World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

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

All Topics Articles

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

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


Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Actually some of this is a healthy development as more nations and people have a stake in the world economy. Take the Brazil situation for example . Clearly the Brazilian people are more favorable to globalization and its benefits than they were a decade ago at the height of the Asian crisis and the contagion effect on Brazil. Actually the advantages of free trade and a global trading system that benefits Brazil as well as China and India and other countries that buy its commodities such as iron ore is more now than ever because these nationas are benefitting from this trade. Because of the high prices of commodities and the agricultural products of Brazil, it has a currrent account surplus and its currency is strengthening. Instead of having to go to the IMF for assistance Brazil has large foreign exchange reserves that support its currency and which help it push up its investments as a share of GDP from 19% to closer to 25%, which should enable it to sustain about 5% growth year after year., according to Sergio Vale of MB Associados. A strong real, lower interest rates, and consumer credit have boosted the purchasing power of the middle class and the antipoverty programs of the Lula government have helped the poorer classes have a stake in the development. According to a recent Observador/Ipsos survey 23 million Brazilians have left social classes D and E and joined class C whose distinctive markings are a rented apartment, a car and some new gadgets. Actually quite to the contrary of the impression created by this article Brazil according to a former central bank governor is now showing a new enthusiasm for this kind of development which encompasses free trade and markets, a feeling that the stockmarket is not a casino and being part of the world economy is a good thing. The big discoveries of oil at Tupi and Carioca-Sugar Loaf in Atlantic offshore waters by Petrobras even though they are in miles deep waters and require special expertise must only have reinforced this mood. The danger to Brazil's enthusiasm comes not from nationalism of different countries trying to find better ways of meeting the aspirations of their people but from the risks in a global slowdown that started with the US subprime and mortgage crisis, the resulting credit tightening, and fall in consumption thats expected after years of overspending by the American consumer. Its now upto these individual countries, like Brazil, China, India and Russia, Japan as well as Germany France and other countries that are not directly part of the housing bubble and subprime and mortgage securitization mess affecting the USA, and the UK and Ireland and Spain to a lesser extent, to find ways of maintaining more modest but still substantial growth to meet the growing aspirations of people in these countries. In this sense the policy errors and regulatory errors made during this last decade in the US will actually have hurt the world economy and markets in a serious manner, and it is this that has now to be managed in a better way by these countries with the close cooperation between them and the USA. The situation in Brazil is repeated in the experience of India, China and Russia where for the first time there is enthusiasm for being part of the world economy. In the light of this development there is more reason for hope and more need for careful navigation mechanisms for these and other countries to weather the difficulties from a global slowdown and still sustain development that itself could help the USA work its way out of the current crisis through its exports....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The mood in the UK is becoming less receptive to foreigners as job losses mount and the economy declines. For a long period under Labor administrations openness to foreign investment served Britain well. From 2004 to 2007 foreign investment accounted for 7.4% of UK's GDP compared with 1.4% in the USA and 1.6% in Germany. Immigration tripled under Labor governments. Now the mood is shifting as job losses mount. Unemployment which was 4.7% in 2005, was 6.3% in the 4th quarter of 2008. Estimates by IHS Global Insight, a forecasting firm, shows that unemployment could reach 10.5% by early 2011. Government figures indicate that the number of British workers in the country went down by 234,000 to 27 million in the last quarter of 2008. The number of foreign workers went up by 175,000 to 2.4 million. About 104,000 jobs were lost in the 4th quarter of 2008. During the period from 1995 to today manufacturing accounts for a smaller portion of the British economy, going from 21% to 14%. In this new climate French owner Total SA faced strikes at it Immingham oil refinery for not hiring British workers for an expansion at the refinery. It offered to set aside 102 of 200 temporary construction jobs for British workers. And public anger is evident about things that earlier would have aroused passing interest. One example was for a plan to sell part of the British postal service with the Dutch or the Danish as buyers. Another an award by the government to the Japanese of acontract to build and operate a fleet of high speed trains. And immigration is emerging as the third biggest ocncern of in the country, according to a survey by Ipsos MORI, after the economy and crime, the fourth being unemployment. Actually immigration and unemployment are strongly related, and both are related to the economy, all issues related to the steep downturn, especially to the collapse of the financial industry in London....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An assessment of progress in free trade and generating jobs in N. America under the NAFTA agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The agreement was signed under President Clinton in 1994. NAFTA removed existing tariffs on over half of the exports from Mexico to the U.S. and phased out remaining tariffs between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The U.S. had two way trade of $918 billion with Canada and Mexico in 2010, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Canada is the U.S.'s top trading partner, with $462 billion in trade through Sept. 2012, and U.S. trade with Mexico- expected to overtake China- is at $369 billion in the same 9 month period of 2012.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the US, and China a significant $439 billion in additional exports to US, which makes it incredible that for so long it did not take effective action to stop fentanyl flows, and Mexico allowed migrant trafficking across it's borders through 2016-2024. Even in the face of this becoming an explosive issue in the US with DJT elected in 2016 and the Border Wall being built. A silent but still existing in plain sight idea that the US would tolerate such flows became part of the culture in media outlets in the US and Europe and China and other parts of the world, even when there was a storm of discontent building about manufacturing shipped overseas hurting communities in the US since 2010, with added burden of safety endangered in these neighborhoods from fentanyl, drugs and illegal migrants. What worsened this situation and pain in the US was the idea that somehow it was the US's fault, an incomprehensible disdain for the US, US that enabled the modernization of China, Mexico, and Canada's economies. China sends $439 billion in exports more than the US does to China (US exports $143 billion China $582 billion in 2024). It is only surface presentation of indignation of face saving that these trading partners are showing when the real facts point to an extraordinary and incomprehensible disdain for the US as a nation in decline. There is a feeling in parts of Europe of American disdain for  Europe, without mention of the disdain for the US in Europe, China, Mexico and Canada and other parts of the world. Particularly disdain for neglected communities in the US that have suffered for far too long under previous administrations of Clinton-Bush-Obama with shipping of manufacturing and jobs overseas and inaction on drugs and illegal migrant flows. The EU Canada retaliatory approach has not worked. When DJT proposed doubling the tariffs imposed by US in the face of Canada EU retaliatory steps, the EU and Canada pulled back. Part of the reason is that in the case of Canada it is an economy one tenth the size of the US. The other is that there are real concerns on the US side that Canada EU are not playing fairly in trade. And Canada, Mexico, China, have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the US.  ...
ProPublica Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in ProPublica on October 13, 2020, by Lydia DePillis was written near the end of Robert Lighhizer's term as US Trade Representative.  Bottom Line: It is human behaviour that no country, no kingdom or group will give up its money advantages secured when the opposition was weak or disorganized till the last fight is fought. The British were not giving up India, a source of financing the war against Napoleon in 1800's and then the Industrial Revolution in 1850's, the Dutch were not giving up the financial advantages of their Spices Empire in Batavia (Indonesia). History has shown this. Once gained under a state capitalism Japan was not going to give up its financial advantages gained by the 1980's when the US was weak or disorganized, till the last battle was fought.  Lighthizer who for the relentless Japanese was equally relentless till the goal of fair and level playing field for America was secured. This is true for China today on Liberation Day. This entire report by De Pillis in 2020 shows the Chinese would be relentless in 2020 like the Japanese in the 1980's, the Dutch in Indonesia  in the 18th and 19th century and the British in India in the 19th century and 20th century. China turned Mexico and Vietnam into supply routes into the US market. It continued its efforts to gain US technology in other ways. USTR older officials from the Bush Obama years of failed negotiations with China and endless hours putting together minute details of agreements including the TransPacific Agreement of Obama were not going to like the new approach of Lighthizer so stuck were they with the old approach of no clear goal and not getting an even playing field from China. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Frank Portnoy of the University of San Diego law school says it would be a serious mistake for the Obama administraion not to have the same rules for all derivatives, rather than the preferred financial industry option of leaving unregulated privately negotiated derivatives or "swaps" between two financial organizations. Under the current Geithner proposal only the public derivatives or standardized instruments would be traded on regulatory exchanges and required to have cushions of capital in reserve like banks do. Previous efforts of regulation were defeated in the same manner says Portnoy, as when Sen Graham and Wendy Graham head of the CFTC, both worked to get this exception. In December 2000 this lobbying effort paid off with Bill Clinton signing into law measures that largely deregulated derivatives.
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The influence of business executives who helped shape president Trump's views on Mexico, China, Export Import Bank, and other issues is covered by Stokols and Bender of WSJ. On Mexico the departure of Mike Flynn helped moderate views, Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary also provided a moderating influence. The plans are now to change NAFTA but not entirely redo the agreement. On the Export Import Bank the views of Boeing CEO Muilenburg, who explained to Trump why the Bank supported U.S. exports and how other countries had similar banks, led to the president filling the bank vacancies. On China the influence of NEC head, Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, and other business executives, led to a less confrontational position. The president once called NATO obsolete during the campaign but he met this week with NATO secretary general Stoltenberg this week and expressed strong support for NATO after rising tensions with Russia.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Demonstrations across France in cities like Paris, Lyon and Marseilles, by private and public trade unions drew an estimated 2.5 million people. They are protests that President Sarkozy's government is not doing enough to provide stimulus to the economy and protect jobs. THese are the largest nationwide demmonstrations in more than 20 years. France lost the most jobs in 40 years in the last quarter of 2008 and Sarkozy's government has only announced a$35 billion stimulus. Germany and France are also holding back on large stimulus spending , including significant help for Eastern European countries, and this will become an issue at the April 2, 2009 G-20 meeting. Ted Truman at Treasury is articulating aforceful response for the Obama administration calling on the EU countries to come up with astrong stimulus plan. See link.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ shows what offices would look like in a coronavirus economic reopening. Till a vaccine is developed in about one year from now what will the gradual reopening look like?   It shows a cafeteria at a company in Seoul with plastic shields separating each person, the Amsterdam office concept of six foot distancing offices at Cushman & Wakefield. This real estate company manages 800 million square feet in China real estate. It has developed a 300 page manual on safely reopening offices with every detail possible. Toyota plants will run at slower speeds because of large drop in demand, with plants reconfigured to maintain social distancing. Many companies are doing this now when it is easier to do without people. Protocols such as onsite health screenings are being integrated. A Knotel app  will add features for office tenants that gives employers the option to track some employee movements and trace their contacts to prevent illness. For sports and event venues the challenge is sanitation and cleanliness. Adding janitorial cleaning shifts and making food grab and go, cashless transactions and protective shields. Schools and colleges face a challenge of how many students to let in, and how many to seat and how, dorms with one room one student, and so on. One college in Maine is planning for thinning the students on campus, rotating students with shorter term modules, more online instruction.  ...
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
See the World Economic Outlook November 2007 which talks about this phenomenon in Chapter 5 on the moderating influences in the global economic cycle, the drop in volatility in the global economy, and the expansion of the economy being across most countries in the global economy. Is this a period or a phase the global economy is going through as most emerging economies and developing countries are improving living standards and developing infrastructure, or will it last for several decades with broad sustained economic growth and foreign trade. Some smaller crises are to be expected for example the stock bubbles in China and India(?) will pop if this bubble phenomena continues in these countries. The pressures for expression of public opinion and environmental degradation in China are further challenges and at some point China's development might slow to a more sustainable longer term rate. Will India then pick up as it urbanizes and develops its manufacturing industry?
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Juan Montes in the WSJ shows how much Lopez Obrador has changed since he lost by a small margin in the 2006 Mexico presidential election. His campaign manager, Tatiana Clouthier, says broadening his appeal to women, evangelicals, middle class Mexicans, rich and poor, is needed for Obrador to win in 2018. In elections in 2006 and 2012 Obrador continued to be seen as the candidate only of the working class. An effort is being made to change this image. Obrador, 64 years old from the party of the left, formed his own party in 2010 after leaving the PRD party. He is a former mayor of Mexico City. Five recent polls show Obrador leading by an average of 7.5 points over Ricardo Analya, the PAN candidate for president which now has the support of the PRD. PAN on the right and PRD on the left are other opposition parties. PAN party formed the government under Felipe Calderon before the current PRI president Nieto now tainted by corruption scandals became president in 2012. If he were to win Obrador would change the way Mexico was governed for 5 decades. His first step would be to review the 91 exploration contracts given by the government under the Nieto administration to check for signs of graft. Corruption is a key platform of the parties running against the current government of president Nieto, for both Obrador and the PAN/PRD alliance candidate Anaya. Obrador says he would keep balanced budget deficits and respect the central bank's autonomy. The shift would be from the current export model that Mexico has supported for 35 years, to one based on import substitution policies, higher salaries, and more government spending for education, jobs programs, healthcare, new oil refineries. With the Trump administration's stance on trade and immigration Mexicans are now showing anger and frustration, with 75% of Mexicans in a Reforma poll looking for change. Both the PAN/PRD and its new face in Ricardo Analya, 38 years old, and the Obrador party see corruption and with it in the Mexican context the rule of law as a key issue.  ...
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The day following Theresa May's visit to Berlin and Brussels angela Merkel told a special parliamentary session in the Bundestag: "We have no attention of changing the Brexit deal."  Merkel also replied to questions from parliamentarians saying: "I can only tell the citizens of Germany that we are working hard for an orderly Brexit and at the same time we are preparing for the eventuality that things are not orderly." The EU position is to let the UK crash out of the European Union on March 29, 2019. Reports in The Times of London say this break in trade with the EU would badly hurt Britain's economy. No deal Brexit is seen by most Britons as bad for the country, and this prospect increases by the day as Theresa May now faces a no confidence motion from her own Conservative party. The EU says Merkel will work out contentious isues related to Ireland after Britain's exit. Merkel seemed to very spirited in the parliament telling AfD members she could not respond to their mixture of value judgements and facts, that "such polemics don't help,"and calling the left parties in Germany's support of the yellow vests protest in Paris as "scandalous."  If anything Merkel seemed energized now that she has resigned from her party leadership position. ...
BBC News Original article ›
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Europe responds with platitudes and vague references to "benefits for everyone" and "detrimental" without facing up to the facts. How many American cars do you see on the streets of Germany? in Berlin or Frankfurt?- or Japan? in Tokyo or Osaka?-or South Korea? in Seoul? And how long has this been going on - since the 1980's. Europe's answer to the Marshall Plan and Japan's and China's to post war American help for recovery, was to exclude American cars and other products. GM and Ford have pulled out of China and so has VW. China's plan is to flood the world with electric cars, and Japan's to flood the world with hybrids. For far too long America has relied on capitalism that has no state involvement. In this kind of competition with hidden subsidies and national planning at the core of industrial growth in Asia. The US government has to have state involvement in it's auto, steel, aluminium, and chip industries, not to create trade disturbances but to create an even playing field for all, and rebuild a middle class destroyed by unfair trading practices of Asian nations and the EU, including Canada and Mexico which are simply used as bases to ship to the US. Ford makes 80% of its cars in the USA and GM can make the investments in new plants to raise its production from 60% in the USA to 80%. South Korea's Hyundai and Kia are investing $21 billion to make in the USA. Toyota and Nissan, VW, BMW and Mercedes can do the same.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's Merz is bringing historic change to Germany that it has not seen since reunification in 1990. Understated and underestimated Merz is different from the career politician chancellors of the past. Merz is a businessperson who headed the German branch of the investment fund Black Rock and from this experience has a keen understanding of the economy, of American and European business, and a direct commonsense approach to issues from defense to modernization. In short he is direct, speaks clearly, and action oriented. Within 5 months DJT has acted on tariffs and a level playing field in world trade and on a new budget with priorities for defense and tax cuts. Merz has in 2 months removed the constitutional debt brake of Merkel, corrected policy errors on illegal migration, passed 5% of GDP on defense and gained approval of added borrowing for 129 billion dollars in 2030, 4 times the 33 billion in 2024 to invest in modernization of Germany's failing infrastructure. Together Merz and DJT have stood up for the principle of no nuclear weapons in Iran, and the refocus of South and Southwest Asia on economic development from tragic and senseless wars. ...
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Two weeks after his election Donald Trump says the U.S. will not join the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement during his term in office. Barack Obama took seven years to negotiate the trade agreement which was opposed by trade unions, the auto industry and was unpopular in the midwestern U.S. because of the impact of trade in hollowing out the manufacturing sector. Here Frank Sieren of the DW.com points out that the agreement was not really about trade, as most of the gains of trade had already been realized according to experts. It was part of the "pivot to Asia" to maintain American dominance in the region, says Sieren. After China pulled together some Asian and European countries into its trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the U.S. pushed for TPP as a counterweight to the China sponsored trade zone. China says it will try to integrate the countries in TPP into the trade zone it has sponsored. President Trump has said that the U.S. is better off negotiating agreements with each country and not getting into multilateral trade agreements. He fought the election campaign on the basis of the opposition to TPP and trade agreements that unfairly hurt American workers. This could have provided the 110,000 margin of victory in the states suffering from the hollowing out in manufacturing such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. A similar hollowing out in Ontario favored Justin Trudeau's Liberals against the Conservatives in Canada's election. ...
Pew Research Center Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tariffs policy is part of a renegotiation the US is conducting with China similar to that started with Japan by Lighthizer in the Reagan era as Deputy Trade Representative. It does not in any way have anything to do with the tariffs of Herbert Hoover in 1930 that gave tariffs a bad meaning. This is because tariffs were reduced since Harry Truman's efforts in 1945 by 2017 to 1.47% on average on total imported goods into the US and world trade makes up 63% of world GDP, so large is world trade today. What are Lighthizer- DJT tariffs trying to accomplish? As with Japan in the 1960-1970's it is intended to reverse the trends for China in 2000-2017 that allowed it to game the world trading system to gain an unfair advantage by dumping specific products into the US destroying American manufacturing and communities dependent on it. The US tariffs on Chinese goods proposed in 2024 by former USTR Robert Lighthizer come at a time when US tariffs are in 2023 only about 2.2% of all imported goods, $33 billion on 2333 billion of imported goods. In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China. By the time the first tariffs were taken up by the DJT administration in 2017 the total tariffs the US had imposed on imported goods were down to an all time low of 1.47% of imported goods value, $33 billion out of $2333 billion in total imported goods. Compared to the 29-40% under Hoover Act of 1930 raised to 60%.  Today world trade makes up 62% of world GDP, in 1930 it made up 9% of World GDP.  In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China.   ...
DW.COM Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration proposes new legislation that would require derivatives to be traded on exchangesor clearinghouses and backed by capital reserves, similiar to the capital cushions required for banks in case of a default. See the link to law Prof. Portnoy saying that these derivative regulation efforts have been diluted by lobbying from the finanical industry. The current proposal does not have the same rules for all derivatives, and leaves the CFTC with aleading role in regulation, some of the same weaknesses that plagued earlier efforts to regulate derivatives.
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Kamal Ahmwed says in this BBC report that the WTO has belatedly recognized that the losses from world trade for workers in industries that are hurt can be significant, and public sentiment matters especially when there is unfair trade. He visits a small Pennsylvania steel town of 40,000 where the population declined to 7000 after closure of steel mills. This is why the WTO now recognizes that the gains from fee trade are "often uneven," and "may have led to rising inequality." 

Even if the overall gains from free trade are significant as Kamal Ahmed points out the downside and losses are still smaller but significant, and concentrated in certain regions such as the midwestern U.S. or eastern U.S. can lead to public anger that led to the change in administration in the U.S. in 2017.


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