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
U.S. president Obama is critical of the role played by the media in the 2016 election campaign in a keynote speech at a journalism dinner for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting. Obama said lately " I spend a lot of time reflecting on how this system- how this crazy system of self-government works. How we can make it work. And this is as important to making it work as anything. People getting information they can trust and that has substance and truth and facts behind it." He added that "what we are seeing right now does corrode our democracy and our society. When our elected officials and political campaigns become entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis, when it doesn't matter what is true or not, that makes it impossible for us to make decisions on behalf of future generations." On the way Donald Trump's campaign has lowered the level of public debate Obama had this to say- referring indirectly to the NYT report of over $1.9 billion of free television coverage given to Donald Trump by the media- the country, "would be better servedif billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when the politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they can't keep.. and there are reporters here who know they can't keep them." The wall between the U.S. and Mexico to be built with Mexico's financing, the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, the 45% tariff on imports from China, reducing support for NATO, are some of the campaign themes used to appeal to disaffected voters by Mr. Trump in the election, which are some of the puzzling ways in which the election campaign for 2016 has evolved- without proper media scrutiny, and what some critics say panders to ratings at a time of shrinking television staffs and budgets. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, views China's response in trade negotiations as one of conducting extended negotiations that lead to little change. This has continued says Lighthizer for over a decade putting the U.S. at a serious disadvantage in trade. At a White House meeting in August 2017 Lighthizer convinced president Trump that China was in his words "tap, tap, tapping us along."  This confirmed president Trump's own instincts about the U.S. trading relationship with China. Lighthizer is a veteran of trade negotiations, having experience in the Reagan administration as the Deputy Trade Representative in 1983 in negotiations with Japan, when Japan was in a similar situation that China is today. At the time trade negotiations with Japan were getting nowhere. Lighthizer is said to have turned one Japanese response in negotiations into a paper plane and sent it flying right back. Lighthizer does not seek the limelight but is serious about his role having published op-eds in the NYT and WSJ since 2000 about how U.S. trading relationships were putting the U.S. and U.S. workers at an unfair advantage. Many of these op-eds are in the Lyrarc archive and a Search with the term "Lighthizer" would bring up these articles. This report in NYT shows how the role of Lighthizer was not anticipated by China when it sent Liu He to Washington in November 2017 to negotiate with the U.S. President Trump made certain Liu He and other Chinese leaders would have to talk to Lighthizer first. In a session with president Jinping laid out U.S. views that the past negotiations had accomplished little and new negotiations had to be undertaken very differently from negotiations in the past. Earlier in July trade negotiations conducted by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were "shut down" by president Trump because China continued to repackage earleir offers which meant little to the U.S. As a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher LLP Lighhizer represented steel industry clients hurt by subsidized Chinese steel industry imports. Mr. Trump and Lighhizer have bonded well because their instincts have been the same- that the U.S. had not been well represented in earlier negotiations by lawyers who saw themselves as speaking for American exporters.  Lighthizer is also a seasoned trade negotiator and has waited for the right time and situation to tackle the unbalanced trading relationship with China. For 30 years Lighhizer represented American manufacturers as he practiced trade law at the Skadden law firm. His strategy has been to get the administration to unite behind a clear trade strategy. He says "I try to be friendly in trade negotiations. I am not the theatrical type. The art of persuasion is about knowing where the leverage is." At this time the leverage lies in the huge trade surplus of about $300 billion China has with the U.S. The U.S. goal is to bring this down by $100 billion through this new negotiating strategy as earlier negotiations have failed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Pusing aggressive bank lending with a steep rise in bank lending of 34% in 2009 can lead to an asset price bubble in China. Factors the Economist cites mitigating this are the follwing: only about 25% of middle class Chinese have mortgages and loan to value is less than 50%. Also Chinese regulators are more alert to the dangers than were American regulators. At the same time the pegging of theyuan to the dollar means the instrument of raising rates to cool the bubble is not existent. And the US is likely to keep rates low for alonger period which may be adverse for China and prop up a bubble there. These dangers mean China had better take firm action in letting the yuan rise now rather than later because heavy inflows from currrency appreciation can only make the bubble worse later on. This will need to be watched carefully as so much of the global economy is dependent on China maintaining growth, Germany in particular. And with the US consumer cutting back China has to manage this carefully....

LyrArc Article Gist
James Grant, the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, tells us what he thinks of the Fed printing up so much money and adding atrillion dollars to its assets since Labor Day. He reminds us what Elihu Root, Republican from New York warned about the dangers of letting the central bank create money at such apace that things can go wrong. Should the central bank take on the role it has of allowing things to go lax with low interest rates at one time as Greenspan did, and the pumping out so much money under Bernanke in this crisis. Grant sees some advantages in the gold standard in that so much credit could not be easily constructed under a strict conversion to gold.

LyrArc Article Gist
Quantitiative easing, the Fed and the Bank of England creating money to buy government bonds, is creating the liquidity the surplus dollars and pounds that are lowering the two currencies value. But as the Economist notes there is no easy exit strategies for the two central banks, as abandoning QE would lead to asharp rise in bond yields, continuing it would maintain dollar weakness. WIth the dollar's uncertain situation, the growing deficit, and low interest rates allowing QE to continue, the Economist sees an eventual breakdown of current currency arrangements, and the emergence of anew currency system similiar to Bretton Woods.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sweden stands as a success story with growth of 5.5% in 2010, and Citigroup estimates expected growth of 5% in 2011. Sweden has significant export growth to the rest of Europe and emerging markets. The Swedish currency has appreciated significantly to 8.76 krona to the euro and 6.52 against the US dollar. Compared to China Sweden has not limited the appreciation in the currency, as the prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt believes that currencies should be "market valued." The central bank raised the interest rates three times in 2010 to 1.25 %, pushing the krona up by 14% against the euro. Sweden aims to double exports to $310 billion by 2015, according to Trade Minister Ewa Bjoerling. International sales of Swedish companies drive the growth in exports. Truck maker Volvo AB's Asia sales were up 50% in the first 9 months, and Electrolux AB's sales went up by 11% in the fourth quarter.

LyrArc Article Gist
It is not a story that most people grasp or understand- the long term effects of the US immigration surge of 2023 and its source mostly from Venezuela. The  US Congressional Budget Office says labor force in 2033 ten years from now will be larger by 5.2 million people and younger as a result of the immigration surge in 2023 from about 1 million immigrants each year in the 2010's to 3.3 million. About 2.5 million crossed the southwestern border in 2023. Much of it the result of the collapse of the Venezuelan economy and its middle and upper classes leaving the country. This was worsened by the US sanctions on the Maduro government including under president Trump, say experts in an adjoining NYT article on the 7 million people who left Venezuela to go to Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile since 2012, then making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Something that could have happened under a Republican president if the US Congress could not reach bipartisan agreement on correcting asylum and parole policy. As a result of this surge US Gross Domestic Product  in 2033 will be 3% larger. When the large Asian economies are seeing a aging workforce, Japan for the last decade and China now following Japan, the US labor force will be younger than it would be without this unusual surge in immigration of the last 2 years. The federal deficit will be smaller at 6.4% instead of 7.3% in 2033 as immigrants will pay taxes on income. Another aspect of this larger infusion of immigrants is that after the pandemic shut down immigration entirely there were severe shortages in the hospitality and restaurant, construction, healthcare industries. And with the trillions of dollars in investment that the Biden administration is making with more factories - this will absorb most of the immigrant surge by 2033. With some positive effects in the competition with rising Asian economies China and India. Particularly consider with the younger demographic India of 1.4 billion people. It will mean more factories can be built in the US and there will be workers for these factories in the US at wages that keep the US economy competitive years from now in 2033. This is a sobering aspect of the current situation viewed from what will be seen by America's younger generation. And under the bipartisan compromise in Congress correcting asylum and parole policy that was shut down by the former president, Republican senators understood very well that the immigration surge of 2023 would have some constructive effects for the long term, while its effects on the short term would be mitigated by Biden's commitment to close the border in 2024. This did not happen, yet the future for America's younger generation is bright under the Biden plan for massive investment in manufacturing and jobs in the US, and with the millions of immigrants needed to fill the jobs that investment will create by 2033. It will make America with a younger work force than Europe or China, only India having a younger workforce in 2033. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Wall Street Journal editorial comes out in favor of higher capital reserve requirements similiar to that suggested by Federal Reserve Board governor Daniel Tarullo. The Journal says that if regulators are serious in the U.S. about controlling systemic risk, then the 14% rule or a 15% rule for assets held in reserve by banks should be adopted. Daniel Tarullo had suggested a 14% capital reserve requirement. These requirements would be phased in gradually over several years. Basel III requirements require only a 7% requirement and is phased in over many years. Capital standards are likely to be gamed. For this reason the requirement for only Tier 1 capital to be eligible is essential. What about the Basel III standards and the European banks? Would this put them in a better position to earn higher returns. This should be a problem left for European taxpayers to tackle says the Journal. As long as U.S. taxpayers are supporting U.S. banks with an implicit subsidy to take on larger amounts of risk -because they will be saved in a crisis with taxpayer dollars- the Journal says it makes sense to require 10-14% in capital reserves. It cites the Japanese banks which were highly overleveraged with lower capital reserves compared to American banks, and fared poorly. The Dodd-Frank bill imposes a complicated set of regulatory requirements with regulators required to write new sets of rules. The editorial concludes that it is far better to tackle the problems in the banking system with a sufficiently high requirement for capital reserves to manage risks than to have the detailed rule making on every subject that Dodd-Frank suggests....

LyrArc Article Gist
India's 267 million farmers 44% of the workforce that make it difficult to reduce 39% tariff on imported dairy and grain. Older Americans have lost the memories of famines in India including one in Bihar in the 1960's, not to mention the Bengal famine during the British rule in 1944 in which Britannica says 3 million people lost their lives. By 1965 India depended on US grain. Dhume reminds readers that in as recent as 1966 9 million tons, a quarter of US wheat crop, was sent to India to prevent famine. China had a similar situation of famine and starvation in the 20th century. This is why India and China have focused effort on achieving self sufficiency in food, and  agricultural productivity is one of the great achievements of the 20th century ranking with electricity and other inventions. When it comes to other upscale agricultural products such as walnuts, blueberrries, and almonds, and other, India's middle class would benefit from nutritional benefits of US agriculture in these fields at low or no tariffs. This suggests there is room for opening some sectors other than dairy and grain that are staple to the Indian diet of the vast population. US 50% tariff is motivated by India going from 2% Russian oil imports in 2019, to shifting importing from Saudis and UAE to Russia so that Russia now makes up a third of it's oil imports by 2024. In May it reached 4 million barrels a day dropping to 2 million barrels a day by July 2024.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tech boom bust since 2000 that has hurt America and Europe and which also laid the foundations for the loss of manufacturing and technology to China, ceding American leadership and critical advantage, is shown here in the WSJ. The role of the finance sector  is explained here. That has added one more factor to the factor of endless wars in the Middle East, where American and European investment in healthcare, education and new infrastructure was somehow diverted away, and much of America's and Europe's resources wasted- or not turned to the benefit of the people of America or Europe.  One financial firm that rode the tech boom to the hilt finds itself with unacceptable losses except in a severe recession. Tiger Global Management was using tens of billions of dollars from pensions, endowments and rich clients riding on some of Silicon Valley's hottest stocks.  With the plunge in tech stock values including startups in which Tiger pushed into aggressively now facing large losses after hyper valuations, Tiger's hedge fund which managed $23 billion at the end of 2021 was down 52% in 2022. Another of its funds that managed $11 billion has lost 62%. WSJ says this wiped out two thirds of the gains Tiger has made in the tech stocks since its founding. In addition large writedowns are expected on its venture funds valued at $64 billion at the end of 2021, says WSJ.  WSJ says cheap money (money somehow diverted from infrastructure and funding manufacturing in China instead of the US now goes by the misnomer cheap money) reshaped Silicon Valley in the last decade, as pension funds, rich investors and celebrities turned to well connected money managers such as Tiger to put money in tech stocks and startups. This WSJ report says compared to Sequoia Capital and an earlier generation of venture companies Tiger Global is simply not interested in management of companies it invests in, taking a broad brush approach, using Bain Capital for research, and trying to haul in a large load of fish like trawlers at sea hoping for some companies to make big gains. Many pension funds such as Calpers California's public pension fund invest in Tiger with a $400 million investment. WSJ also reports that Tiger Global's venture funds do not reflect the realities of the tech business as venture stocks will reflect the drop over 2022 and 2023, including its ByteDance Chinese tech investment which will need larger writedowns. Tiger has also not hesitated to get into cryptocurrency which has loss of about $1.5 trillion dollars. It is of interest to note that Julian Robertson, hedge fund manager of the 2000 period (when Clinton-Bush were US presidents) who ran Tiger Management provided the impetus for Mr. Coleman, then 25 years old, for the start of Tiger Global. Julian Robertson closed his fund in 2000 during the dot com bust. Coleman hired a Blackstone analyst and started on the next cycle of tech with social media platform Facebook now Meta, followed by China's JD.com as investments in a new China boom were started. The end result is that during a period of Middle East wars under Bush and Obama, and building dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies under Schroeder and Merkel, China was the gainer as the US and EU lost much of its manufacturing and technology to China. During this period US and Europe neglected investment in infrastructure that would benefit the people of America in ease of living and quality of life. Just as money was wasted in wars much of the tech investment was wasted. The companies that added value over time were started long before and relied on sales growth and new products that revolutionized their field such as Apple with smartphones that started well before the nineteen eighties, Amazon with logistics and its own style of management, Microsoft from an even earlier era. Tech monopolies Facebook, Google, and others would not be missed much in terms of real progress for the people of America. The cost is many decades of ceding manufacturing and technology advantage to China by US and the EU led by Germany. China 2030 and the war in Ukraine with China's support have shown how fragile the foundations have been with weak political leadership and a finance sector running backwards in terms of America's and Europe's strengths in new infrastructure, better healthcare, services and education for the people of America and Europe. Leaving it to the Biden administration and a new coalition of Greens and Scholz in Germany to begin the task of rebuilding America and Europe on strong foundations, including the dignity of the workers and families, that makes who we are and what we believe in, and why the free world believes in us. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian economy gets an exceptional boost with the behaviour of ruble currency separating from the oil prices. Russia benefits from higher oil prices at the same time as it benefits from a weaker ruble. The ruble has declined 15% since April after more sanctions on Russia. The revenue earned in dollars converts into more rubles for imports and other financing for the Russian economy. At the end of 2017 a barrel of oil brought in 3,835 rubles for Russian sellers, when converted into rubles from U.S. dollars. In October 2018 each barrel brings in 5,262 rubles, an increase of 40%.  Russia deftly managed its emerging market crisis with lower ruble following the crisis in Ukraine by adapting its economy to a lower ruble, lowering imports and using import substitution. Initially Russia split with OPEC and Saudis to produce oil all out, but by 2018 with the Saudi economy hurting and Russia feeling the impact of lower oil prices, an OPEC agreement with Russia has pushed prices higher with production limits. Earlier adaptation by 2016 to the lower ruble, further decline of the ruble in 2018 with sanctions by U.S. for Russian interventions in other countries including the U.S. election meddling, have combined with higher oil prices to strengthen the Russian economy. Russian private and government debt held by foreign investors has fallen since 2016 to 32% in the first quarter, according to Societe Generale. This means Russia is less sensitive to foreign investor exit from the country with political and economic winds changing. Russia's current account surplus increased to $18.3 billion in the first quarter of 2018, up from $14.6 billion in the prior quarter. A weaker ruble has translated into more inflation which reached 5.5% at the end of 2017, above 4% target. Russia's central bank made quarter point increase to 7.5% for the interest rate in September 2017. Overall the management of the emerging market crisis since 2016 as Russia responded to NATO expansion and adopted its own policy is remarkable considering the damage from earlier emerging market crises. Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and even India are feeling the impact of the current emerging market crisis, each with its own version of the crisis- Argentina with dollar denominated debt, Brazil lacking money in the budget after high pensions, and India with higher energy costs and weaker rupee.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This discussion in WSJ brings up an important topic- how can America get the most out of its infrastructure dollars, make the $1 trillion infrastructure go a long way towards fixing the nation's dilapidated and crumbling roads, highways, bridges, and other infrastructure? The three experts point out that there is lack of coordination between different government agencies, between agencies and the private sector engineering firms. They are all working in silos with little connection to delivery times and delivery quality of end product. There is a lack of transparency at all levels of infrastructure work and spending, so that the end delivery and problems are not seen in relation to final delivery of end product, visible to all on one site. There is a third problem say the three experts in the lack of investment in professional development and training and technology for the people in the government agencies.  The result is that the US with its higher costs for construction work and the delays for getting approval, and the bureaucratic hurdles, ends up with getting much less for the buck than other countries. Even a newcomer to infrastructure development if it gets it right can be ahead of the US. India is looking at the pitfalls of infrastructure development and eliminating hurdles. With its Gati Shakti Master plan given the personal support of the prime minister India is correcting precisely these three missteps that are cited in the WSJ for the US infrastructure buildup. Under Gati Shakti all government agencies at city, state and federal levels fall under one umbrella to work in coordination. The focus is always on end product and delivery of end product. The siloing of projects is considered a serious pitfall and avoided at all costs. Transparency is considered essential and so is visibility in that at any time one can turn on a site and see where a project stands in its delivery date of end product. If there are problems they are put on the site so that all participants can see it to come up with solutions. By doing this a country with fewer resources can make them go a long way to come up with the kind of infrastructure that is seen in rich countries with more waste built into the process.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bill Gates resigned his seat on Microsoft Board on March 13, 2020. This report in the WSJ looks at the situation at Microsoft in late 2019 when members of the Microsoft Board hired a law firm to conduct an investigation in late 2019 after a Microsoft female engineer's letter. This was a company that Gates founded and which expanded through acquisitions of other smaller companies.  The same day he resigned his seat on Berkshire's Board led by Warren Buffett. Mr. Gates started Microsoft in 1975, was CEO till 2000, and chairman till 2014. He then turned to work with his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.   Microsoft has market value of $1.8 trillion, Apple a value of $2.1 trillion.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has assets of $37 billion income of $53 billion, and the personal assets of Bill and Melinda Gates have an estimated value of $130 billion. One of the mistaken assumptions is that any one foundation such as the Bill Gates foundation has the resources, knowledge, technologies, expertise and leadership to tackle problems that confront large countries such as the US, India, or a bloc such as European Union. Imagine some billionaire taking on the role of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt in tackling the Depression or a billionaire tackling the problem India faces today in public health. It is only governments of the US, India and large nations such as the UK that can pull together the resources needed and the cooperation needed between its industrial base companies to achieve goals for public health. This type of effort can pull together resources of trillions of dollars that no one company or billionaire or group of billionaires can put together, and pull together massive resources of engineers, scientists, and other people across hundreds of companies that cannot even be measured. This is one of the lessons of this pandemic because the WHO was left with the job of handling the pandemic and governments of US, France, UK, Germany, India, Russia and leading nations had retreated from their essential role as guardians of the public interest in people's health and left much of the task to others. As they reassume this role this needs to be given a firm and solid footing and lessons learned. ...

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
Current responses to China's different posture in international relations obscure the huge investments made by US and European Union business in China that lead to about $1 trillion in exports from China to US and EU in 2021. This could not happen without the hyper investment in China by business in the US and EU that not only neglected manufacturing technologies in the home country but did this on a immense scale that would end up shipping almost the whole of the manufacturing supply chains to China from the US and EU. Done as a carefully planned shift of some manufacturing operations it could have benefitted both China and the US and EU. In what way was this hyper move in pace and scale damaging? China's water, air and land was contaminated at a rapid pace never before seen in history, seen as early as 2005. And the hyper shift by 2015 and in 2020 is now showing the severe effects of climate change with droughts, floods and fires all over the world. The German Environment Ministry today counts the cost at 90 times in the use of coal and fossil fuels over time. On the scale that this massive and fast shift was done of manufacturing to China even more so- a hugely imprudent response of US and EU business management and executives. Instead of tackling and confronting head on the challenging problems of quality control and cost in the 1990's through 2000 and beyond at home, management at Apple and other companies simply shifted all manufacturing to China. The other ill effect of the imprudent response of American business was in the massive and wholesale shift of supply chain to China by offshoring practically the entire manufacturing base. It was to lead to the massive losses that workers, families  and communities in the US and EU that countries could not cope with as it moved on an accelerated hyper level and pace. The result was to lead to intense criticism of China and a level of rancor that has poisoned the relations with China. Some of this counsel to China was given to leaders of the Communist party who had little knowledge of American capitalism operating within constraints of social democracy in 1990. Some of that counsel was self interested given by investment banks to Chinese officials- investment bankers that have now disappeared from view- who themselves lacked an understanding of the social constraints of American and European democracies. It is that rancor that is now leading to China and the US disconnecting the supply chains leading to questions one is certain within China about how this will affect unemployment in China in the years to come. The pandemic simply accelerated this realization on both sides of this untenable situation. Still a trillion dollars in exports are taking place even as the political situation is now totally adrift -as the situation in Taiwan in August 2022 shows- the political and trading relationships at opposite ends and seemingly at war with each other. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial describes the errors of the Obama administration in its policies for Syria and Iraq. The failure to maintain a troop presence in Iraq, a premature withdrawal which has led to the fall of Mosul to Islamic extremist ISIS. WSJ describes the significant improvement in Iraq at the time the Obama administration assumed office, and the deterioration since with withdrawal and increasing sectarianism. Obama administration policies and failure to actively support moderates of the Free Syrian Army in Syria have led to the return to extremism and terrorist control of large parts of Syria and Iraq. It has also led to worsening of relations with allies Saudis and Turkey who called for a more active U.S. support of moderates in Syria. In the process what was supposed to be an Arab Spring has turned into a return of extremism and dampening of the hopes of the people in the Middle East for economic progress. After a trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan and Iraq and large sacrifices by the military letting the situation unravel in this manner is incomprehensible....

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Profits at international oil companies are lower for a number of reasons. At Exxon the refining margins dropped 27% in 2007 compared to 2006. Cost for drilling, oil rigs and oil personnel are up sharply, and the production sharing agreements for Exxon in West Africa mean that the higher the oil price the less oil Exxon gets. The govenments of oil producing countries are taking a larger share of dollar coming from oil in their countries, and Exxon recently pulled out of Venezuela- the production at Exxon actually declined by 2% and at BP and Royal Dutch Shell by 4%. This decline will continue as the reserve replacement ratios of these oil companies are in a big decline as oil prices go higher. Most of the countries producing oil are renegotaiting their contracts at the first opportunity. Nigeria is about to do this, and even Alberta and the US government are doing this.

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lawrence Summers, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, writes on August 2, the day the debt ceiling deal passed the U.S. Congress. His reaction to the deal is one of relief, cynicism and economic anxiety. Relief that the deal does no immediate damage to the economy, which he says is no small achievement. This comes from not denting the U.S. safety net of Medicaid, Social Security and other social programs in the midst of high unemployment. And raising the debt ceiling through 2012 avoids a repeat of the kind of tense negotiations that took place recently. Cynicism because with the revised information from the Commerce Department of 0.4% growth in the first quarter and 1.4% growth in the second quarter of 2011, the new forecast of U.S. budget deficits would be much higher in the years further out. A mere loss of one half percentage point in the annual rate of growth could add $1 trillion dollars to the national debt in 2021. Summers points out that Congress votes annually on discretionary spending and a current Congress cannot control what a future Congress does. Caps and sequester deals can be reformulated in 2013 by a new Congress. This deal says Summers has only confirmed the lower levels of spending already negotiated for 2011 and 2012, even though the estimates show $1 trillion in deficit reduction. For the remaining $1.2 trillion in reductions to be negotiated by the "super-committee" there is no baseline for these cuts- it is not stated whether this baseline is with the Bush high income tax cuts included or excluded. His economic anxiety comes from the low rate of growth in the first half of 2011 which suggest an economy at close to a standstill. He sees a one in three chance of a U.S. recession in the absence of any efforts to spur growth. Martin Feldstein was quoted on television business channels on August 2, saying he sees a 50% chance of the economy slipping back into a recession. Steps Summers advocates are a non-extension of the Bush high-income tax cuts which would add $1 trillion to deficit reduction, some entitlement reform, extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of unemployment insurance, and infrastructure maintenance....

LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein believes the dollar's decline will strengthen US competitiveness and because the economy is likely to stay weak its a good time to gain in exports. Ronald McKinnon at Stanford University warns of higher inflation with the dollar devaluing further. The G7 finance officials want to see a gradual adjustment for the dollar. Feldstein's view tempered by the need for gradual adjustment with allowance for the need to keep in mind the Europeans concern of a weakening dollar vs. the Euro, seems to be the view the G7 are taking. There is also the feeling that the euro may overshoot in value at first and come back to a more reasonable rate after the US improves its trade balance by 2009 or thereafter.