LyrArc Article Gist
Italian born Canadian Sergio Marchionne, a former tax consultant turned auto executive who joined Fiat in 2004, planned the acquisition of Fiat in 2009. GM's payout to Chrysler following a decision not to acquire Fiat, and the U.S. government's need to merge Chrysler with another auto company after a bailout, gave Marchionne the opportunity to acquire Chrysler on favorable terms. Hard bargaining with the government led to acquiring Chrysler for free, using the $2 billion from GM to show the government that it would make the needed investments to bring Chrysler back from bankruptcy. This decision, the bringing in of outside talent, and the revival of the auto industry following the bailout, has led to the success of Fiat Chrysler.  Sergio Marchionne had the right instincts to persuade the government that Fiat with its small cars including the Fiat 500 was the right company to run Chrysler, and supporting president Obama's fuel efficiency goals gave him the right credentials with the Obama administration. A chain smoker of cigarettes who also gulped down espressos, her was a workaholic sometimes carrying 5 smartphones. He passed away at the age of 66 from health complications. Ironically the Dodge Dart was presented as the car that would get 40 miles per gallon. Other efforts at fuel efficient automobiles have not happened in the way it was envisioned by the Obama administration. The Dart did not become popular. Only the redesigned Fiat made it as a hit in Europe. The plan to import small Fiats to the U.S. remained only on paper. As the auto industry revived Marchionne canceled plans to make nearly all of the Chrysler cars and shifted production to more popular Jeeps and Dodge Ram, a move followed by Ford and GM. Fuel efficiency issues from the bankruptcy period are still alive today with the decision to leave small car manufacturing to Japanese and German carmakers, and the efforts of the Trump administration to turn back the Obama administration fuel efficiency targets.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is a big desicion by the Obama administration, and has global implications for the amount of oil consumed and the emissions discharged. The Obama administration will introduce one national standard for automile emissions and mileage standards, replacing the patchwork of standards and skipping over the challenges to the California standards by using those standards to set the national rules. The rules take effect in 2012. It will create a new national standard for a car and light truck fleet in the USA, that is 40% cleaner and more fuel efficient by 2016 than it is now, with a new average of 35.5 miles per gallon. The current national standard is 25 miles per gallon, and this standard has fallen way behind the Japanese and the Europeans. The Europeans went through their battles for fuel efficiency a few years ago with auto industry resistance, and this was finally settled with tougher standards, giving the European industry advantages in technology over the Americans. The American car industry stalled higher standards, and what standards were passed were whittled down by heavy lobbying in Congress. As a result a battle raged between those interested in conservation and the environment and the Detroit car industry, especially in a deteriorating global environment for this type of prolific oil consumption on American highways. This lack of foresight on the part of Detroit carmakers, and their management, accelerated their financial collapse in 2008 and 2009, as large car and truck sales collapsed. That this tough new standard of 40% improvement in 2016, would in fact not have been possible without this fiinancial collapse and turning to the government for a bailout - with the entire board of General Motors being replaced- is one of the ironies of this situation. This decision will almost certainly accelerate the development of smaller models, and bring the kind of attention to them that will give them the quality and features and comfort to make them command higher prices and become profitable, as is the case in Europe. For too long the American small car became synonymous with being a lesser car in many dimensions of design, quality, comfort and performance, so that it became a cheap car that you upgraded from to a larger car as you became affluent. It had been that way, but did not have to be that way after the world had changed. And the larger models like the pickup trucks and large cars are more likely to be phased out with the new regulations. This will also bring a `new sanity to oil prices, as the reduced consumption in the US will accomodate the increased consumption in India from the small cars like the Tata Nano which look set to sell in the millions, and still keep oil affordable for tight budgets worldwide. In this sense it is a victory for global good sense. For President Obama this is a personal quest, as he co-sponsored 2 bills in 2006, during this second year in the US Senate, one to raise fuel economy standards, and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels....

LyrArc Article Gist
Frank Rich of the NYT thinks Obama's problem is not the GOP which is losing public support very quickly as the CBS/New York TImes poll shows, or the mortgage rescue plan and the shaping of new priorities in his address to the joint session of Congress which have increased in popularity for a people nervous about the economy, but the increasing unpopularity of the banks and financial institutions. His plan for financial institutions lacks the clarity and direction of his other efforts, says Rich. And Geithner who was protegeof the old boys Greenspan, Rubin and Summers who got the country into this disaster, is not the man who can convince the people. Therein lies the President's problem. He has chosen these people to come up with the solution to the banking crisis, and he has to sell this hugely unpopular solution with his advisors too timid and too complicit in the origins of this problem, that they have not been able to craft an effective plan. And the people who run these banking institutions are still running these institutions, and the people who run these auto companies are still running these auto companies, something that is hugely unpopular with the people as the CBS/New York Times poll shows. Only a new management, a new board, and a fresh clean beginning, and a convincing plan, would convince the people that another big bailout of $750 billion in banking "asset purchases" on top of the previous $700 billion bailout is going to work....

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
How the Bush presidency started with hopes in domestic policy that were never to come to fruition. Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, reflects on the promise of the Bush State of the Union address of Feb. 2001, and the compassionate conservatism it evoked- the Bush priorities of education, setting higher educaion standards, immigration reform, helping needy and at risk children, health care access. He recalls the words used by Bush in Spanish: "Juntos podemos," we can do it together. As governor of Texas Bush had focussed on racial disparities and gaps in education, winning 27% of black votes and a third of Hispanic votes. Then came 9/11 (2002), weapons of mass destruction (from 2003 onwards), which soon overshadowed the education efforts, grants to extend health insurance coverage, initiative to encourage mentring of at-risk children. The $10 billion program to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean is a part of the Bush legacy, other areas were overcome by the distraction of wars in the Middle East....

LyrArc Article Gist
Freeman contrasts the speeches given by Obama and Trump, one in Cairo after becoming president, and the other in Riyadh. Freeman says Obama did not give enough credit to American leadership and progress on women's rights, and was not critical of Iran during a period in which sectarian strife has led to the situation in Syria and Iraq. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Robert Stavins of the environmental economics program at Harvard is cited in this NYT article by Coral Davenport. Stavin says that even with the change in policy favoring fossil under Trump administration the trend is towards using less fossil fuel and this trend is unlikely to change. This makes the claims of Trump that half a million jobs can be created with less regulation of the coal industry and shale oil industry, less likely. Industry is shifting away from coal for economic reasons and investors preferences, say experts. At the same time the progress away from fossil fuels is likely to be inadequate to avoid the worst effects of global warming, says Stavins. The change by industry is reflected in the decisions made by executives such as Nicholas Akins at American Electric Power, Ohio based electric power company. Akins tells NYT that he is making decisions for power generation 20, 30 and 40 years from now, and this assumes some form of carbon control. He says no question but that industry will move forward with cleaner energy and that means closing large coal facilities. The incoming Trump administration does not affect his policy. Another factor away from coal is dictated by economics- the availability of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. Incentives for renewable sources such as wind, solar, are not likely to change either say experts, because the solar panels and wind turbines are made in Republican and Democratic favoring districts and have support of Republicans in places like Arizona, Texas and Kansas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Romney's tax return for 2011 shows that he paid 14.1% in taxes.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman has second thoughts on the effectiveness of President Obama's foreign policy and turning away from the Middle East. He says this risks hurting the European Union with the flow of refugees, and wonders how the U.S. would react if there was an attack in the U.S. like the one in Brussels in March 2016 using suicide bombers.