without people. Protocols such as onsite health screenings are being integrated. A Knotel app  will add features for office tenants that gives employers the option to track some employee movements and trace their contacts to prevent illness. For sports and event venues the challenge is sanitation and cleanliness. Adding janitorial cleaning shifts and making food grab and go, cashless transactions and protective shields. Schools and colleges face a challenge of how many students to let in, and how many to seat and how, dorms with one room one student, and so on. One college in Maine is planning for thinning the students on campus, rotating students with shorter term modules, more online instruction.  ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Manish Sabharwal writes in the Indian Express that India missed it economic tryst with destiny and economic freedom for its citizens in 1947 and the decades after that. Today with AtmanNirbhar Bharat, he says,  the country is finally making its economic tryst with destiny. It is about self-reliance, yet it is also about opening up to new supply chains set up by allies U.S., France and Japan, South Korea, opening up to trade, investment and technology flows in new and exciting ways. The prime minister's message called for a quantum leap in technology. India was already moving up in GDP terms and set to surpass both Japan and Germany to become the largest after the U.S. and China in GDP. But there was something missing in it for the people. Here he sets out what the huge investment of 10% of GDP and the possible sequel investment to this would mean for people of India, from farmers to workers in different sectors of the economy, including the informal economy. India has fallen behind in per capita GDP and this is now the focus of the people and the government, federal government and the states, to build an economy that provides the best opportunities and growth for all its people. True Gandhian Swa-raj in the best sense of the term.   ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How the state of Maharashtra was formed from Bombay state that included Gujarat, by making language as a basis of state formation offers clues for India's economic and political solutions to the problem of modernizing the country in the way Japan and China have done. The same is true for Gujarat.  Gujarat added the princely states of Saurashtra. The original Bombay state did not include Saurashtra or the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions of today's Maharashtra state. Vidarbha and Marathwada were added to create Maharashtra, Saurashtra was added to create Gujarat. Voting patterns have given the party that is pushing hardest for modernization of infrastructure with speed and scale favorability in most regions of Maharashtra except Marathwada regions and most regions of Gujarat except Saurashtra. The Bombay city region that forms a large part of the voting population in Maharashtra came first under the influence of British, then Gujarati business, then trade unions, followed by a Mumbai for Marathis movement, and now an integration of the Marathi movement into one that reaches for leadership for modernization on a national scale.   Bombay city is itself being dug up in a way Tokyo in the 20's and 60's must have been, or Shanghai in the 90's, 1912 sites have been dug up for a next generation Metro system of trains, a bullet train to Ahmedabad and New Delhi and for bridges across the Arabian sea, new expressways. Projects that were stalled for decades because of political stalling inaction are now being pushed ahead to be finished in 2-3 years or half the time. In Japan in the 20's the incentive was Japan's resurgence, in the 60's its recovery from world war. In China in the 90's the rush to modernize after the Japanese invasion and failed attempts in the 60's. In India today it is the rush to modernize after the British Empire's extraction of wealth from the country since 1850, and the failed attempts twice in the 60's and 90's.   ...
France 24 Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The treaty of handover by Britain of Hong Kong under one country, two systems was flawed in the way it was negotiated. French commentators looking at the problem say the city is caught between its past in the British Empire and the new monolithic state that China represents. Under the British French visitors looked at the city and wondered how there was freedom but no democracy, people were just selfishly just interested in making money. Chris Patten, Britain's administrator of the territory tried but failed to get democratic process, During the negotiations in 1984 for handover the chief British negotiator, Percy Cradock, a former ambassador to China, tells the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that - In Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, you go for the best you can get, I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread." Britain had very little leverage to secure a separate future for Hong Kong because it was small compared to much larger China resulting unequal negotiations. The same is true today as the best Britain could do is to get out a joint declaration with Australia and Canada saying that it did not approve the new security law, that it violated the treaty signed by Britain and China. The French view expressed by the editor of La Croix is that hasty poorly planned British exits- as happened in British India -have led to crises and conflicts for postcolonial generations, a legacy of British colonial rule. India and Pakistan still sorting out Kashmir, and India and China still fighting about the McMahon Line border area. The situation is very different for the U.S. which now has to respond in some way, and this comes as trade tensions and coronavirus tensions about its origins in China and the failure of Beijing to allow quick entry for an American team into Wuhan. This being for 7 weeks between Jan 6 request and February 16 permission. America sees this as losing 7 precious weeks to make up its own determination of the dangers when every week health experts say means saving or losing tens of thousands of lives. With loss of 100,000 lives the Trump administration has a sense of being misled. This French report in FR24 points out that the lack of a strong response from the U.S. would be something similar to letting the Berlin Wall happen without a response. Both sides in a situation where the territory of Hong Kong remained mostly about money and with a disproportionate influence of business interests similar to its founding under the unequal treaties of the 1850's. ...
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A hard fought election in Brazil between Mr. Bolsanaro and an ex-president Lula da Silva. Voting is compulsory in Brazil for all those who are literate and between age of 18 and 70 years. There are 156 million registered voters. President and members of Chamber of Deputies are elected for a four year term. Elections also take place for 27 governors for 26 states and one federal district. If no candidate in elections for president or governors gets 50% of the vote the vote heads to a runoff on October 30 between the top two candidates. Bolsanaro is supported by evangelical Christians in a Catholic country, rural landowners, and business people. He was a deputy or member of parliament for the state of Rio de Janeiro for 27 years, who won on a law and order and anti-corruption platform in 2018. Lula da Silva is a former trade union leader who was president from 2003 to 2010. He was popular during a commodity boom in Brazil's soyabean and iron ore export boom to China that financed social support programs. A corruption scandal affected his successor from the Worker's Party leading to the change in government after the collapse of the commodities boom. After he was given a jail sentence under the Bolsanaro government he was released by the Supreme court decision in 2019 that declared there was a lack of due process in his conviction. Mr. Bolsanaro also as a program to benefit poor families that is called Auxilio Brazil to replacve Lula's Bolsa Familia. Payments to 18 million recipients were increased in August and a monthly stipend was added for taxi and truck drivers by Bolsanaro. The competing interests and the pandemic with the high toll of around 685,000 deaths have created a highly contested election. ...
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sweden stands as a success story with growth of 5.5% in 2010, and Citigroup estimates expected growth of 5% in 2011. Sweden has significant export growth to the rest of Europe and emerging markets. The Swedish currency has appreciated significantly to 8.76 krona to the euro and 6.52 against the US dollar. Compared to China Sweden has not limited the appreciation in the currency, as the prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt believes that currencies should be "market valued." The central bank raised the interest rates three times in 2010 to 1.25 %, pushing the krona up by 14% against the euro. Sweden aims to double exports to $310 billion by 2015, according to Trade Minister Ewa Bjoerling. International sales of Swedish companies drive the growth in exports. Truck maker Volvo AB's Asia sales were up 50% in the first 9 months, and Electrolux AB's sales went up by 11% in the fourth quarter.
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Scott Anderson of the NYT provides an indepth look at the Arab World and its fragmentation through the eyes of five people from each part of the Arab world- Egyptian, Kurd, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian. He says the countries that fell apart are precisely the ones that were formed by the British and the French, and Italy, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire  using divide and rule policies- Britain in Iraq, France in Syria, and Italy in Libya- without much thought given to setting up viable nation states. This is why Iraq has a Sunni-Shia divide, Syria has similar divisions, and Libya with a largely tribal based structure, never really held together after the colonial powers left, and were held together only by strong dictators. Today's problems trace back to these historical events. This is complicated by the largely young demographic and restlessness of the people for change coupled with problems of underdevelopment in education, tribal loyalties, religious loyalties, and lack of political and social structures that could keep the countries together as change and transition to democratic processes took place. The role of the military further complicated matters in Egypt. Even Iran experienced these divisions because of the intervention of the great powers including Russia in Iran since 1900, leading to swings between liberal governments, foreign power supported governments, and a swing back to religious leadership as at present. This is one view of the region, others are presented by Ramadan (Oxford),  Bernard Lewis (Princeton), and leaders in Qatar and Emirates, other experts, some of whom point to the failure in leadership and the elites to find solutions to the problems of underdevelopment, in education, health, infrastructure, and aspirations for a voice in their governance. As the same divisions left by colonial powers affected Asia- in India, China, and Korea, but a larger vision of progress prevailed through crises and difficulties.        ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Labor Department reports U.S. created 209,000 jobs in July 2014. The unemployment rate goes up slightly to 6.2%. Wages went up only by a penny and remain only 2% higher than a year ago. Retail was up by 27,000 jobs, manufacturing by 28,000 in July. Economists say the steep drop in the unemployment rate to 6.2% does not reflect the true conditions in the labor market, as the labor force participation rate is at 62.9%. One economist called this disturbing as some of the youngest workers are dropping out of the labor force. The Alliance for American Manufacuring pointed out that the U.S. manufacturing sector has recovered only about 30% of jobs lost during the recession following the 2009 financial crisis. It said the the lack of investment in infrastructure, high trade deficits and currency manipulation by China and Japan, remain obstacles for American manufacturing's resurgence.
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....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Key points in Putin annexation speech are shown in the Washington Post. Putin presented an anti-western view that went over European history of colonialism in Africa and Asia. It presented a Russian nationalist view oof European powers and the US as trying to diminish Russia throughout history, that refers more to the British than for the country that emerged from British colonies in America with the idea that "all men are created equal." This was similar to a speech made at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that stated some of the same points. Putin referred also to the use of total bombing on Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne, by the US and Britain, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945, the US action in the Vietnam war. Putin's view- "I emphasize that one of the reasons for the centuries old Russophobia, the undisguised malice of these western elites toward Russia is precisely that we did not allow ourselves to be robbed during the period of colonial conquests. We forced the Europeans to trade for mutual benefit." About this version of history of European colonial powers - it is not entirely true, because as Cambridge historian Brendan Simms points out in his  book-  Europe- the Struggle for Supremacy  from 1453 to the Present,  Russia is itself throughout this period one of these European powers. Russia was also one of the powers present in China before the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and in 1901 when the concessions were drawn from China in that period. Of the military force of 19,000 that entered Beijing in 1900 and crushed the Boxer rebellion of local Chinese calling for ouster of foreigners from China, Britannica.com shows that most of the them came from Russian and Japan, with lesser numbers from Britain, France, the US and Austria Hungary.  After suppressing the Boxers the foreign powers including Russia, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and also the US asked for reparations and concessions on Chinese ports. Tsingtao went to Germany, The British and Russians getting concessions in Tianjin. Only America stated under president Woodrow Wilson that the reparations were excessive. Wilson converted American reparations into funding for Beijing's first modern university Tsinghua University, where  many of China's leaders were educated. During the period 1901 to 1945 the US opposed British colonialism in India and China. The US opposition with its Pacific fleet was strong enough to prevent further division of China among the colonial powers. In the 1940's the US under Franklin Roosevelt and his representative in China General Jospeh Stilwell carried out the campaign against the Japanese invasion of China so that the national integrity of China could be preserved. Stilwell called for reforms of the corrupt Chiang Kai Shek Koumintang government which rejected Stilwell's advice. Leading to its gradual collapse to the Communists under Mao-tse-tung, as the popular support shifted. It is now known what exchanges took place between Franklin Roosevelt and British governments including Churchill and Clement Attlee, and it can be said that the US under FDR was always putting pressure on the British Empire to free India from colonial rule. In 1942 there is the letter from Gandhi at Wardha to Roosevelt asking for help just before the Quit India movement, and Roosevelt's response is clear in the way he told Churchill by 1943 that America would never go along with Britain's unfair and impoverishing rule of India after winning the war. Roosevelt did not need Churchill's "growling" response, he had already put the British as a junior and much diminished partner. American help was crucial in convincing the British to quit India, which is also why it happened so quickly after 1945.  During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after defeating Germany in 1945, much of Eastern Europe came under Soviet and Russian domination. Poland was partitioned between Germany then called  Prussia, Austria and Russia, as colonial powers in 1772, followed by further partitions. The roots of the Ukraine crisis in some ways involve Poland and Polish history, as Lviv is only 70 kilometres from Poland. As the view on the Ukrainian side reflects this colonial history of Russia and of Germany in western parts of Ukraine. America under Abraham Lincoln fought a great war of Emancipation to live up to the document of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that "all men are created equal." The United States of America did not look to colonial possessions for its wealth because of the abundant land in a new continent and the early developments of the Industrial Revolution. Of rail, steamship, of mechanized agriculture and industrial production, in the period after 1850 that made America unrivaled in its industrial strength right upto the 1950's, and  which continues to the present day.  The industrial development of of Japan and South Korea, then of China, and now in India would not be possible without the  hand extended out by America to nations in Asia,  a benevolent hand in creating a tide that lifts all boats. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says the fairly obvious that Democrats in the US and Social Democrats in Europe readily grasp. That unrestricted immigration on the southern border in the US or in the southern border of Europe actually does little to improve the situation for people in the US and Europe or the people in the countries migrants are leaving because of unsettled conditions. Germany has shifted to a policy of becoming involved in development in Africa. Japan's International Cooperation Agency has worked for many years in African countries. The US has its own efforts to assist Mexico through trade and manufacturing. It is working with Central American countries that are a major source of migrants on the southern border at different times. Mette Frederiksen, head of the Danish Social Democrats government, has put it very well when she said that the only people who are getting hurt by open border policies are the working class families in Denmark. This is true also of other parts of the EU and the US. Simply by letting in migrants, a policy that is harmful to workers and families. Conservatives are looking to make political gains and further their own interests, indifferent to social divisions and increasing lack of upward mobility in society. Immigration has become the tool for many of the conservative parties that have used it in ways harmful to interests of workers and families, in Britain, in the US, and in the EU. One has only to see the large delegation that Mette Frederiksen led to India for discussions with prime minister Modi, the economic ministries, and business, to see how she did the right thing on a huge scale. Denmark is the world leader in logistics with Maersk, and in renewable energy. Denmark and the Nordic countries are working closely with a country of 1.4 billion people to improve the logistics to make India comparable to China in manufacturing for export. And similarly in renewable energy technologies. The Nordic countries and the EU have simply by these actions done more to uplift hundreds of millions of people in Asia than anything that ever happened in the history of the world. And the US is also working with India in the same way. India acts as a stable source of growth and model for a whole stretch of Asia from Indonesia to Vietnam. The population lifted out of poverty - 2 billion people. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT report on Mohamed Bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, who comes from Abu Dhabi one of the 7 emirates in the Gulf Coastal region, is rare and unusual. It provides stories the prince loves to tell that make a point about how he sees the world. Here he tells them to Robert F. Worth, in the only interview Mohamed bin Zayad has ever given to a journalist from US or Europe. It took a year just to get the interview. The title about a Dark Vision is inappropriate as Mohamed Zayad simply reflects what is a British way of looking at things- valuing the Constitution, keeping religion private even its deeply held beliefs and cultural traditions such as Bedouin's practice, and a general tolerance that characterizes British society and similar societies throughout the history of Europe and Asia that were sitting on shipping lanes and practiced trade for a livelihood. It is also important because the other Mohamed, Mohamed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia is seen as someone influenced by the ideas of Mohamed Bin Zayad of Abu Dhabi. President Biden plans a trip to the region in coming months to continue on building a narrative of development for the region. This provide an insight into the coastal regions that include Gujarat across the Gulf in India, that for centuries traded with the Gulf kingdoms. They have a trading mentality and with it comes a tolerance that is also seen in trading nations such as England. This is what brought Britain to India (and China) says Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi went so far as to say that if there was trade on the moon you would find a British shopkeeper was first to setup shop there. Zayed has as a minister in his cabinet, a woman who is minister of Tolerance, Sheikha Lubna al Quasimi.  Zayed is unique for three reasons. He has embedded in his views the spirit of tolerance. As Worth puts it in NYT, Zayed has grasped what is true to the spirit of the Gulf region. The country's location on an ancient shipping lane has bred a type of Islam in the Gulf region, that is open to the world and tolerant.  His father Zayed Nahyan's  tendencies to openness and frank demeanor combine with this tolerance to provide a different kind of leadership. His father had the pluralist instincts that combined traditional Bedouin attitudes with a rare liberal mindedness. He died at age 86 in 2004. Zayed bin Nahyan MBZ's father was selected for these very reasons by the British in 1966 to rule the small Gulf kingdom of Abu Dhabi. In 1966, says this NYT report, the country was mostly illiterate, half of all children died during childbirth and one third of the women during childbirth, there was a complete lack of western medicine. Zayed Nahyan's brother was averse to development making the British select Zayed Nahyan at the request of Abu Dhabhi families. These early years shaped Mohamed Bin Zayed's views of how to see the world. Zayed the son loves to tell stories, and this one in the NYT shows how Mohamed bin Zayed the son and Mohamed bin Nahyan the father share a sense of what it means to be human and support all people's aspirations for a better life. This is the narrative in India and the region of 1.8 billion people that extends from India to Indonesia and Vietnam. This was seen at the G7 when leaders of India and Indonesia were invited to meet with the G7 in Munich, Germany and taken as utterly serious participants in the discussions to shape the Free World. To see the difference- UAE has signed agreements to increase trade with India to $100 billion over 5 years and was thanked by prime minister Modi for treatment of 8 million Indian workers in the Gulf region during the pandemic. Saudis are now stabilizing the Turkish and Egyptian economies with aid and providing some of the funding assistance for Siemens to modernize the entire Egyptian rail system with the latest technology over the next 5 years. Projects of this size that have never been undertaken since 1945. Sometime in the 1980's when Zayed was a young military officer having completed training at the Royal British Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, and educated in Scotland, he went to the grasslands of Tanzania. During his visit to Tanzania he went to several villages to see the Masai tribes. When he returned he sat with his father crosslegged on the floor in traditional Bedouin and Asian style and told him about his travels. His father asked Zayed about all the details- the wildlife, the Masai people and their customs, the extent of poverty in the country. After hearing it all his father asked Zayed what he had done for the people he had encountered. In response Zayed shrugged and answered, the people he met were not Muslims. Zayed still recalls his father's reaction, sudden, forceful and indelible from memory. Zayad says his father took a sudden hold of his arm and spoke to him in a harsh tone and stern demeanor- " We are all God's children."     ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greece's New Democracy party and Mr. Mitsotakis wins about 41% of the vote in Greece's elections. Syriza come is second with 21% and Pasok left party at 12%. Mitsotakis has increased Greece's growth to twice the eurozone rate, and cut migrants by 90% in line with EU policy. New Democracy party gets 145 seats in a 300 member parliament. The first round was conducted under proportional representation, only 60% of voters cast their vote. Mitsotakis will go for another election by July because in a second round the winner gets additional seats and this could let it form its own government. It sees this as needed to maintain policies of economic growth that have led to GDP growth at twice the rate of the eurozone. A surveillance scandal appears not to have affected the election results as Greeks opted for stability and growth. Mitsokatis himself put it this way- "This is not the time for experiments that lead nowhere." Greece was almost out of the eurozone when Syriza conducted referendums on the debt repayment that led to a chaotic situation, and then moved in the opposite direction in callous implementation when the Eurozone held firm. Mitsotakis said Greece needs to achieve an investment grade rating to lower borrowing costs. Worldwide the policy of delivering on growth is key to success in elections in democracies and in countries that are catching up after the colonialist phase. This is true for delivery of infrastructure and public services such as water and electricity, modern rail in India. It is true also for winning enough public support in countries like China that run parliamentary representation under one party the CCP. Strict immigration controls since 2015 reflect a similar policy pursued recently by Italy. Migrants have dropped by 90%. This is popular among Greeks. Looking back Merkel made a serious error in letting in migrants coming in from Hungary and Austria at the beginning of the migration inflows into the EU in 2015. Merkel came from former East Germany, the communist led GDR, and had no understanding of how harmful this would be for the European Union. In just one year by 2016 the misguided open migration policies of Merkel had led to her CDU party getting less votes than an anti immigration AfD party in her home state of Meckenburg. It led to anti-immigration movements in Europe that were used by parties in a self-serving way including in Britain that led to exit of Britain from the EU. It also led to a decade of austerity and a lost decade for the European Union as it permanently sidelined parties to the left such as Social Democrats that unknowingly or unwittingly ended up with the blame for the public's discomfort with lack of borders and migrants upsetting borders. In balance the right way to tackle this was to build stronger economies that supported workers and families in the EU, that then invested significantly in developing countries of Africa and Asia to help them catch up with modernization. Another failure in policy was the Bush-Obama Merkel policies in failed states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There it was fundamentally important not to get involved in any way that committed US or EU's precious resources.  ...
ZEIT ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...
WSJ 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