LyrArc Article Gist
John Bolton looks at the continual dithering behaviour of the U.S. president in the Middle East- Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq in sequence- and provides some insights into the president's behaviour. He says it comes from Obama's distrust of the U.S. role in the world as a positive factor, and a deterministic view of the "arc of history" bending towards outcomes he finds ideologically acceptable. This coincides with a different public perception of America's role in the world, not so much of mistrust and skepticism, as of indifference and focus back on domestic issues following the event of the first war in Iraq and of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The two are different in nature as the public including women may not share the ideological frame of mind of the president that the U.S. is not overall a serious positive factor in the world through the presidencies of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, to Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton, from the Russo-Japanese war, through the First and Second World War, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War, to the Balkan conflict. Bolton writes at a time when the two perceptions are about to diverge as the U.S. returns to its normal role of positive and constructive engagement with the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
A report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows growing income inequality in 34 OECD countries. OECD Secretary General, Angel Gurria says: "The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, income inequality will continue to rise." Countries with the largest ratios between incomes at the top and the bottom, are the United States, Turkey and Israel, roughly 14 to 1. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have ratios of 6 to 1, with their ratios up from the 1980's. Gaps in Chile and Mexico are at 25 to 1. The study covers the period from 1980 to 2008. Overall inequality went up by 25% in the U.S. from 1980. In 2008 the top ten percent in the U.S. earned $114,000, 15 times than incomes for the bottom 10%. The top 1% of Americans saw incomes go up from 1980 to 2008, increasing from 8 percent to 18 percent. The richest 1% having $1.3 million in after tax income, and the lowest 20% making $17,700. The trends have accentuated an increase at the highest end- the top 1% and top 10% of the people- and a sharp decrease for the bottom 20%, which can be grasped from the $17,700 and the $1.3 million, both at extreme ends. The study attributes the rise in inequality to a growing gap in wages for highly skilled workers as technology advances, a surge in foreign direct investment and a looser regulatory regime that reduces employee protections leading to wage premiums for financial jobs and smaller incomes for workers at the bottom. Income groups and professions and sectors that had the greatest influence in government were able during this period to get the greatest protection for incomes, and able also to maximize their incomes. Incomes in the financial sector increased dramatically in the last decade, as a result of deregulation leading to higher risk and speculative activities in the financial sector, leading to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Financial crises further depress incomes at the lower end. Similiar income inequality trends can be seen for India and China. China has a Ginni coefficient of 0.5 according to researchers at Beijing Normal University, up from 0.3 three decades ago- a Ginni Coefficient above 0.4 is considered destabilizing. Another factor that played a part in these countries is corruption and lobbying by special interests for favored treatment of sectors or groups. Austerity measures taken in Europe and in the U.S. are likely to widen income gaps by depressing the lower end income groups, creating social unrest, especially in the absence of efforts to stimulate growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
J.P. Morgan Chase announces $2 billion in trading losses in May 2012. The Chief Investment Office unit made a bet with a trading strategy that CEO Jamie Dimon said had grown very complex. These losses could grow or shrink during the rest of the year.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jerry Muller, professor of history at the Catholic University of America, offers some useful insights into the nature of inequality in advanced capitalist societies and other parts of the world, and a clear eyed way to tackle the problem of inequality. Tackling the problem should be done in a way that preserves the economic protections for the middle class and the poor which are needed for capitalism to work- unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Earned Income Credit, and the Affordable Care Act. Much of this system is already in place in advanced capitalist societies. Incremental gains in this area will be much smaller and it is important to recognize the need for strengthening the economic engine that supports these benefits, says Muller. Economic dynamism has to be preserved and nurtured with human capital deployed in the best possible way, and competitiveness of countries increased. Each country and society has to find its own way of achieving this. The family matters, and matters a lot in taking advantage of educational opportunity, says Muller. The culture of different ethnic, immigrant groups, also matter. These differences were present in earlier periods in the nineteenth and twentieth century and are likely to remain. Strengthening the pool of human capital and deploying it is essential to progress. In an earlier book "Adam Smith In His Time and Ours- Designing a Decent Society," Muller emphasized the importance Smith placed on the civic duty of citizens to promote the welfare of the whole society, and the importance of education, family and moral character, with no substitute for the "general prevalence of wisdom and virtue." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...