World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

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

All Topics Articles

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

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


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The slow hunch, serendipity, error, inventive borrowing and the collison between order and chaos. Nancy Koehn looks at two new books on innovation.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Fed announced that it will review compensation policies of 28 of the large complex banking organizations in the USA. The review will be an horizontal one that compares them to each other. The other significant move is that the Fed wants to see employees who take greater risks and use large amounts of borrowed money, to receive negative points in evaluating how well they have done, and consequently to be compensated less than other employees who earn money for banking firms while controlling the risks associated with transactions. This ties in with the discussions at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where the Europeans pushed for tighter regulation on bonuses and pay, to control the excessive risktaking of banking firms. This is because the prevailing culture in global financial institutions is a high risk high return culture, which ignores the social consequences of bad decisions. There is no cost to individuals taking the risks on other people's money, and regulations discouraging risk are not in place. The question remains, is this an adequate response to prevent future crises, or too little too late? If the banking community does not see it this way, and financial regulation is watered down in Congress- see the links to this- then it will much like Don Quixote swinging at windmills. In this sense the title of this piece is a misnomer, as the Fed has not hit banks with sweeping pay limits. It only said it would review pay practices. It is jawboning of the mild kind to show the public something is done. See Paul Volcker's point that pay practices would adjust and desirable goal of less risktaking and reasonable salaries would be achieved by separating deposit taking banks from banks engaged in trading activities. Similiarly, the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, made the point recently that the biggest banks should be broken up. That is supported by the intuitive sense of experts that banks engaged with depositors should be engaged in the social functions of society, lending and supporting economic activity, and the trading desks of investment banks should operate entirely separately from this. One should be insulated from the other. In this sense there is a bit of evasion in these actions. A Wall Street capture of regulatory activity continues, of regulators and senior economic advisors in the administration, as the coziness between the two lingers on from a previous era of deregulation. This has the potential to cost the country and the global economy dearly in another crisis, and the jobless and young jobless people especially. In this economy both in Europe and the USA, the jobless young have been left with the least hope. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Typical of so much of what is written about the World Health Organization and its role in the pandemic, this podcast in the WSJ fails to quickly convey the critical function of the WHO as an early warning system the world has depended on, including China. The H1N1 epidemic originated in Mexico. Asian countries including China and India depended on very quick response from the country where the epidemic originated  in allowing entry into the affected area for experts from advanced countries such as the U.S. The global response was then coordinated across countries quickly with complete transparency. The head of China's CDC himself faced a problem with transparency with the provincial authorites in Wuhan. 1.    Fundamentally this quick entry was denied the U.S. Request by U.S. to China was made on Jan. 6 for U.S. team to go to Wuhan, quick permission was denied and given only about 6 weeks later on Feb 16. This delay is the crux of the problem for the U.S.. Taiwan confirmed human to human transmission on Jan. 1, the WHO was saying this was not clear as late as Jan. 14. These costly delays are what the U.S.  letter is about.  The head of the CDC China Gao Fu called Dr. Redfield head of CDC in the U.S. on the next day after he suspected Wuhan provincial authorites were vague about what was happening. Gao Fu was alarmed when scanning the internet on December 30, 2019, about rumors of a vaguely worded lung disease in internal memos of Wuhan. He called Wuhan authorites and was not getting clear answers on that day, then deciding on December 31 to send his own team to Wuhan, as reported in German magazine Der Spiegel- Hackenbroch, Zand, 05/20/2020.  Der Spiegel says in its special report on the early period in Wuhan that Gao Fu was so alarmed about what was happening enough to be in tears in his series of calls with Dr. Redfield in the immediate days that followed. The date was shortly after the GAO Fu sent the team to Wuhan, December 31 and New Years Day 2020, as reported in Der Spiegel. See the link to Lyrarc gist of Der Spiegel's "A Failed Deception: The Early Days of the Coronavirus in Wuhan."  2.  President Trump points out the standards of the WHO- in the concluding point of his letter to WHO- when a three time prime minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland was head of the WHO during the SARS crisis of 2003. She acted quickly and decisively and no time was lost. It is this failure of the early warning system under the new president of the WHO after 2017 Dr. Tedros that alarms the U.S.  with about 100,000 deaths.  3.  This failure it can now be said was partly a result of a election in 2017 for the position of WHO president which was flawed. This was the first time a WHO head, an important position was put up for an election. The Executive Board was responsible for this appointment since the founding of the WHO as part of the UN, based in Geneva, Switzerland, after World War II. This system worked. The election was clearly a bad process for appointing the president of the WHO which should be done entirely on the capabilities of the person holding this position not on a flawed voting process. It is flawed because India and Bangladesh hit by a cyclone during the coronavirus have suffered greatly, as have other countries, but had only 2 votes for 1.5 billion people, when Barbados (385,000 population) and Laos (7 million) which had less than one  hundredth the population had the same number of votes. The U.S. had one vote. The election resulted in lobbying and a process in which many candidates stayed away because they simply would not go through such a process. The position was too important to the world- most of the advanced countries had forgotten about the danger of epidemics to let this happen by 2017, as shown in the way the austerity years led to cancellation of the preparations for pandemic in France and Britain. The austerity years and neglect of public health during these tech boom years in the western world made it possible for this to happen. 3.   Along with the 1 month ultimatum action is already being taken to restore the effectiveness of the importance of the Executive Board. The head of the health ministry in India, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, has been appointed the new chairman of the Executive Board on May 22. This restores the voice of billions of people in Asia in the process, and brings the major countries with the greatest risk in a pandemic into the decision process for tackling the pandemic, this includes the rest of the world.     ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The step by step process Mr. Obama used to arrive at his decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The use of charts showing the buildup at one of the last meetings, and how President Obama expressed frustration at the length of time the troops would be there, and then says "I want this curve pushed to the left," pointing to the bell curve showing buildup and withdrawal after some years. This says Baker may be the pivotal moment for the expansion of the war. What he meant was something like a fast buildup and rapid draw down. He asks Petraeus how fast the Iraq buildup for the surge took place, and Petraeus says 6 months. The option being discussed was Option 2A carefully prepared to get a30,000 troop addition approved by Defense Secretary Gates and presented to Mr Obama on November 11, 2009. What Obama said at that point was according to NYT reporter Baker's sources is - "What I'm looking for is a surge, this has to be a surge." Gates was the seasoned person in saying the right things at just the right time and not sooner in these negotiations. The process had seen alot of back and forth swings, leaks including the McChrystal report leak and the Ambassador Eikenberry report leak, and the President preferring to keep his thoughts to himself and using University of Chicago law school style analytical thinking to wade through the swamp of issues in this place called Afghanistan. With that Gates shows how that curve can be moved up and gets the President to allow for conditions at the time to be the factor for withdrawal conditions. In effect the President's analytical thinking an approaches good for a law class in the University of Chicago and potentially very unlikely to allow for agrasp of the muddied details and complexities of social, political and historical type in Afghanistan, were being applied to a crucial mind decision that would have a mind boggling impact. Had Gates served the country well? Had Mr Obama served the country well with these analytics, when a more intuitive decision based on understanding of all the conditions on the ground by talking to different people who had first hand experience in Afghnistan and Pakistan- see the links here to first hand reports- would have accomodated the peculiarities of the Afghan situation better than some charts and numbers? Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Obey had indicated lack of support among Democrats. The Budget Office had provided a cost estimate of 1 trillion dollars for 10 years. None of this appeared to matter in the final decision. NATO would supply the additional troops to get the number closer to 40,000. Gates had been the most seasoned player through years of negotiating with Congress, and he helped formulate Option 2A for 30,000. The President makes one final Professorial comment at the final meeting on November 29, 2009, after announcing his decision to support Option 2A, -"but if you don't agree with me say so now" and repeats saying "tell me now." Gates signals to Vice President Biden who inquires whether this is a Presidential order that it is one. Mullen and Petraeus say "fully support." America had by using charts numbers and law school analytical processes turned the complexities of Afghnistan into something else, but these analytics had still to be played out in the vast mountainous spaces of Afghanistan and in the homes and workplaces of America in 2010 and beyond. It is hard not to sense that something serious was lost that day. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Timothy Geithner as New York Fed Chairman was a key person in the rescue of Bear Stearns. In an interview with the WSJ he recounts events and defends his actions on March 14 in a conference call at 5am in the morning with Ben Bernanke, Kohn, and other regulators and staffers and Treasury Secretary Paulson. By 7 am a decision was made choosing from 2 options not to do it, let Bear Stearns fail, and Fed would make an infusion of liquidity into the banking system to reduce the impact, or make a loan to to give time for Bear Stearns to make a merger. Mr Bernanke did the head count and all top officials agreed to the loan option. At 7.30 the morning of March 14 about $80 billion in short term loans would come due. If Bear Stearns went into bankruptcy protection lenders would get back collateral instead of cash and might sell the collateral en masse and pull back trillions of dollars of similiar loans to other investment banks. Also Bear Stearns had trading positions with 5000 other firms so the ripples would extend throughout the banking system. At issue in a Bear Stearns collapse with no Fed loan- a full blown run on Bear Stearns had begun on March 13 with customers and lenders pulling out billions of dollars. The man- Geithner does not have a PhD in economics and has never been a banker or trader, the background of previous chairmen of the New York Fed. He joined Treasury Department in 1988 and was an assistant to first Treasury Secretary Rubin and then his successor Sommers. Geithner was active in the rescue of Mexico, Indonesia and Korea in the Asian and Latin American banking crises. He was appointed to his position at the New York Fed in 2003, so he has 15 years of experience dealing with international banking crises. The criticism- has come from a colleague at the Fed Vincent Reinhart on the oped pages of the Washington Post, and from former Fed chairman Paul Volcker in a speech to the New York Economic Club. Geithner has asked to speak at the same club to give his account and his defense of his action. Note that Bernanke and Paulson and Kohn were in on this decision and voted in favor of it and there appears to be a consensus that all in the conference call supported it. Geithner kind of put it all together and so he is defending it. Geithner's contribution- Geithner pulled in the other players in the financial markets into close communication with the Fed. He assembled an informal advisory group including Rubin, Summers, Greenspan, Volcker, former New York Fed Chairman Corrigan and investment banker Pete Peterson. He would also phone them individually asking : what should we think about an issue? What are the best 3 arguments for or against? What do smart people think? He also initiated a series of dinners at the NY Fed's executive dining room in which 5 or 6 senior executives from a major investment firm would meet his own top people. He also calls CEO's of important banks and investment firms every week in a crisis situation to ask- Whats changed? Whats better? Whats worse? What worries you? And after the credit crisis in August ,Geithner joined Bernanke in a small group that included Fed vice chairman Donald Kohn and Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor, investment banker and White House aide. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
About Azim Premji who leads one of India's largest software and outsourcing companies. He was educated at St Marys school in Bombay and later at Stanford as an undergraduate, has roots going back to the 1940's in Bombay, and has run WIPRO from Bangalore in southern Indian state of Karnataka which does not have much of a religious orientation of Hindus and Muslims that is found in northern India. So it may not be so unnatural for him to keep aside religion from the rest of his life and in doing business and also for him to embrace the secularist basis of India's constitutional and moral fabric. Just as a Nehru who was one of the founders of the Indian Republic and one of the people involved in drafting its constitution and governmental structures remained aloof from religion Hindu or Muslim even though he was born in a Kashmiri Hindu family that settled in Allahabad. Nehru was widely described as agnostic and was educated at Harrow an English school and went to Cambridge for his undergraduate education. Upbringing and education from school days can have a significant influence and Premji's success may be due to the fact that he must be a very well educated, sharp and mature person just like Narayan Murthy of Infosys, so much so that he would stay out of the political and religious quarrels that plague any region and because of the depth of ignorance and hostility brought about by religious groups stay completely aloof from them....
New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
AIG's bad bets on housing were made right under the supervision of a "college' of global bureaucrats and regulators in the Office of Thrift Supervision, according to its acting director Polakoff, says the WSJ editorial.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sara Ehrman describes the time when Hillary Clinton worked in Washington D.C. as a 26 year old lawyer working on the Watergate committee, and Bill Clinton was teaching law in Arkansas. In August 1974 Hillary was living for about 1 year with Mrs. Ehrman, a friend who was a congressional aide at the time. She is 97 today, and recalls that time when she tried to discourage Hillary from going to Arkansas to join her boyfriend. Ehrman felt not much would come out of Bill Clinton, though she thought him to be handsome, and later worked in his presidential campaign and Hillary's presidential campaign. Ehrman was 55 then, and describes Hillary Clinton as a bit sloppy in her habits, such as not making her bed and having a lot of stuff strewn about her room, but really intelligent and very hardworking. At the time both lived together. Ehrman describes a daily routine of seeing Hillary go to work with coffee in the morning and come back exhausted late at night, having yogurt and going to bed, day after day.  The two met for the first time in 1972 when Ehrman was co-director of issues and research in the McGovern campaign in Texas, and Hillary was helping with voter registration. This report describes in detail the road trip to Arkansas that the two made together, when Mrs. Ehrman drove Hillary to Arkansas in her old Buick. They stopped at small towns  in the 1200 mile journey, and this journey ends with Mrs Ehrman crying that she could not get Hillary to change her mind about Bill Clinton and Arkansas. About what she thought was a bright woman throwing her life away in the deep South of the seventies. Hillary she remembers insisted she loved Bill Clinton, and having passed the Arkansas Bar exam had firmly decided on settling in Arkansas. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A study by Chris Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, of 7000 regional and community banks from data presented for the second quarter to the FDIC, shows that the bank's financial picture is deteriorating. Institutional Analytics put afailing grade on 1,882 banks as of June 30, 2009, up 16.5% from the end of March 2009. He says even the best run banks are feeling the bad effects of declining employment and asluggish economy. Whalen says this calls into question whether the stress tests for the "big banks" by the Obama adminsitration are adequate to control the crisis. Whalen says the asummption in those stress tests was that thes big banks had tohave enough capital and earnings to withstand a 9% loss rate, but what he is seeing in the industry is that we are already at a 9% loss rate , and the cycle has not peaked yet. He says any reduction in loss rates as assumed by the government may be shortlived as he sees things worsening in the fourth quarter of 2009. What about the good news that the big banks have raised capital in 2009. He says banks face operational problems, in addition to loan losses and low recovery rates on unloading assets they face rising expenses to carry these properties that generate little revenue. This cuts into earnings and what they can allocate to reserves. In this period banks are setting aside only half of what they would normally put in reserves to offset expected losses....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The maximum that can be paid out to executives in upfront cash for bonuses is 20% under the rules set by the European Union starting in 2011. And the amount of time that at least 40% of an EU banker's bonus must be deferred is 3-5 years. The US has not set up similiar rules restricting up front cash bonuses to prevent executives from taking excessive risks. During the 2008 financial many banking executives collected huge bonuses by taking excessive risks, even though the banks suffered huge losses after the departure of the executives. Now the SEC, the Federal Reserve and other government agencies in the US are reviewing the rules. Projected pace of Wall Street profits in 2010 are 28.7 billion for 2010, and the fear is for a repeat of the situation in 2008 as the US has no rules similiar to the EU. Britain's Financial Services Authority passed similar restrictions recently. The Dodd-Frank legislation for financial reforms requires the pay related regulations to be set by April 2011. That legislation specifically prohibits any bonus plan that "encourages inappropriate risks" at financial firms with more than $1 billion in assets. The view of the European Union's financial services commissioner, Michael Barnier, is that not enough has ben done in this area in the US, and doing nothing is to ignore the right lessons from the financial crisis....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Total compensation and benefits at publicly traded Wall Street banks and securities firms was a record $135 billion in 2010, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal. This is up 5.7% from the $128 billion in 2009 for the same firms. The 25 largest financial firms saw revenues increase to $417 billion. Things are going back to where they were before the financial crisis with total compensation and benefits now exceeding the levels in 2007. In 2010 deferred compensation made up half of the total pay compared to being one third of total pay in prior years.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Millenials are moving away from political parties to look at individual candidates in 2014. Attitudes are changing moving away from gender politics. A Pew Research Center survey of March 2014 shows 50% of millenials consider themselves political independents. And 31% believe there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Considering the fines and sanctions by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, during the time Mary Schapiro headed the organization from 2007 -2008, it did not take a serious watchdog role over the brokerage business that it was expected to supervise. NASD which she formerly headed, and FINRA, did several examinations of the brokerage business of Mr Madoff who ran a$50 billion Ponzi scheme, but failed to find anything wrong. Her agency in 2007 concluded that Madoff's firm had only violated some technical rules. Also fines and sanctions assessed by FINRA declined during the time she headed it. Fines levied by FINRA declined from $148 million in 2005, the year of her predecessor, to $40 million in 2008. Ms. Schapiro headed NASD regulatory arm in 1996, NASD itself in 2006, and FINRA after its creation in 2007. FINRA is a private agency set up by Wall Street to regulate itself. As the prevailing opinion at the time, with the SEC severely understaffed, was that Wall Street could regulate itself, agencies like FINRA had a bigger responsibility than was realized by Ms Schapiro and others. One securities lawyer who represented firms examined by FINRA, says FINRA should at least have asked more questions about the Madoff operation. In a November 2006 speech to the Securites Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mary Schapiro says, "we remain utterly committed to our regulatory mission but we should be also committed to doing no unnecessary harm or restriction to innovation in the industry and markets". Some of the stuff that went on in the name of innovation went against some basics and commonsense, and the failure to follow tested old good financial practices to separate sound innovation from unsound innovation, was a failure of that period. Schapiro's statement seemed to be a contradiction of a severe nature when examined closely, because how could she remain committed 100% to the regulatory mission if she made strong exceptions for innovations whose true logic and effectiveness only time could tell. The element of caution that should be a key part of the regulator's temperament and mental build was entirely missing. See the link to financial regulators in India, and of how this task was handled with that element of caution and skepticism of prevailing opinion. Other failure of FINRA is that it lagged behind state regulators in catching upto the mess resulting in afreeze up of auction rate securites markets. In June and July 2008, Massachusetts and New York securities regulators filed fraud charges against big firms in that matter. Another failure was the failure to look into the mortgage securites that were held in brokerage accounts and see that the valuations of these securites are sound. Finra only filed small cases against Lehman Brothers, with a fine of only $125,000 for failing to keep accurate books and records. As late as May 7, 2008 in speaking at the Financial Services Institute meeting, Schapiro was asked about what FINRA was doing to regulate complex packaged products like mortgage securites. And even though credit rating agencies had by this time been exposed as having failed, Ms Schapiro would only say, according to a financial advisor who asked the question, that "we have credit rating agencies that rate them." A pretty hands off view for a regulator when the cracks in the system were already exposed in mid 2008. Another facet of this is the high levels of compensation especially for a regulator. For her job at FINRA she received pay of $3.1 million a year including $2.5 million in compensation and $615,000 in benefits and deferred pay. In 2007 she also earned $449,000 in cash and stock grants as director of Duke Energy and Kraft Foods. All of which means that it is straining credulity for Obama to suggest that Mary Schapiro is the best person the Democrats could find for this critical job, in which the record has been severely impaired....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Bret Stephens on the foreign policy debate about supporting or not supporting dictators. On the big one today of Iraq after the large gains with Maliki in Iraq it could be said that its not an easy path either way with each path fraught with dangers, but in the long run if one perseveres and again in the spirit of democracy and with the people in the region themselves and their leaders having good sense and good judgement and putting the interests of the whole region before their personal interests, given this you are always going to do better by your people and the people in the region affected, by respecting democratic ideals and principles. Pakistan is not a good example because its leaders have put their personal interests before the interests of their people but even there things are changing. Zardari's dirtier and clumsier hands are mentioned by Stephens but even here this time the opposition led by Nawas Sharif decided that its more important to respect the electoral process and democratic ideals and let Zardari run Pakistan. Administrations like the Bhuttos and Zardari's have alway been corrupt so there are no high expectations but even here the people of Pakistan will find a way to make the progress they desperately need and find the leadership that can provide it. The military muffling and jailing dissent and not respecting the independent judiciary may not affect the person on the street in Des Moines or Delaware but for people in Pakistan who have suffered under military rule this may be a different story. And in the Middle East things were not that much better with dictators in power either in Palestine and its an area where the conditional part of leadership in the region having good sense and judgement should be considered as well as history. In Iran its not between the Ayatollah and the Shah, before the Shah an elected government in Iran was overthrown when its anti western oil company stance was seen in the light of the cold war. It was the overthrow of that government that brought the Shah in. Had it continued the internal politics of Iran would have been resolved by the people there. In other words western oil interests and lobbies and the cold war distorted the process there. Without the two Iran's politics would not be of much interest to people in the USA and governments there also would have no reason to be especially friendly or especially hostile to the USA. So once one removes the distorting factors and takes out the countries which cannot be used as good example like Palestine and Iran, on the big one Iraq where the people and the leadership in the region did not fail even in very difficult situation and the US persevered, respecting democratic ideals and principles was the best course with the best results. The improved Libyan relations should not be chalked off as a point in favor of dealing with dictators. With better or worse relations with Libya it made little noticeable difference or probably no difference to the people in Des Moines or Delaware. For Iraq it makes a big difference to get it right by both peoples. Libya which had closed itself off from western technology and ideas now opens itself up because this way it can improve life for people in the region, this may be the only thing that has changed. And Stephens puts it another way its more sustainable. But why is it more sustainable to respect democratic ideals and principles given that the leadership of people in the region affected and the people themselves have good sense and judgement? Because in doing so one is respecting oneself one is more true to one's own people's idea of a good and just society and one is respecting other people....
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greenberg of AIG asks why Goldman got paid in full while AIG suffered and languished? Questions he raises about the way Goldman Sachs acted during and before the crisis, with its actions helping precipitate the crisis, and the need for investigative reporting to uncover the facts. Serious questions raised by Greenberg.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Instead of going through layers of executives before speaking to the CEO, quality chiefs at Toyota now speak directly with the CEO. Mr. St. Angelo who heads the Quality group at Toyota for the American region met directly recently with Mr Akio Toyoda. There are in all 6 Quality chiefs for six regions worldwide. Akio's questioning during a Congressional investigation appears to be a turning point and he is determined to shake things up. He choked up at the National Press Club in Washington while thanking employees and dealers for their support. See the links to Akio Toyoda for Akio's education and experience in the U.S., which may have better prepared him for this challenge than his more parochial mindset predecessors who lacked this type of background.

Economist.com

Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Simon Nixon of the Econmist on the report's findings for the future of the world economy. He points to the heavy debt overhang for individuals and banks that will take years to overcome resulting in entrenched unemployment and sluggish growth, somewhat reminiscent of Japan's years of stagnation after its bubble. The entrenched unemployment he argues will permanently lower the economic potential of developed countries of US and Europe. Public debt will rise so that private debt can fall. Bank lending that is cautious will only slow any recovery for a long time. And the grim facts he presents are that about 25 million jobs will be lost in the 30 rich countries of the OECD before all this is over during the coming decade, and several million jobs probably will never come back. Auto manufacturing and manufacturing in general is an example where some jobs lost may never be regained. There is no room for complacency here.
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Support LyrArc

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

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


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