LyrArc Article Gist
The first presidential debate with Clinton and Trump is moderated by Lester Holt. The debate included an exchange on Trump's tax returns, policing in inner cities, and national security. The debate was broadcast by all television stations and was watched by over 100 million viewers. Trump made three times the interruptions made by Clinton. The birther issue raised by Trump also came up, and was cited as a "hurtful lie" by Clinton as it persisted long after the birth certificate information was seen by the public. In one exchange Clinton told Trump when he referred to all the infrastructure that had not been built, that one of the reasons was he had not payed taxes.

LyrArc Article Gist
Short time work programs, paid leave, aid to small business for employee retention with the government paying a big percentage of wages, and unemployment benefits till companies rehire employees with government paying for this, are all different ways in which the U.S. and Europe are coping with the coronavirus crisis.  In the U.S. 22 million have applied for unemployment benefits with the U.S. government picking up a substantial part of the wages till companies rehire these employees. In the UK the government has launched a program that gives 2500 pounds or $3100 to each worker each month upto 80% of the worker's pay. The money is sent to businesses for retaining employees. This could cover estimated 8.3 million workers in the UK at a cost of $52 billion. The U.S. has a similar program with the first phase $377 billion already distributed to small businesses which requires retention of employees for government forgiveness of these loans. The basic idea is retain employees who could stay at home or be in short work programs or work from home. The French government is paying the wages of 9.6 million workers, almost half of workers in the private sector by sending the money to 785,000 small businesses. In Germany the Kurzarbeit program covers 725,000 companies which supports the wages of employees in a downturn and is financed from a special fund. The cost for Germany, France and Spain is about $147 billion or 135 billion euros for such programs. The European Union will step in with a 100 billion euros loan package. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Gerson offers his assessment of president Obama's 7 years in office, saying that after this period the public has lost faith in American liberalism, that Obama held it all together through a self-centredness that is now replaced by public rage that has brought out other self-centred politicians in the Republican party, such as Donald Trump. Deutsche Welle summed up its view from Europe of the Obama presidency as a period that was little more than a transitional presidency. Gero Schliess writing in DW.com, says one of the tragedies of this presidency is that the much talked about change would come about only under a successor, in a best case scenario under a Democratic successor. Yet if Gerson is right Americans are losing faith in American liberalism after the Obama years, with the setbacks suffered by the white working class and the middle class in these years, and the political deadlock that has prevented action to help them. Speaker Paul Ryan recently convened a conference on this subject. In October 2014 Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen described the problem at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference on economic opportunity and inequality, questioning whether the trends were "compatible with the values rooted in our nation's history, and the high value Americans tend to place on equality of opportunity."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Issues raised by the huge mismatch between revenues and investment for AI. $400 billion estimated investment by 5 Tech firms in 2025 alone with revenue of about $40 billion and huge uncertainty about when AI will produce returns. Articles seen this week of November 17 in the WSJ and NYT on this issue, podcasts, discussions in other media outlets. Could this lead to a dot com bubble type economic crisis? Could that lead to a recession? Alongside these articles another article in the WSJ on Nov 17 shows the benefits small firms get by using AI, benefits which are on the fringes of their business, not essential but with some experimenting firm owners/managers able to tweak AI information for use in business. Nothing significant which firms will pay much money for. The uncertainty is a major factor. Should geopolitics trump all these concerns? Is the competition with China require this scale of investment, and is China following a more utilitarian approach as reported in a WSJ article this month, of investing in AI in a utilitarian way targeting its use in improving manufacturing, improving infrastructure, and not wildly throwing money at experimental uses that are unlikely to yield much result. In geopolitical sense would the country that not only promoted AI but used it efficiently and cost effectively, used it in ways that promote the overall public good, get the WIN. In short it behooves everyone of us to ask hard questions of AI, to dehype the hype, to look for the public good that comes out of this from it's efficient use. To ask the tough questions when $400 billion generates only $40 billion in 2025 and the $3 trillion planned investment over 5 years is half unfunded, is it going to crowd out energy needs for homes and business, push renewable energy targets back, crowd out essential investments in the crumbling aging infrastructure of the US and Europe, crowd out essential investments in education, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, that hold better promise for our People. Will it also put retirees at risk when corporate bonds from retirees money fund the unfunded portion of AI? This means making the political dimension not about migration, settling the illegal migration issue that was meant to be settled a long time back, or about cultural issues that have little day to day impact on our lives which are about groceries, childcare, housing that are non ideological. Making the political dimension not about remote countries that one knows little about except when it affects public safety and health as with fentanyl. Capital allocation decisions to the vital needs of America can then be free of politically induced error, so that it can be subjected to the test of how best it serves the public interest and the people of the Nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time the U.S. focuses on the huge trade deficit with China in a serious way. The trade negotiating team led by Robert Lighthizer has set forth its negotiating terms.  1. China must reduce its trade deficit with the U.S. by $100 billion in the first 12 months. In the next 12 months it must reduce its deficit by another $100 billion. In 2 years the trade deficit the U.S. has with China must come down by $200 billion. The issue is no longer just the tariffs on steel, it is about the core issue of balance in  trade. 2. The U.S. says subsidies to state industries in the "Made in China 2025" program must stop. Here the focus is on gaining an unfair technological advantage with a combination of U.S. technology imports and subsidies to state advanced manufacturing industries to erode over time the U.S. technological lead.  3.  China is expected to cut its tariffs by about two thirds on imported products so that the tariffs match that of the U.S. This is the first serious negotiation the U.S. has conducted with China on the core issue of the trade surplus which is growing with a stronger dollar not declining. The surplus approaches $1 billion each day for about $365 billion a year, unsustainable from any perspective. The vital issue of the erosion of the U.S. technological advantage under the Made in China 2025 has turned this issue into one in which the U.S. is unlikely to back down. Especially now that Mr. Lighthizer is leading the  negotiations and has the confidence of the president of the U.S. Lighthizer is a veteran of negotiations from an earlier period -under the Reagan administration in a similar situation with another national competitor- then it was the Japanese. A relentless negotiator as the U.S. seeks to reverse a trade imbalance of stupendous proportions neglected by previous administrations.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Steven Ford reads an eulogy written by his father Gerald Ford for the funeral of Jimmy Carter. Likewise Jimmy Carter read the eulogy he wrote for Gerald Ford who passed away in 2002. Both families grew to become very close, so close that it is difficult to describe in words. How was this even possible one may ask considering the harsh rhetoric of the Ford-Carter debates and the pardoning of Richard Nixon for Watergate after impeachment of a Republican president by Congress who had served as Vice President for 8 years under Eisenhower 1952-1960 and lost only to Kennedy in 1960.  Today we think of "fascist," "stupid," and "criminal" as ugly DJT and the Harris Clinton rhetoric.  How about "improper"  "ill-advised," "incompetent," and "morally, politically, and intellectually bankrupt," in the Carter Ford rhetoric. Does this mean there is still hope? After all president Biden said he had invited president Trump DJT to the White House on the morning of Jan 20 and will be there at the Inauguration on the same day. That is one way to make America great again. Already Senator Thune who grew up in a small town in Montana in a two room home has embraced Carter's humble beginnings in the heartland. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Op-ed contributor Reno writes about the cultural decline of the middle class and its lost sense of participation in the nation's politics. He describes the effects of social decline with use of drugs, children born outside of marraige, and children raised by grandparents. Political elites on the right and left see the white middle class as not being part of a multicultural and globalized future, which they hope to run, leading to its alienation and support for candidates such as Trump and Sanders, says Reno.

LyrArc Article Gist
Republicans have supported less regulation. After the 2009 financial crisis with faulty mortgages and excessive leveraging one would expect that there would be a shift among Republicans favoring necessary regulation of banks. This did not happen after the Obama administration failed to articulate a new culture after 2009 and lost control of Congress in 2010 by as much as 64 seats in the House 6 in the Senate, and in all demographic and income groups. The result was that the 2009 crisis changed some laws but not the culture of laissez faire that less regulation was better for the economy. It is left to president Biden to tackle this problem of culture and the Silicon Valley Bank clearly shows that the parts of the Republican and Democratic parties that support less regulation even where the regulation is essential for a good economy for workers and families, are self serving. No where is this culture of laissez fairre in its other manifestation in not planning for the US manufacturing base to be strengthened by government action more evident than in the way it has prevailed to turn a blind eye to not just sending manufacturing overseas, but over concentrating it in one country China with additional supply base from Japan into China. This is the challenge that the country faces- only if the culture or mindset changes will laws have the needed impact.  This report in the NYT shows that when president Trump appointed Randall Quarles to vice chair of banking supervision in 2017, Congressmen both Republicans and Democrats believed that less supervision was better for the economy. Democrats such as Congressmen Barney Frank were themselves part of the new culture when Frank joined Signature Bank's board in 2015, one of the banks that along with SVB bank caused the banking crisis of 2023. Its association with risky crypto assets is considered by the WSJ as being one reason the government decided to close it. Frank did not see this aspect of its risk insisting that the bank was in sound condition.  This culture is also manifested in its approach to the cost of living crisis and support for workers and families. The Biden administration sees the problem of culture and of clearly making the changes that create a new culture, and a new understanding of what is right for America, for its economy and for its role in the world, and best for its people.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Project 2025, originating at the Heritage Foundation, most dangerous idea similar to abolishing Social Security is to consider abolishing the US Federal Reserve. Why? Because the Fed was established to avoid banking panics and setup a sound banking system, a sound economic system. It suggests unravelling solutions that were developed after one hundred years of experience gained by US that has made the period since 1950 the least crisis prone compared to prior to Fed's formation in 1913.  Mr. Trump himself said in 2022 that the Heritage Foundation will "lay the groundwork and detail the plans" for what our movement will do, according to the WSJ report." It has become a matter of huge controversy with plans for outright attacks on the civil service, a blueprint of plans to shut down important government agencies such as the Education Department, Department of Homeland Security, and affect the functioning of the government of the United States in accordance with the Constitution.  The most radical is to change the financial system of the US that evolved from the Great Depression and previous economic crises since 1900 that led to the formation of the US Federal Reserve as the central bank that monitors aspects of the economy such as inflation and unemployment. Project 2025 says consider abolishing the US Federal Reserve and replace it with 'free banking' that does not control interest rates or the supply of money. These are untested ideas but more significant is the fact that it is the US Fed that under different presidents has taken the lead in managing the economy when a crisis happened. President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the founding of the US Fed, and its regional Fed system with a. supervisory board in Washington on Dec 23, 1913. Before the Fed the US currency was printed by individual banks and inflation or the economy could not be controlled. This led to banking panics the last in 2007, with great loss to the working people and families of America. It is unthinkable today that individual banks not the central bank the US Fed would issue US currency dollar banknotes. Yet it is just this kind of radical Barry Goldwater type of idea that is being put forward in Project 2025 that is written for a future administration running the country. ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Germany on Trump's economic plan and the need for changes by his advisors. DW.com's Wenkel says Trump needs to understand that 80% of job losses in recent years have come from not from globalization, but automation and higher productivity, rationalization. He says higher tariffs on Mexico could backfire.

LyrArc Article Gist
What a change DJT's first 100 Days and actions on immigration and tariffs , Ukraine and Russia, have made in China's and World relations in Asia, and in Europe - all for the better, significantly better relations worldwide.  China has worked out a peace settlement in Ladakh frontier with India. It has come together in Tokyo with Japanese prime minister Ishiba and China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi holding hands, and South Korea joining, all three nations vowing to remember history and work together. In Europe Russia is being brought back into the community of nations for big power cooperation with the US after 3 years of war in Ukraine. And Germany has removed its constitutional brake on spending that frees up $1 trillion in funding for infrastructure to replace much of its rail and other infrastructure built in 1900. One would not know this reading the NYT on democracy or the WSJ on tariffs or the Washington Post on assault on federal workforce, or the Atlantic, Politico, DW.com or FR24, Der Spiegel, nor Le Monde, much of the world media slanted on way or another. One does not hear about military exercises so often as the world realizes that so called large economies China, Germany, Japan and India all depend on American goodwill and willingness to give rather than take for most of the post war period since 1950. For the last 6 years in the latter half of the Trump administration and the 4 years of the Biden administration during the pandemic relations between China and the US deteriorated and China first retreated into its own then opened up a bit. The initial idea that it could manage the DJT trade actions evaporated as Biden continued the DJT first round of tariffs. Now Navarro, Lighhizer, and his deputy Jamieson are all back advising DJT for anew round of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China for not stopping fentanyl flows.  In 2022 in eastern Ladakh China's PLA had a big standoff with Indian forces in eastern Ladakh at Galwan and Pangong Lake. The Quad was active with Australia India and the US in Indo Pacific and China conducted military exercises close to Taiwan.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Lighthizer in the Report on China's Entry into WTO sees this as a mistake in the policy of president Clinton. Clinton has said that was a mistake. David Sacks raised this issue in a podcast with Larry Summers, an economist who was deputy to Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary, then Treasury Secretary succeeding Rubin in 1999. Clinton on the advice of Rubin and Summers set up the framework for China to join the World Trade Organization without the safeguards and the setup that would prevent it using state capitalism and subisidies to build its own economy with exports, to ally with American corporations to support the outshoring of almost the entire industrial base of the US. Shocking as it sounds this has happened, had happened by 2016, when Donald Trump with the advice of USTR Lighthizer took the first steps to reverse this with Tariff policy, which was supported by president Biden, and continues in its new phase under DJT in 2025. Rubin and Summers had supported deregulation of financial markets and removal of the Glass Steagall Act by 1999. This was to led to the financial crisis of 2009 that was to be one of three body blows to the American working and middle class. The others China entering WTO without safeguards that led to deindustrializing US and loss of its manufacturing base, loss of 5 million jobs, tens of thousands of factories. And the third was the pandemic. “ . . .it seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime” 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 FR24's Cyril Payen reports on the battle of Dien Bien Phu in northern Vietnam in 1954 marking end of French colonial rule in Indochina. Under Eisenhower administration and John Foster Dulles the Cold War with Soviets cast a shadow over the struggle for freedom from colonial rule of the Vietnamese people. After the French left in 1954 remaining American advisers cast a shadow over John F. Kennedy's new vision for the world that included freedom from colonial rule for Asia and Africa. Facing a struggle in Eastern Europe with Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956, US was unwillingly dragged into France's colonial conflict after Kennedy's assassination. Kennedy's vision for the New Frontier was never realized following a series of mediocre presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama and Trump that wasted resources in far away wars. America is only now recovering Kennedy's vision of the New Frontier of 1960. ...