LyrArc Article Gist
Timeline in NYT on DJT-Jamieson USTR  Tariffs to March 13, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs to go into effect April 2, 2025 on Mexico and Canada. Reciprocal tariffs are seen as based on fairness- "we charge them what they charge us."  Why is this action necessary?  Because Canada, Mexico, EU, South Korea, Japan, China gained unfair advantages due to the inaction of administrations dating back to Clinton, Bush, Obama which were never reversed. Other nations have no incentive to trade on the principle of fairness inducing the US to take action to open discussions on fair trade and on what the tariffs should be going forward from 2025. US Trade Representative Lighthizer under DJT first term was Deputy Trade Representative under Reagan when he negotiated fair trade with the Japanese in the 1980's who he says stalled and stalled till finally agreeing to real discussions. So this is nothing new China, Canada and Mexico have taken the place of Japan. In this second term of DJT Lighthizer's Deputy Trade Representative is now the US Trade Representative. This means the discussions are in the hands of seasoned American trade officials with a keen grasp of details supported by Scott Bessent at Treasury and Luttnick at Commerce Department. What it is NOT is an effort to coerce other nations by the US. Like Japan in the 1980's with Reagan and Lighthizer as USTR, in 2025 China, Canada, Mexico, South Korea Taiwan and other nations would like to slow this return to fair trade by stalling and stalling, and presenting a different picture of the facts. But will that work? As it did not with Japan in the 1980's when Lighthizer got them to sit down to have real discussions on fair trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ says China's government faces severely strained government finances. Local government entities sale of land financed 40% of local government revenues in China, and most of these have dried up with the very real loss of confidence in property sector. Government now faces $900 billion in shortfall in revenues says this report. There may be psychological hurdles in China's growth with the effects on mental health from lockdowns in major cities, the revolt in the property sector with home buyers losing confidence in developers, the loss of confidence of foreign investors from US and EU. The dependence on the property sector to carry so large a burden of growth for the last 2 decades in China may now look like an error. The dependence on foreign investment may also be an error as the loss of confidence could mean some withdrawal and a lack of sustained investment.  It could even be said that restraints on both sectors property and foreign investors could have created alternative paths to growth, and reduced the shift of factories from the US and Europe to China that have now caused trade friction and and a reverse shift of investment back to home countries of US and EU. Trade friction has it appears backfired in a way that extends to the overall relationship which could have been prevented by preventing the hyper growth that happened. Greg Ip of the WSJ has argued that compared to Japan's growth in the sixties and seventies from a country of 100 million the hyper growth for a country of 1 billion for 2 decades created a massive impact on communities in US and EU that were dependent on factories that were lost to China. This has alienated large sectors of the public in the US and EU which could have been prevented by restraints on hyper growth in China. Ip says the growth was too large and too fast for the US to cope. It may have permanently damaged the relations between the two countries showing that trade and globalization had unintended effects when left to business which has no comprehension of how the macro developments can affect the relations between the peoples if the other effects in the relationship such as community impacts are ignored which business says is not its role,  and governments staying away from keeping an eye on how it was happening and adjusting for ill effects with restraint and redirection of business policies. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DW.com report by Mu Ciu shows a CATL(Contemporary Amperex Technology) plant in Arnstadt, Thuringia, in eastern Germany. It will not bridge Germany's technology gap. German and US consultants at the microeconomic level of the company and German and US economists at the macroeconomic level of the economy entirely fail to grasp the effectiveness of China's investment driven model. Of its joint partnering with European and American companies and China's single minded focus on technology access. This is why the DJT US administration has warned Europe that it is failing economically. China's macroeconomic and microeconomic model are run by the same authority by the state, and according to goals and plans (which in a socialist economy is weak at the microeconomic company level lacking the initiative and freedom of action). By combining its macreconomic framework run by the state with a micreconomic company level run by the state but on free market lines the Chinese investment driven model has dual advantages and operates at a speed that far surpasses the German and American model. It's society suffers as a consequence, but in few short decades 1990-2009/2020 this is all it could accomplish with a single focus on modernization for what was once a peasant agricultural economy. Where it lacks is in future technology access and as long as weak companies in the US and Germany partner with Chinese companies the technology access for Chinese companies give it the essential ingredient for its investment model to work, as American and European companies can waver in investment Chinese companies backed by the government will not waver in investment and have the clear advantage. DJT's approach is to give a big shock to the entire system of world trade now run by China, so that this is no longer going to work at the macroeconomic level and legislate huge investment incentives for one time depreciation and other moves to get American companies to invest. It wants Europe to do the same, including getting rid of the bureaucratic structures and regulations. German Chancellor Merz is getting the message and is acting quickly first with the trillion dollar investment plan, the meetings with Draghi and Meloni to get Italy and like minded nations on board, and internal efforts to get rid of regulations and bureaucratic structures, and building a new partnership with India to remove an error of Merkel/ Clinton+ Obama in excessive concentration and dependence on China. This requires a steady hand and steady governments, steady policy, and companies in America, Europe and India to work together for the long haul without wavering or delay, to rebuild the world economy along new lines and on a new path. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The India- U.S. trade deal after the negotiations and the visit of the Indian prime minister to the U.S. is expected to take additional time. The U.S. wanted to see a 20% duty on mobile phones and ethernet switches to be reduced, greater access to the Indian market for medical devices such as stents and knee implants, and greater access for dairy, agricultural products. Making these products affordable in India is a goal of the government preventing it from making concessions. India wants preferential access to the U.S. market as a developing country restored under the Generalized System of Preferences.  A comprehensive trade deal would have to include issues of intellectual property, e-commerce, and the sensitive issue of H1B visas. Commerce minister Piyush Goyal led negotiations for India and Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said the two sides "narrowed" down their differences. India's Jio from Reliance Group has hugely reduced the price of mobile phones and mobile data making it accessible with 4G across the country at prices that are the lowest in the world. The introduction of a universal health care program requires bringing down the price of medical products to improve access to modern medicine. This means less room for American products that would increase the price and reduce access in a vast developing country. India is also playing catchup in these technologies so that there is less room for unrestricted entry in the Indian market.  Efforts were made to increase trade and investment in India with the help of Mr. Bloomberg during the visit of the prime minister, and the Bill Gates Foundation continued its commitment to public welfare gains in India in the fields of sanitation, hygiene and healthcare.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The Times take a look at the work Liz Truss has done as International Trade Secretary and now Foreign Secretary. Truss does not want Britain to become economically dependent on China. More than Johnson Truss is a UK Atlanticist who wants the UK to work with the US and the EU to build a western world that is entirely independent of China. Looking at her work and experience it would appear that Truss is the most underestimated of the candidates for prime minister, much more so than Sunak. She can be strident and aggressive but she has gone through a process of thinking and studying before that with a willingness to try new ideas. She come from an intellectual  family and one that was active in left wing activism. She studied at a comprehensive school in Leeds before going to Merton College Oxford  to study philosophy, economics and politics, and was willing to change her thinking when persuaded about a different course of action to get better results. She also gained the knowledge she needs to do her own thinking with experience first hand as Chief Secretary at Treasury, Secretary of International Trade, and as Foreign Secretary, getting trade deals with Australia and negotiating with other countries. Cameron, May, Johnson lacked this kind of knowledge and experience. And Sunak also falls way short of this kind of knowledge acquired and experience handling international assignments key to Britain's advancement after Brexit. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EU Japan South Korea face serious negotiations ahead, regardless of ITT ruling on May 28, 2025 saying the president did not have emergency powers. The ruling does not apply to sector by sector action by DJT just not across the board tariff of 50%. And the ruling is being appealed.  Initial analysis is that this does nothing to affect the US president's other options to use other legal authorites and laws, conduct sector by sector investigations of harm done to the US in unfair trade, take action on sector by sector basis on steel, semiconductors, autos, pharmaceuticals.  Another factor is that all are allies, EU and India is dependent on US for security cooperation, and Japan, South Korea are entirely US dependent on security. Japan also has a past history of unfair trade practices and the prime minister senior officials both understand the US need to rebuild manufacturing, and support this. This is also true of the UK which has completed it's trade negotiations and deal with the US, and sees the ITT or other actions as an internal matter for the US people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Italian leader Meloni comes to the White House for a meeting with US president DJT on April 17, 2025. DJT says there will be a deal with the EU "100 percent."

"There will be a trade deal, 100 percent, but it will be a fair deal."

Meloni criticised "woke ideology" and said she fully supported the "war against illegal migration".

"The goal for me is to make the West great again, and I think we can do it together."

"I'm proud of sitting here as prime minister of an Italy that today has a very good situation - a stable country, a reliable country."

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Navarro's thinking is genuinely felt and genuinely thought out after 20 years  at Harvard, UC Irvine and other universities, as an economist who abhors sitting in the office with textbook theory that has no relevance to life of working families in the heartland of America. He says of these textbook theory economists and the American companies that have recklessly shifted America's industrial base to China year after year and decade after decade- “The same damn fools who supported NAFTA, China’s entry into the W.T.O., and every other trade deal that was supposed to benefit America but only benefited Wall Street and the foreign nations screwing us. Those mainstream economists need to get out more often — maybe to Ohio or North Carolina or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Michigan.”  He says the 70 nations including the big ones Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Britain and the European Union are already neogtiating with the Trump administration. What more proof does one want. The Nation will get a better deal as it is about fairness in world trade, and an even playing field. Navarro calls it "a beautiful thing." The three dimensional unique approach taken by Navarro, Bessent and Lutnick and by Trump is working, says Navarro. Fifteen decades ago A. Lincoln stated- "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate 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, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lawyers Buchheit and and Gulati help Greece design a legal agreement that writes in a new collective action clause. The collective action clause ensures a 95% participation for the bond restructuring deal Greece is doing in March 2012 to cut its debt to sustainable levels. A similiar deal could be designed for Portugal says Mitu Gulati, a law professor at Duke University. Because Greece's bonds are written under Greek law, writing in a new collective action clause is a legal mechanism for achieving a meaningful debt reduction and bond restructuring deal- this is something Gulati and Buchheit figured out because of their expertise in this field. A joint paper by Buchheit and Gulati in 2010, first explored the way in which private bondholders of Greek bonds who reject a bond debt restructuring could be forced to accept the same losses as other investors who accepted the deal. They are now advisors to the government of Greece. In early 2011 there was serious discussion that the Brady Bonds debt restructuring for Latin American debt of Argentina, Mexico and Brazil of the 1980's, under which private investors traded in their old bonds for new bonds with longer duration at reduced interest rates and lower value- reflecting voluntary losses accepted by bondholders- was the approach needed for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and other eurozone countries. Then U.S. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady took the lead- in Landon Thomas Jr., NYT, 11/30/2010. Bondholders held out throughout this period, with Charles Dallara, one of the architects of the Brady bonds restructuring, hired by European banks to negotiate on their behalf. It was only when German Chancellor Merkel delivered an ultimatum by telling Dallara "this is the last offer," during a late night meeting on Oct. 27, 2011, at EU headquarters in Brussels, was an agreement reached on serious debt reduction- in Walker, Forelle, Meichtry, WSJ, 12/30/2011. The long delay meant a worsening crisis in Greece and the rest of the eurozone. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zeit Online takes a look at German chancellor Angela Merkel's statement made in a beer tent in the Muich suburb of Trudering- "The times in which we can completely rely on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days." Zeit Online says the words "ein Stuck" in German were meant to say a bit or somewhat, but the essence of the statement that the depending on the trans-Atlantic alliance was now over comes right through.

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSj points out that Britain is in a weaker position to tackle Brexit than it was when Boris Johnson called for supporting the Yes vote to Leave the EU three years ago in the referendum. Business investment is lower than France, Germany and even Italy. And today protectionism, nationalism, hostility to globalization mean that its not so easy to increase exports by signing free trade agreements with other nations. Even a treaty with a friendly Trump administration  is not certain as Mr. Trump favors looking at how he can get the best deal and reverse any advantages of other trading nations, Britain being no exception. A trade agreement with the U.S. could mean the U.S. barring Britain from signing one with China as a condition of Mr. Trump. Greg Ip also points out that it was precisely joining the EU that helped Britain catch up with German and French standards of living after a period of low growth, inflation, and balance of payments crises in the 1970's. Joining the European Economic Community was as prime minister Heath stated would " enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The G-20 summit in April had as its achievement the $1 trillion that would go to aid for emerging countries and other countries in need. But this number may not be what it appears to be and should be seen with care. Prof. Eswar Prasad, former division chief for China at the IMF, and now Professor at Cornell University, says there is double counting in the numbers, and a lot of the money has not yet been committed. With trade financing only a quarter of the $250 billion is fresh cash, the rest is trade financing that is rolled over every 6 months. For the Special Drawing Rights issuance of $250 billion, a kind of virutal currency that is set by a basket of real currencies like the dollar and the euro, the IMF will issue SDR's to all 185 of its members. This is not cash but a form of credit, against which a country can borrow. The Obama administration that came up with this idea thinks it will create $15 to $20 billion in additional credit for the poorest countries. For this to happen the US has to lend out its special drawing rights to poor countries, and this requires congressional approval. Of the $500 billion in direct commitments, Dr Prasad says less than half has been commited by Japan, the EU, Canada and Norway. China says it will put in $40 billion probably by buying bonds issued by the IMF. The US contribution of $100 billion has to be authorized by Congress. Even with the US contribution Prasad sees a shortfall of $145 billion of the $500 billion in donations. And the Saudis, the Indians will require a bigger say in the IMF to contribute some of this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist looks at China's relationship with Russia. It says the Ukraine conflict and western sanctions have resulted in Russia moving closer to China. Yet the two countries have competing interests in central Asia, and different relations with India and Vietnam, in the Asian region. Russia is also wary of China copying designs of Sukhoi aircraft in sales to China of advanced military technology. The major oil and gas deal signed in 2014 provides Russia with a new outlet for oil and gas with the cooling of the relationship with Europe. Yet Russia has strong ties built with Germany over the entire post war period, and differences have emerged in U.S.- German relations. Germany's relationship with Russia- cooled by sanctions and German wariness over Russian intervention in Ukraine and Russian wariness over NATO close to its borders- spans 7 decades and is likely to remain strong in the long term. This comes from the shared sense of awareness of the terrible conflicts of an earlier period, just as it has for French-German relations, and from the strong efforts made by Germany to preserve the relationship and peace in Europe. Chinese president Xi's visit to Moscow on May 9, for celebrations of victory over Nazi Germany, will be followed by a visit May 10 by Chancellor Merkel of Germany. A factor in German-Russian relations is the close trade links, cultural exchanges, and history going back to the GDR where Chancellor Merkel is from, built up over many years, that are likely to set the long term future of relations. China's dominant partner relationship in the China- Russia relations does not bode well for the future of relations, compared to the equal partner relations with its European neighbor, Germany. In this different light Ukraine is a temporary pause, in German-Russian relations and peace in Europe, a situation which is in China's long term interest as it focusses on its economy and the next phase of development for a modernized economy. Especially as China continues to build on its own vital trade relations with Germany and the European Union, the latest example being Germany, other EU nations, and India, joining the China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi's visit to the US comes at a time when US president Biden is eager to show the US is fully engaged in the Indo-Pacific region with its allies in the Quad 4 countries- Australia, Japan and India. The recently announced Aukus defense agreement brought together 2 members of the Quad 4 the US and Australia, plus the UK. Aukus is designed to strengthen US presence as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific region in the Indian and Pacific oceans around India, Southeast Asia, China, and across the Pacific. After a futile engagement in Afghanistan the US is reorganizing its presence where it is strongest- in the oceans. In a way that Britain once did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the US is dominant in the high seas. US naval power far exceeds that of all navies in the world combined. This is meant to reassure India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and Japan, which together have close to twice the population of China, that the US has not diminished its presence in any way from that it had in the 1950's following the Second World War. With this new framework India enters discussions that will focus on health to deal with the pandemic and its after effects, with security and rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, with trade, technology, new supply chain manufacturing structure in which India plays a key role. With this new focus and clearing past engagements made by other US  presidents, including some mistaken policies, the US emerges as a new force in the Indian ocean, China seas and Pacific ocean region.  On September 23 Modi meets Tim Cook for what could be new supply chain arrangements that Apple could be preparing as it and other US corporations build new supply chain structures to rebuild US manufacturing technologies capabilities that were lost to China over the period 2000-2020. During that period manufacturing technology knowhow was shifted out of the US in a mistaken policy that assumed design and invention were sufficient for the US to keep. The first step in this direction was a change of CEO's at Intel Corp with US president Biden pushing for new US technology reclaiming policy. Following that the new CEO at Intel Corp, Patrick Gelsinger, completely reassessed Intel's mistaken policies of ceding its entire semiconductor manufacturing technologies capabilities to Taiwan and China. Intel made a U turn and is now investing all or most of $50 billion in the US instead of in China or Taiwan.  On September 24 Modi meets Mr Biden to discuss trade, investment, defense, and security. On the same day the leaders of Japan, Australia, Mr. Suga and Mr. Morrison join Modi and Biden for the Quad 4 talks. Indian infrastructure capabilities and Indian economic growth would be key goals to strengthen India along its land borders along Tibet occupied region and Himalayas as part of the overall effort to build a new US and allied presence in Asia.  On September 21 Modi attends a Covid Summit that will look at the way forward in the aftermath of the pandemic and ways to vaccinate the remaining unvaccinated population in the world, as well as vaccination passports.  ...

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.     ...

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.     ...