World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The drop in oil prices in 2014-2015 leads to a decline in the value of Nigeria's currency, the Naira, by over 10% in 2014. The Naira dropped to 186.9 to the dollar by Dec. 2, 2014. The foreign exchange reserves drop to $2 billion in Dec. 2014 from $20 billion in 2008. Investment in infrastructure and the electricity grid is badly needed. Imports of arms for the military add to budgetary strain as the government tackles the Boko Haram terrorist threat in the Kano region. The central bank puts out a revised budget based on an oil price of $73, as Brent crude dropped to $68. Like Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone dependent on iron ore exports, Angola and Mozambique on oil revenues, Zambia on copper, and South Africa on mining exports, much of Africa's economy is dependent on commodity exports. About 80% of Nigeria's government revenue is from oil exports, according to the IMF. And the entire budget for the nation with the largest population in Africa is only $30 billion.
WSJ Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mohammed bin Salman, 31 years old, is made the successor to his father King Salman. Prince Nayef, 57, the crown prince is removed from this position. Nayef was Interior Minister. After the current king assumed office in Jan. 2015, he promoted his son to the position of defence minister, overseeing the state oil company and overseeing economic affairs. He put together a plan Saudi Vision 2030, and the kingdom has taken a larger role in international affairs under his leadership as the U.S. under the Obama administration moved away from the Saudi policies in Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen. Under Salman the Saudi kingdom has moved to confront Iran in Syria and Yemen supporting opposite sides in the conflict, and with Saudi aircraft bombing targets in Yemen.  Recap- for more depth see groups and links and search. In international affairs the Saudis grew restive as the Obama administration failed to setup a no fly zone in Syria to protect its Sunni population. Following the chemical weapons attacks in Syria the lack of a U.S. response led to the Saudis turning down a Security Council seat.  Early confrontation occurred in Bahrain with a Shiite population and Sunni government. The Saudis then intervened to support Sissi in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood government as the liberals drifted away from the Brotherhood. With Iranian and Russian support for the Syrian government in Damascus against rebels, the Saudis began to use oil policy leading to an effort to let oil prices fall by loosening production limits, believing it would hurt their rivals even more. This hurt Iran, Russia and Saudis, each in a different way. Some of the roots of the Russian involvement in Syria are also related to this. Russia responded to the oil price drop by relying less on exports, and letting devaluations help the Russian economy become more self sufficient. Iran by working to get a deal with the Obama administration on nuclear development to get out of the sanctions regime that hurt Iran's economy. The Saudis cut some subsidies and Prince Salman led the effort for an initial public offering for Saudi state oil company Aramco. As time progressed the Arab Spring with protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and even before that in Iran for greater freedom, morphed into a sectarian struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. The roots of Islamic State are in the unrest in Mosul, Iraq's largest city, with the Shiite government of a pro-Shiite prime minister, leading to the fall of the city to the militants. He was replaced by the current prime minister Abadi to accomodate U.S. insistence on keeping out sectarian sentiment. This is why the problem is so intractable. Desire for freedom plays a role, but religion also plays a role, not only that but there are two versions of Islam in the region.  Remember Gandhi's admonition- "an eye for an eye that makes the whole world blind," as India struggled to set up a democracy in the South Asian region, after the British left.         ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Important year end reveiw of the oil price forecasting work of so many anlaysts and where they failed . The IEA and the US Enery Dpt forecast have year after year underestimated this pirce by over 20%. Analysts change the price forecasts within a couple of weeks based on changing information and assumptions. Of all this the Saudi Arabian forecasts have ben within 12 % of what has actually ocurred according to a study by Ronald Berger Strategy Consultants of Muich, Germany. And whats their forecast for 2008. By extrapolating from the Saudi budget and the assumptions, used such as giving a wide margin to avoid a deficit in the budget if oil prices undershot by a wide margin, one gets $75 for US benchmark crude. Forecast by experts are in the neighborhood of $80 average for the whole year 2008. Goldman recently revised theirs upwards from $85 average for 2008 to $95 within a 4 week period. How good is the Goldman forecast. No one really knows. Lehman has a forecast of $84 average for 2008 and bases it on the opacity of the market because no one knows what OPEC will do with supply and China does not provide good information on demand. So basically anlysts are adding an uncertainty premium to the price of oil. And this is especially so because as the Chief Economist at IEA says global space capacity is so thin and any event can influence price. Last year the rhetoric about Irans nuclear intentions was enough to stir up the price, as were other smaller events disrupting supplies. But the Iranian situation has since cooled down and diplomatic solutions are in the works. So what to expect in 2008 in the way of political uncertainty. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon have all seen a cool off in the ast couple of years and the Bush administration rhetoric has become outmoded as has other rhetoric from Iran so that does'nt look like it will stir up oil prices in 2008. Still there will be some uncertainty premium about supply from OPEC and demand from China and India. And demand from the Middle Eastern oil producing countries themselves as well as the increasing demand in India and China will mean that lower demand in the US because of a recession will still mean an increase in global demand over 2007 of 1.5 million barrrels a day over 2007's 85 million barrels a day. What will change the dynamics of this situation is the government mandated fuel economy for all vehicles on the road with Europe more aggressive in this area under the pressures of global warming. If this impacts India, China and Russia as these fuel saving technologies are transferrred there overall consumption should see an impact. Europe's targets are only 4 years away for 2012. And the environment may cause China to bring in newer technologies that both contribute to improving environment and conserving energy. Because China's environmental record is almost catastrophic one could see some of this happen much sooner than expected after the Olympics in 2008. All that might change the way the world looks at oil and its use, and all energy sources and their use. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Oil prices in the U.S. drop to $55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and $65 a barrel for Brent crude price. Earlier expectation of the impact of reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil shrinking global oil supplies have been reversed with increased production from Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S.

Another new development that caused this reversal in sentiment is that the Trump administration granted waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude oil. The U.S. trade dispute with China has also added to this with lower growth forecasts. Unlike in previous years OPEC or Saudi Arabia cannot by itself shrink global supplies with production cuts. The U.S. and Russian output also plays a significant part.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The International Energy Agency sees a shortfall of 12.5 million barrels a day when it compares the needed 37.5 million barrels a day by 2015 with the planned supply increases showing 25 million barrels a day. A lot depends on the assumptions and what the 37.5 million barrels a day is based on. Does it account for a slowdown in the world economy and a drive for fuel efficiency and conservation habits by 2015? How much of this is reflected in the numbers? And on the planned increases of 25 million barrels a day- does it account for increases that may be planned in 2009 and 2010 in response to prices above $150 a barrrel which is expected? The IEA has a team of 25 analysts working on the forecasts but it gets no cooperation from Saudi Arabia about its individual fields production, and Venezuela, Iran and China also keep their information a secret. This makes supply forecasting a difficult business. IEA uses IHS Inc a data provider, USA Geologic Survey, oil and service companies information and national petroleum councilds information....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Denning says that because of the enormous repercusions on Iran's economy of a war in the Persian Gulf, a more likely scenario is not the cutoff of supplies of Iranian oil altogether but a smaller list of buyers for Iranian oil, making Iran sell the oil at a discount. Saudi Arabia's and Libya's added production would bring more oil to the market. The impact will be larger on Europe because of the decline in the value of the euro, with Brent crude on a 12 month average basis costing 14% more now than in the peak price in 2008. By comparison in dollar terms the comparable figure is 4% higher for the U.S. At a price of Brent crude of $120 in 2012, according to Citigroup, energy costs would take up 9% of world GDP, putting pressure on a economic recovery in Europe and the U.S.
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...
The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration proposes a zero policy for Iranian oil imports which says the U.S. will grant zero exemptions to countries importing Iranian oil.  Big importers China and India are likely to resist this policy.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Iraq is Iran's most promising market for gas exports. Iraq needs the gas for its power stations now that Islamic State has been decisively cleared from Iraq. Yet Iraq is having difficulty making payments to Iran for gas supplies because banks are not ready to handle the payments with the reimposed tighter U.S. sanctions and restrictions. The deputy head of media at the Electricity ministry in Iraq, Sadoun Shehan, told WSJ that transfer of money by Iraqi banks is prevented because of U.S. sanctions. U.S. sanctions were reimposed by the Trump administration after they were lifted in January 2016. The new sanctions prohibit gas exports from Iran. Iran had hoped to make the sales and also export to the European Union when sanctions were lifted. Iranian exports of gas that started in 2017 were itself delayed for 4 years by the war from Islamic State.  Iran has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the world. The Trump administration's sanctions have led to a drop of Iranian crude shipments by 29% in 3 months and added to upward pressure on oil prices to take prices to $80 a barrel. This issue has implications for India and China, particularly India as it faces both higher prices for oil and the tight restrictions in purchase of Iranian oil. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Pilbara iron ore region in western Australia in red desert 675 miles north of Perth, is where China gets a lot of its iron ore, mainly from mines run by BHP, Rio Tinto and Fortescue. With the Chinese economy slowing Australia's growth rate dependent on commodities exports like iron ore is declining. Australia's central bank has lowered growth forecasts to 1.5% for 2008-2009, and this is considered optimistic by economists. With prices of iron ore jumping Australia's terms of trade had improved by a leap but now it looks like the terms of trade have peaked. The budget surplus of A$22 will be cut by two thirds by this and also from the A$10.4 stimulus package announced by prime minister Kevin Rudd.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Are there costs or are there savings from the Obama health care bill? Does it affect jobs and how? The Congressional Budget Office says the health care law will save $230 billion in ten years based on a whole set of calculations and assumptions. Commonsense and basic math leads others to question how spending $930 billion on insuring 32 million Americans could end up with significant savings. The different view argues that the Budget Office erred in making some calculations, by counting $70 billion in premiums from long term care because they would be used to pay benefits later, omitted $115 billion in spending to adminster the law, and omitted $208 billion needed to prevent scheduled reductions in Medicare payments to doctors. The money needed on the Stimulus, on two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the uncertain prospects of the US economy in the longer term till debt and other issues are resolved, injects the critical element of difficult choices and priorities. If state and local budgets are severely strained in 2011-2012 would that require federal help and will there be other needs that will have to be met by the federal government that are critical such as another unexpected downturn, or a resolution of unresolved bad debt at the large US banks There is also a sense that the health care law does not do enough to reduce the cost of health care that will be needed over the next decade so that other priorities are not neglected. Both parties are not up to the task in this respect for running the country's finances withot using the numbers to tell different stories....
WSJ Original article ›
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Brazilian economy is growing too fast, and this pace not only won't be sustained, but it has signs of serious trouble ahead. The Brazilian economy grew at an estimated annualized pace of 10% in the last 6 months and generated 962,000 jobs between Jan-April of 2010. Growth in 2010 is expected to be 7%. The jump in growth is partly the result of the stimulus measures of the Lula government. But a consensus of experts is that Brazil still saves too little, has not invested enough in infrastructure,and its economy has the potential of 5% sustainable growth each year. The central bank has increased interest rates - increase of 0.75% in April 2010, and economists in Brazil think the rate will go up to 13% in 2011. About $10 billion in cuts in spending have been announced but they are cuts to an already growing budget approved by Congress, so in reality it will only slow the increase in spending. Public debt is at 42.7% of GDP. Real interest rates have fallen from close to 20% in 2003 to between 5-10%. Costs per unit of labor are increasing at about half the rate of real wages according to a finance official. The National Development Bank or BNDES played a role in helping the economy with subsidized loans when the financial markets ran into trouble. It has expanded lending by 50%, with money from the Treasury of 180 billion reais. Some of the measures of the Lula government has reduced the skewed income distribution Brazil, and in doing so has increased consumer demand. Meeting high consumer demand, and meeting the need for commodities like soyabeans and metals from China, has boosted growth in Brazil to twice the sustainable rate and it is now at a par with China and India. But this places Brazil too dependent on the boom in Chinese demand, especially as the stimulus in China slows and the property bubble threatens China's economy. See links to China. A new President after the upcoming Presidential election will have to tackle the high interest rates in 2011, lower commodity prices, and the need for better infrastructure, and make the adjustment to a sustainable pace of growth....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Saudi Arabia continued to follow a policy of high oil production in 2016, and reported that it produced 10.67 million barrels a day in July 2016. Iran is producing at a pre-sanction level of 4 million barrels a day. 2017 oil demand prediction by OPEC is at growth of 1.15 million barrels a day. Experts says that the interests of Iran and the Saudis may be converging to reduce production as they face low oil prices. Iran needs to make large investments and Saudis face budget cuts with low oil prices. They point to this cooperation being temporary as there are issues of competing politics in the region, and beyond that both countries seek to expand their market share.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Saudi Arabia needs current oil price of $60 a barrel to move up to $80 a barrel to balance its national budget. To do this OPEC needs to coordinate its oil production cuts with a group of 10 countries led by Russia that includes Mexico. These countries include countries in the former Soviet Union.  In December cuts of 1.2 million barrels a day were coordinated between the 2 groups to push up oil prices. Now the OPEC cartel plans regular meetings with the Russian led group to push up oil prices. Under a draft document an alliance between the 2 groups would last 3 years and include regular meetings. Earlier Prince Salman led Saudi government proposed replacing OPEC with a new group combining Russia and Saudi Arabia and the other countries in OPEC, yet giving most of the decision making power to Russia and Saudis. This was rejected by Russia and was received poorly by Iraq, Iran  Nigeria, Angola, Algeria. The Iraqis reminded Saudis that OPEC was started in Baghdad. ...
DW.COM Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, provides insights into the economc problems facing Brazil in 2016. He points out that 41% of Brazil's GDP goes into public spending by local, regional and national government, crowding out private investment. The tax burden is high at 35% of GDP. And under the Rousseff administration budget discipline has been lacking. Compared to the Lula government running consistent surplus Ms. Rousseff ran a deficit of 10% of GDP. With a large welfare state, the budget has rigidities, says Sharma, with public pensions increasing since 2000 from 3% to 7% of GDP, and heavy state spending tending to push interest rates up and increase borrowing costs. Retirement age is 54 and 52 for men and women respectively, and pensioners get 90% of salary, compared to 60% in advanced countries. The decline in commodity prices has hit Brazil hard because 67% of exports are from commodities such as soyabeans in 2016 compared to 46% in 2000. Manufacturing accounts for only 11% of the economy. As long as high commodity prices supported the lavish welfare and public spending Rousseff's popularity remained high at 60% as recently as 2013. The collapse of commodity prices has hurt the economy leading to growth of negative 3.5% in GDP. Rousseff's popularity hit a low of 11% as public protests over poor public services, were followed by a series of corruption scandals. Even if impeachment led to new leadership the problems are deep rooted, with neglect of education, healthcare, public services, and manufacturing industries, and heavy public spending no longer supported by high commodity prices. Some of the problems existed in the boom years of the Lula administration, only covered up by the commodities boom cycle, and becoming evident in the down cycle of the Rousseff years. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration started the first term in office with efforts at reaching agreement on reducing nuclear arsenals. By the second term of the Obama administration the talks were already faltering. The war in Syria and Iraq and other conflicts in the Ukraine led to worsening relations with Russia. During the first year of the Trump administration that followed the two Obama terms in office the situation is completely reversed from what it was in 2008, showing that more than good intentions are needed to pave the way for reducing nuclear weapons. The expansion of NATO to Russian borders, the conflict in the Ukraine, the sanctions that hurt the Russian economy in Obama's second term did more to destabilize relations. The Trump administration's ambivalence towards Russia is not seen in the way the U.S. is responding to Russia'a policy actions to expand its nuclear weapons capabilities.


Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us