LyrArc Article Gist
Apple relies on Chinese suppliers for about 90% of its products. So reliant is Apple on China that it is slow to make changes to adapt to president Biden's policies for a new US Asian Economic Framework that builds new supply chains. By contrast Samsung has largely stayed out of China using supply chain manufacturing in Vietnam and other countries. India and Vietnam are major alternatives and only India can offer the well trained workforce and supplies of land, labour, incentives and facilities that China offers. This makes Apple a laggard in the changes that are happening today to supply chains bringing manufacturing closer to home and making products in countries allied to the US in Asia. This includes South Korea, Japan, India and Vietnam as production hubs for parts and assembly of advanced technology products. Apple is only now beginning the task of building supply chains outside China and returning manufacturing to the US which will bring back US technological leadership by 2030, American policy set by president Biden. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This month president Biden signed into law 100% tariff on China made EV's and 50% tariff on solar panels. The Guardian describes the hollowing out of factory towns in England such as Sheffield and the same in the US and Europe, which was a disaster for these communities dependent on manufacturing. There is now a sense that heavily subsidized products made in Asia should not be allowed to deindustrialize the US and take jobs away from these communities across the US. Trade has to be fair before it can be called free trade. Wars in Asia,  trade that ripped up American manufacturing, monopolies and burdensome pricing of pharmaceuticals and healthcare, lack of investment in infrastructure and public services, shows the deeply flawed policy pursued by presidents from Reagan and Bush to Clinton and Obama that have reduced the standard of living of the American worker and the American people.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
This is a very informative interview with Joe Biden. So far Biden has given few interviews where he talks freely at length about how he plans to run his administration and what is most important to his heart. The title is very misleading in this respect. Unlike the inexperience of Obama with his "we won" we must be doing something right, Biden with his years of experience comes closer to Lyndon Johnson or Truman and the same drive to get things done. He says in this interview "there is no elation." He just wants to get somethings done as quickly as he can and he knows Congress as well as Lyndon Johnson did when he tried to get his vision of "the Great Society." It is almost as if the Biden sequel to the inexperience of Obama, is like the Johnson sequel to the inexperience of Kennedy.   To understand Biden is to know what hurts him most. Biden feels the pain that every rural county in America did not vote for him. He knows something is deeply wrong that this should happen as it has never happened before. It may be time to define diversity differently - people of diverse backgrounds not just ethnic or race but also whether with rural or urban backgrounds as they are today totally different. He also feels the pain that seventy two million Americans voted for Trump. He will judge his success or failure in winning over about half of them to bring this down from 47-48% to 25%. These issues will define and shape the Biden presidency. Can he deliver to the rural counties, health care, education, broad band connectivity, everything that has disrupted life in rural America from the way it was in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when it comes to the social fabric. The China issue simply fits into this. European societies are feeling the pain of the fragmentation in their social fabric with starkly different opportunities for life in rural vs urban. Respect for fellow Americans comes before respect for China- or Japan, or India, or Europe. Biden understands what three decades of shift of manufacturing jobs to China and other countries have done to American communities, to small towns and the rural areas surrounding them in America. For this reason Biden does not plan to change the Agreement China made with the Trump administration for 25% tariffs on a portion of imports from China and China's written agreement to buy $200 billion of American products. For this reason his response to China's challenge emerging from trade policy set in motion by the Clinton administration, and allowed to continue by the Bush and Obama administrations with the addition of foreign wars that dissipated the country's finances urgently needed for infrastructure building and investments in education and advancing science and technology, is to reverse all the negative trends. Biden plans to make the investment in America that Mr. Trump started but to do this more effectively, he says.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The world is too dependent on one semiconductor manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC. Companies in Taiwan make 65% of the dollar value of the world's chips. How did this happen? It poses a threat to the US and to the world economy. Finally the US is making an effort to correct this. The European Union already has plans to produce 20% of the world's next generation chips in 2030. Intel plans $20 billion investment for 2 chip factories in the US. Only months earlier this report in WSJ says Intel president Bob Swan was giving more contracts to TSMC for next generation chips.  It shows how much the pandemic has changed views on supply chain security. Intel ousted Mr. Swan for missteps in relying too much on TSMC as this dangerous policy became evident during the pandemic. Such was the culture that existed before the pandemic on supply chains, on investment allocation, and related issues. As a single semiconductor factory can cost $20 billion, the Biden administration is getting involved with Congress to rebuild America's semiconductor industry and independent supply chain. TSMC is built on subsidies from Taiwan government. Morris Chang founded TSMC in 1987 after studying at MIT and working 30 years at Texas Instruments. At founding half of the investment for TSMC came from Taiwan government. The US to rebuild will require the government to support the chip industry in many ways. In this sense the US manufacturers who ceded manufacturing to TSMC were shortsighted- AMD, Intel, Qualcomm Apple. They without realizing it built the model on which TSMC would thrive and invest and grow. Take just one example- to meet Apple's first order TSMC spent $9 billion with 6000 people working round the clock to build a factory in 11 months. Yes Apple did not have to worry about chip manufacturing and quality by contracting it out. Yet over the years it was ceding the manufacture of the most important chips in its products to an exclusive supplier. It was also ceding away the technologies that went with it. Americans were told not to care by the best universities and professors, by economic departments and scientific educational institutions for two decades leading to the situating facing America today. Meanwhile Taiwan is supporting its chip industry even further as it relies on the chip industry to provide protection in its struggle to maintain its independence from China. A situation no American manufacturer understands or had planned to create, but is now left to the Biden administration and president Biden to solve. After twenty years of unchecked capital allocation and investments by the leaders of American manufacturing based on an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the role of manufacturing and manufacturing technologies in the life of America since its founding two hundred years ago, president Biden faces the task of restoring confidence in America. And this at the time of a pandemic that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In Lithium ion batteries and key pharmaceutical ingredients, special semiconductors China is able to use the concentration of manufacturing capacity anc dependence on China to prevent the US and EU negotiating a way to recover lost supply chains. Supply chains that were carelessly turned over to China, a developing country at that time, by business executives of the US and EU in the 1990-2020 period who lacked vision and foresight. China's policy is to increase the dependence of US and EU, to tighten this dependence to achieve its goals. XI Jinping says WSJ wrote in a 2020 essay- that he wasn't for weaponizing it but that China must “tighten the dependence of international industrial chains on our country” so that it would be a way to respond and create negotiating room for continued access to technologies and markets in the US and EU were the US and EU to make efforts to recover the supply chains they had inadvertently and carelessly turned over to China. This action by US and EU business executives should be considered one of the major and ignominous failures of American and European business management of that period 1990-2020 which has made it difficult to even make the initial effort to recover these lost supply chains. As with the banks in the 2009 financial crisis that generation of management continues to operate as if nothing has happened.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden proposes to reduce the US deficit by $2 trillion by increasing taxes on American households worth more than $100 million that would apply to their earned income, and their unrealized gains on liquid assets like stocks. Biden also plans quadrupling the tax on stock buybacks by companies, a tax approved in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2021. The deficit in 2023 will be about $1.4 trillion and rise to about $2 trillion, so that Biden's plan is to practically eliminate the  large deficit if the Republicans come on board. Republicans prefer cuts in spending. US companies have engaged in a dramatic increase in stock buybacks in recent years leading to calls for increasing the tax on stock buybacks. Biden says even high income households will not see an increase in their taxes, only the wealthiest households with over $100 million who have benefited vastly through the Reagan type policies of the last two decades. These households with over $100 million in assets will not be affected in the same way as students, workers, and middle income households are affected in shouldering a large part of the burden of these Reagan type policies that did not adequately fund education, healthcare, and manufacturing in communities across America. This was a period when Democrats in Congress awed by Reagan type policies failed to vigorously oppose policy that increased the US deficit and burden on households for health costs by not allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. A senior AARP official says that when we talk about the Biden Inflation Reduction Act of 2021 the key component is the Medicare price negotiation with companies that is now law. Why Republicans and Democrats before Mr. Biden allowed such a gross distortion for two decades since 2001 that burdened ordinary  working Americans while neglecting American manufacturing, till Mr. Biden assumed the presidency, says much about the policies of the last two decades and how it has affected ordinary working families. Shriveling factory towns and creating much distress in these communities with these distortions that are a legacy of Reagan type laissez faire policies that government should do little. The result of these policies is that manufacturing is concentrated in only one country for the whole supply chain something that would never have happened with a thoughtful policy planning process. India and Vietnam are only today seen as alternatives for the supply chain in 2023 when policies were in place in these countries since 2014 for the supply chain to be distributed in a way that would be a win-win situation for all countries, avoiding the national security threats of today with overconcentration of manufacturing in China. This has not benefited China or the US because of the rancor and tension it has created. It was the fall of the Berlin Wall that created some of this awe for Reagan, when looking at it objectively it was nothing more than a course correction in Europe after the Hungarian revolution suppressed in 1956, Czech in 1968. It had little to do with what policies the US should pursue for workers and families, just as the war in Ukraine today remains another course correction in a different direction in Europe, and does not affect domestic policy in the US to build a better society for workers and families that Mr. Biden is doing. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ Editorial Board speaking for the business community traditional Republican groups finally takes up the election on issues of policy difference between Trump run Republican party and Harris run Democratic Party which it should have from Day One. The former president says something that has never happened in the last hundred years- policy will be decided after the election depending on what he decides to do. Cost of Living action is No 1 on voter priorities. "Drill, Baby Drill," is the whole Republican party platform for cost of living action. What is the Harris Democrats policy plan for cost of living action? WSJ says it is spending blowouts that caused inflation, the Green New Deal, entitlement expansions and student loan forgiveness.The real reason for the increase in cost of living comes from the overconcentration of supply chain by American business in China, on which every president Bush, Obama, Trump, did little or nothing. The lack of an effective vaccination program and ineffective vaccines in China by 2021 and 2022 led to the loss of the supplies from China leading to shortages for automobiles parts and other supplies and surge in prices in 2021-2023. Powell and the US central bank correctly raised rates but cautiously and waited for this to correct, president Biden brought manufacturing home through huge investments called the "spending blowout" that brought down the inflation from 9% to 3%. Some of that "spending blowout" went to chips and science to correct the errors of American Business and Reagan-Friedman theory of the Republican party that created this problem with a culture of utter  indifference to the ultimate costs of who makes what and where. The Inflation Reduction Act also tackled higher health and other costs paid by American workers and families, and invested in public services and in repairing the dilapidated crumbling American infrastructure. Are Republicans saying let the roads, bridges, airports, built in the 1940-1960's heyday of American industrialization as China and India's is now, let them crumble? What do the educated minds of the WSJ Board say about coal in China and India and their effects on their massive use multiple times that of US and EU in history, is it not damaging to the environment and why the Chinese realized the health in North China with coal winter use was worse than in South China cut their coal use. Are they saying lets burn fossil fuels and ignore, and if investment has to be made in solar who is going to do it? Is it Ok for Republicans thet we just import from China all our solar panels indefinitely into the future. "Green New Deal" is just a perjorative term, policy has to be made thoughtfully and without prejudice or bias of any sort for the best that we can do for the American people, ignoring so called "right" or "left." Doing what is right, what makes sense, is a lot harder.     ...

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
Where changes are being made that make America stronger business leaders wholeheartedly support and value the president's work and the people on his team working on it. Brad Smith of Microsoft says of Biden on cybersecurity "he has done more in his presidency than any president ever." CEO's of auto companies (Stellantis, GM, Ford) and Intel CEO Geisinger value the investment the government is making for climate change transition and investments in rebuilding semiconductor manufacturing to level the playing field with China, something the US Chamber of Commerce never advocated. It is the policy officer of the US Chamber of Commerce who uses the word "complicated" because the positions taken by the US Chamber of Commerce are at odds with what the American people need, or are demanding of the president. If one is talking about large oil companies, so called Tech companies such as Google and Apple that are not paying their fair share of taxes, and Pharma companies that are charging exorbitant prices, the president is only doing what is best for the American people. One could see this in the recent Senate hearings with Big Pharma companies ,when out of sheer frustration the senior Republican senator Mike Braun of Indiana warned the Pharma companies, that they were following a path that he other Republicans could no longer support. Banks faced tighter regulation because of banking crises including the 2009 crisis caused by the banks that hurt workers and middle class. Business relations with the Biden administration are being shaped then by a new vision for America and the American people, to point to a brighter future, not to pull back to the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One perspective of what Silicon Valley is focused on is shown by Reid Hoffman. It does not mention climate change, not one word on climate change, no words on cost of living action, little is said about factories and jobs for reviving American manufacturing, helping workers and families and redesigning the world's supply chains. It is critical of addressing monopolies and regulatory action by the FTC even where it is needed. It calls for huge investments in AI that would leave little for investments in science, education, healthcare and infrastructure, and says "trust us to do the right thing." It calls for pro-innovation direction when pro-innovation has been the thrust of policy for three decades with the results that we have seen leading to widening gas between the upper and lower classes and shrinking of the middle, a pharma industry out of control in pricing, and negligible investments in education by so called "tech" companies who like Apple have outsourced manufacturing to China. A return to tech and Silicon Valley is not needed as embedding it in the nation's policy making priorities is the Nation's problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump's focus in the State of the Union message in 2020 in the U.S. Congress was on what he had done for U.S. prestige and perception- "In three short years, we have shattered the mentality of American decline and we have rejected the downsizing of America's destiny. We have totally rejected the downsizing." "We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, and we are never going back." The theme of the speech- "The Great American Comeback." No longer were other nations be allowed to take advantage of America, American interests would come first, and this also meant blue collar working families and middle class. Trade deals with Mexico and Canada, trade deal with China, reversing of the trade deficit, bringing back about 12,000 of the 60,000 thousand factories lost over two administrations Democratic and Republican of the last 16 years with many more factories in the pipeline, increasing jobs and incomes in an unprecedented way, were all the focus of the speech. The president basically sidestepped the impeachment for Ukraine policy and implementation, and focussed on the optimism from reversing American decline in trade, jobs, and manufacturing under past Republican and Democratic administrations.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The difficulties the new U.S. Treasury Secretary faces as she tries to navigate the politics in Congress and the tries to reach out to moderates and progressives within the Democratic party. All have different views on spending, and where stimulus money should go in a second stimulus. Her long experience with the Fed is seen as not preparing her for the political role of evaluating different opinions that are described by some experts as ten times more political than anything going on in Fed meetings. As a student of Prof. Tobin Yellen sees government intervention as needed in times of economic crises. Twice in ten years the U.S. and the rest of the world has been struck by economic crises- the bank leveraging behaviours and poor lending practices that induced the 2009 financial crisis and in 2020 the coronavirus pandemic. Lessons learned Yellen says about the 2009 recession are that not enough stimulus was provided after the initial stimulus to get a strong enough recovery. Democrats are eager to spend over $2 trillion in a second stimulus. Republicans much less so particularly with a new president. Even under Mr. Trump spending was set at under $700 billion by Republicans for a second stimulus. Another economic crises is one of the U.S. strategic economic position in the world. On this issue of trade Yellen's husband George Akerloff, also a economist is more skeptical of the value of free trade. The failure of the World Trade Organization to ensure a level playing field as China subsidized key industries, and the loss of America's manufacturing advantage over three decades is now the defining issue in American politics. It takes the shape of manufacturing communities that were once a part of Democratic party support shifting away after devastated local economies from the loss of manufacturing plants to China. It takes the shape of a Republican party that is committed to bring back American manufacturing, and a Democratic party that under Biden is seeking the same result. How much each party will invest in terms of making things happen to get this done is one of the issues facing all parties, Congress, the administration, Ms. Yellen, and the new president. Economics does not have the answers. As economists could not have predicted the increase in women participation in the workforce, the drop in Black and Hispanic unemployment rates under the Trump administration. The lack of moral will to get trade to work for the American worker was more of an issue under Democratic and Republican administrations for the last 2 decades, so that issues of growing inequality were never better addressed by any party. It depended more on focus of the president elected to help American workers, and to avoid the cost and distraction of foreign wars when American interests could be protected in other ways. Yellen was not able to make a difference at the Fed because of these reasons and low interest rates have both helped and hurt the middle class, as low interest rates meant Americans were less able to accumulate savings for retirement since 2000. Determination and action counts for more than ideology or policy is the lesson learned in building strong economies and manufacturing.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jeanne Whalen on the Two Speed Economy in the US September 2025- diverging paths of low and high income Americans. With the new administration in 2025 priorities shift to immigration and what to do about 14 million illegal migrants from Latin America and other places, war on fentanyl and drug trafficking gangs with hundreds of thousands of lives lost to fentanyl and drugs in the US, crime and safety which includes the unprecedented illegal movement of drug trafficking in the Nation, and to a bold posture on using US advantages of its huge market to get European Union, Japan, South Korea, and China to level the playing field on trade bring jobs home.The Biden administration had already conceded to DJT's approach in its one term presidency by shifting on uncontrolled illegal migration but not fast enough, by not removing DJT's tariffs, and failing to take an aggressive posture on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Of the DJT plan US has tariff based revenues of 10--15% for all countries imports into US can that it redirect to groups to soften any effects of tariffs. DJT administration oil transition policy of stretching out the transition to give middle class and lower classes cost of living relief was also accepted by the Biden administration and is now the policy of Democrat run California state government.  The US economy was slowing in 2024 under the Biden administration. What has changed in 2025 is that the US stock markets are responding to steps taken by the DJT Republican administration to lower the cost of doing business by softening regulations, and giving US business the upper hand in different industries, and rebuilding the manufacturing sector with calls for EU and Japan/South Korea to invest more in the US as a quid pro quo for market access. This has led to increase in the value of market portfolios of the income earners above 250,000, or 10% of American households. As this happens the process of trade renegotiation has introduced some uncertainty in 2025 and businesses are looking for more clarity before increasing investment and slowing job hiring which hurts younger people entering the job market and lower income Americans. Were things better under Biden? Government Covid assistance and payouts in the early years 2020-2021 helped lower income workers, as this faded and the cost of living autos, housing increased sharply under Biden in 2022-2024 the situation deteriorated. The situation today is similar to the situation in 2024 with the difference in 2025 that inflation is coming down just as government help is receding. And added factor is the DJT administration plan to tackle head on the increasing cost of Medicaid to about $1 trillion by adding new requirements and reducing subsidies. The federal workforce had a disproportionate share of black workers and the policy changes to reduce the federal workforce have increased black unemployment from 6.1% under Biden in August 2024 to 7.5 % a year later. Hispanics have seen slight improvement in unemployment to 5.3% in 2025, and the middle class incomes also have held up and are holding steady. Meantime Bloomberg points out that one third of people in the top 10% are living paycheck by paycheck because of high cost of housing, university education for children, and inflation.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US is on track to bring back 350,000 jobs in 2022 that were taken overseas during the two decades of hyper growth in China, according to the Reshoring Initiative. A false idea was created mostly by economists and business that shifted jobs to China during two Democratic and one Republican administration, the Clinton, Obama and the Bush administrations, that this would benefit the American workers and families through lower prices at the retail level. It ignored the severe damage this would do to jobs, incomes and whole communities when factories on which they depended for a living were shipped overseas. It damaged labor in ways that destroyed much of the American working class and the families built during the years of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. Business failed during this period to meet the challenge of higher American wages and productivity issues by using innovation and other steps to keep manufacturing at home.  This led to the hyper growth that did not benefit China, because a moderate pace of growth would have helped China control the rampant contamination of its air, water and soil. It also was leading China to a dead end reached during the 2016 election campaign with the election of president Trump with deep discontent from workers in midwestern states. The pandemic simply underscored the need for supply chains that were close to home and reliable in crises. By 2020 president  Biden was committing to a restructuring of the supply chains and pushing forward with it with legislation in the $369 billion Climate bill, and SCIENCE and Chips Act, to make solar panels, semiconductors and other products in the US. Reports from China showed that growth was slight or flat during 2022 and youth unemployment at 20%. The policy was to shift people back from the cities to the rural areas and support the informal economy, a sense of nationalist sentiment, and preparing for a future where the supply chain for the US and the European Union had moved away from China. In the long run the policies now look as ones that benefitted neither the US, the European Union, India or China.  ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Business looks for taxes to be tackled first before tariffs. DJT policy sets it the other way in second term tariffs first, then taxes. Tariffs are about fentanyl flows and stopping illegal migrant drug trafficking, for investment in US manufacturing and fair trade, in the DJT second term. To get a sense of what discussion is taking place. Former VP Pence and officials in the DJT first term debate with Scott Bessent at Treasury on policy- Former VP Pence says trade has lifted America's standard of living, but it ignores the loss of manufacturing base America needs for supply chain security and for its national security, and for jobs that maintain the standard of living. Treasury's Scott Bessent said in a podcast- "VP Pence's  ‘let them eat flat screens economic policy’ isn’t what people want. They don’t want baubles from China.” "The American dream is more than the access to cheap goods."   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Any Asian conflict involving China would in a few months destroy Apple's value, CEO's would change quickly, and Apple policies change to shift entire production to India and the US in a rapid shift. Tim Cook would be seen as having gambled against America's interests, unresponsive and failing after repeated warnings.  Apple's goal of sourcing from India by 2027 a mere 26% of its iphones, means that a decade after USTR Lighthizer and DJT started the task of reshoring manufacturing to US and allies in 2016, the No. 1 outshoring company would still be making 75% of its dollar value iphones in China. A degree of overconcentration that would make no sense considering that Apple's 75% of manufacturing would be entirely at risk in 2027 after repeated warnings and inaction. The only option for Tim Cook in 2025 is to come up with new goals of shifting a minimum of 50-60% of its dollar value product manufacturing for iphones to India by 2027. . Tim Cook as Apple CEO has done little to prevent the overconcentration of manufacturing in China since 2016. About 10 years after DJT was elected to bring manufacturing back to India or close allies the simple idea of diversification was not implemented. Why? Having set up this system starting in 1998, a system that did not exist before that tiem when Steve Jobs hired Tim Cook with a winning formula to Make in China, a country just emerging from its Communist phase of failed state economy. By 2008 in 10 years the infrastructure was built in a backward largely agricultural economy that was rapidly modernizing under a market economy with state run capitalism under the Communist Party experiment. The Bush Obama 16 years were ones with America not responding to the challenge posed by this new system which could create huge surges in production capacity with focus on key technologies and flood markets. The next decade after 1998-2008 was one of rapid growth of this experiment which combined with design and engineering in the US generated few jobs in manufacturng in the US, but huge profits with huge margins fro a low cost base with a high image and technology innovation product. Lighthizer, Navarro, Jamieson had already sounded the alarm for American manufacturing and loss of jobs in 2016.  America's deindustrialization was becoming a bigger challenge by 2020 so that president Biden continued the policy of reindustrializing. In 2025 China 2025 Plan that was a warning in 2016 is already a reality with China flooding the world in solar panels, and ready to flood the markets overseas with electric cars. Apple may only get a reprieve, this exemption is not the same as the last one. National security is an issue, key technologies need to be protected. There is only one more opportunity to rebuild American manufacturing and keep promises.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Negative interest hurt the vulnerable the most- consider how much in interest would have to be deposited in retirement accounts savings of retirees to make up for lost interest over two decades. It could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It has added to the poverty in the Nation as interest income went gradually to negligible amounts. It also disincentivised savings,  and reduced the cost of capital so that hundreds of billions of dollars of retirees and other people's income was shifted into startups and dubious investments that did little to add to essential public services, education, healthcare, that would improve the quality of life for workers, families and children.It was in effect a misuse of economic policy to serve one section of the population at the expense of the large majority of the people in the Nation, and a shift of hundreds of billions of dollars over two decades from the vulnerable who needed it most to other uses. And aggravating the situation resulting from the failures in investing in manufacturing in the US that put whole communities at risk, neglecting the investment in infrastructure that helps ordinary people the vast majority in the nation the most. Only now are these investments being taken up by the Biden administration reallocating funds to infrastructure, manufacturing and clean energy, to retirees, and to communities across America. During this time of two lost decades for America, and into the future, the great nations of Asia, China and India, have advanced and are advancing with focused attention on the needs of all the people in their nations, and most importantly of all in advanced infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
"To Invest (at home), To Align (with allies), To Compete (with the world)" sums up the approach of president Biden with China. It also sums up the approach at home and overseas. Biden senior adviser, Jake Sullivan at Council of Foreign Relations sets out the framework and path for managing US-China relations into the future for many decades. Here at the Council of Foreign Relations he shows how- through careful study of the relationship's history, the changes in the relationship, and where it is today in 2024. Having participated in previous administrations Jake understood how it has evolved, where mistakes were made by both China and the US, where misperceptions took hold and need for clarification, for action. The old Strategic Dialogue followed by Paulsen under Bush 2000-2008 allowed the relationship to be guided by business interests, -without any clear strategy or idea where it was going except maximizing interests of business on both sides- was continued by Kerry under Obama 2008-2016. Sullivan, Blinken and Biden have built a Strategic Economic Cooperation Framework that has clear goals on the American side and goals on the Chinese side, and work between the two presidents and their cabinet ministers. Trump 2016-2020 rejected the earlier Strategic Dialogue but was not able to set up a sound framework that would guide future relations for decades. Sullivan helped set up a new framework around three principles- To Invest, To Align, and To Compete.   Here he describes how the plan to invest trillions in infrastructure in the US was part of this plan's principle To Invest. On Align it was to derisk not decouple by reducing the excessive concentration of supply chains in China, that was revealed as a problem in the pandemic years. Building up manufacturing at home and in India, Vietnam and Japan. Align also was to have allies Japan, South Korea and India to be aligned with the US policy. It also meant that all three countries would follow the same framework for their economies To Invest, To Align, To Compete.  By combining the strengths of the 2 largest economic centers Seoul/Tokyo with New Delhi/Sydney in Indo-Pacific the leveraging effect of US strength could be felt to support its position. And third to compete on level field so that America retained control of its technologies and implementing exports controls. And sharing this in  open communication with China that the US was protecting its technology and interests the way China has done in the past for its interests. The benefit of open communication even where there are differences had the advantage of not turning this into open rhetoric that damaged relations as had happened under previous administrations. Wang Yi on China's side having seen and approached it with careful study and reflection had similar goals to stabilize and put the relationship on a sound footing. Sullivan met extensively with Wang Yi in meetings in several locations around the world. Ministers Yellen, Raimondo, Blinken, Kerry, were sent to China for extensive discussions as part of this strategy in 2023 leading to remarkable change in the mood and confidence in US- China relations after tumult in 2016-2020 and uncertainty in previous administrations. Much credit goes to president Biden and Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, and also to Wang Yi and Jinping in no way diminishing their own initiative, so that for the first time in decades the US China relationship is now on a stable footing. Both countries faced common challenges around counter narcotics, around climate change, and other issues. These are being addressed. Competition is managed carefully and no rhetoric is taking place so that the largest two economies and about 1.7 billion in US and China and 2 billion people who are allies in India/Indonesia/Vietnam/ Korea/Japan living on the same planet earth can have economic and other cooperation  with different cultures, economic structures and systems of government. The result of such a framework also gives the basis for cooperation with America's allies to invest in Africa and Latin America and in the people of these two continents as another level of alignment and investment for a safer better world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Key takeaways from XI's speech to the 20th Party Congress of the CCP, China's Communist Party, are shown in the Guardian. Xi presented a vision of continuity. Goals that were seen as significant were self-reliance in science and technologies and building China's capacity for innovation by building up its capabilities in science education. This was stated as the main driver of future growth. It does not favor decoupling with the US even though the US sees it in its own interest and that of its working class to bring home manufacturing and rebuild supply chains for American self reliance - the pandemic showed the weakness of free markets approaches that ignored this. A promise to step up regulation on income distribution and wealth accumulation, to cut down the growing inequality gap that developed in the last two decades of hypergrowth.  To focus on the quality of economic growth after lessons learned on climate change. To double down on the zero covid policy. He lauded the "all out war on the virus." To continue the battle against "corruption on a scale unprecedented in our history." "Corruption is the biggest cancer that harms the vitality and affects the combat effectiveness of the party, and anti-corruption is the most thorough self-revolution. As long as there is the soil and conditions for corruption, the fight against corruption will not stop for one moment." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The French view of the DJT administration is that it is a rupture, an "historic rupture with immigration repression, aggressive trade policy, and undermining of federal and state institutions." This is far from the reality. In fact it is not a rupture, and far from that policy that DJT brought in the waning days of a tired cautious Obama administration that extended the war in Afghanistan long after it was clearly a failure from the Bush years. DJT called it common sense during his Inauguration speech waving his hands- so obvious, stay out of wars we have no purpose pursuing. Regain America's manufacturing base shipped out to China in the Clinton-Bush-Obama years 2000-2016 that helped the rise of China in phases of supply chain partner, competitor, adversary. French view Le Monde is that this is "aggressive trade policy," when in fact small towns across the US and France, and other industrialized EU nations, by losing their factory and industrial base to China have gone downhill losing jobs and standard of living. Tariffs and DJT policy was continued by Biden- there is no rupture. What French in Le Monde call "Immigration repression," is a policy of protecting border security including illegal drug and fentanyl flows and gang activity that was accepted by Biden and Biden-Republican Lankford legislation was agreed in 2024 to close the Border. There is no rupture from Biden on closing the Border.  With millions having crossed the Border illegally Republicans now have the support of Democratic Senators Gallego of Arizona and Fetterman of Pennsylvania in passing the Laken Riley Act in Congress to protect Americans and safeguard life in America.   ...