LyrArc Article Gist
Vietnam has seen rapid growth in the last 20 years as it joined the shifted away from the state planned economy similar to China in the late 1980's, joined the worlds trading system, freed up the economy and attracted foreign investment. But something doesn't seem right. Looking at the Vietnam growth curve, growth in Vietnam's GDP vs growth of world GDP the curve seems to be following a similiar pattern, there is a sharp downturn in the early 1990's with a V shaped bounce back and a sharp downturn in early 2000 followed by another V shaped bounce back in growth to this date. As America begins its first of several years of credit contraction and investment contraction followed by similiar patterns in some European economies like the UK, Ireland, Spain and a slowdown in the rest of Europe, the question hangs over growth in Asia, from South Korea and Taiwan where recent elections reflected these concerns in electing politicians who promised new ways of kickstaring their economic growth, to China, India and Vietnam where the concerns are about how to meet the growing expectations of the large numbers of people, probably the majority of the people in these countries who have been left out of the economic development experienced in urban areas and by the new middle class. Corruption, the stock market collapse or severe setback, and a slowdown in their main export markets, and are problems shared by all 3 countries China, India and Vietnam. India and Vietnam share the problems of a poor infrastructure. In this new environment Asian countries will have to come up with innovative solutions to maintain growth and quality of growth, as some of the chaotic growth of the last 20 years may have come at some cost like that of the environment in the case of China and better solutions can be found than growth that sacrifices goals in health care and other necessary goals of balanced development....

LyrArc Article Gist
Even China has not campaigned the way Canada, Mexico and British, American media have against DJT Tariffs because China knows it is basically about getting an even playing field when it is the only country with $1 trillion in trade in its favor in 2024, 12 times the Japanese high of $82 billion trade surplus in 2007. But why should China campaign when the American and British, German media are going to do the job for China? A simple quiz to K-12 would ask school children when is the last time a country has a $1 trillion trade surplus? Answer: Never. Greg Ip has written a few years back that the devastation of China outshoring of American factories and jobs was unlike the 1980's Japan trade invasion because of first China's size, second by the speed with which it happened at 10-14% Chinese GDP growth. There is a third Japan was an ally needing US for security and backed down, China's case is different it is challenging the US for control of the world economy and will fight this one over the long haul. Greg Ip of WSJ on the 53 countries asking to negotiate US Liberation Day April 2, 2025 Tariffs. These countries include Allies of the US in full support asking to negotiate Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India Allies of the US in partial support asking to negotiate Britain Allies of the US not in full support asking to negotiate Germany, France Allies of the US in the past campaigning against the US, asking to negotiate Canada, Mexico Not Allies of the US, not in full support, not campaigning against the US China A look at his list tells one only one thing, mostly all trading partners except for the $146 billion exports of the US which represents exports to China are the exports that are at risk if things don't work out on tariffs. This is what the media today WSJ added this last week to the NYT, Wash. Post and the BBC, Guardian of UK, German media will not tell the reader.  The DJT Tariffs and Tariff negotiations are Lighthizer Tariff negotiations which won the fight with Japan in the 1980's over unfair trade and gaining a level playing field. Lighthizer as Deputy US Trade Representative conducted the tough negotiations with Japan. He was USTR in 2016-2020 and his Deputy Jamieson is now USTR in 2025       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
CERA estimates that while prices of crude went up 100% from 2000 to2007 the capital costs for oil exploration went up by 80%, and there are shortages of engineering and other resources.

LyrArc Article Gist
JP Morgan estimates that 150 million Chinese were in the stock market at the end of 2007. THese would be in the urban areas and in large cities where the brokerage houses are located. As a percentage of the new middle class this is is a significant part of the urban population. The drop in the Shanghai stock exchange of 46% from its high in October 2007 is going to significantly impact consumption in 2008 and 2009 as savings of the average person on the street have taken a big hit And 15-20 % of the earnings of pubicly listed companies on the Shanghai stock exchangenot involved in banking and finance came from stock trading gains according to experts. If you add the earnings of financial companies and banks then you have banks having large losses which happened in Japan from the drop in their stock assets holdings, and reluctant to lend to business leading to a tightening in credit and a contraction in the economy from another angle. Something similiar to what happened to banks in the USA but in that case originating from a housing bubble. The industrial companies that engaged in stock trading would also have a drop in assets and earnings and thus have less to invest. That this would lead to a small drop in growth rates is not plausible, growth rates dropping from 11 to 9% as some experts say. Because there are overextensions in other areas such as real estate and other negative factors such as rising inflation including rising food prices, rising oil prices, and rising labor costs, and a slowdown in the export sector as markets in the western countries especially in the US go through a protracted slowdown. All these factors take time to have an impact and one could see much lower growth rates taking the pressure off oil demand and oil prices. A similar situation may be seen in other countries like India where the Bombay stock exchange dropped 31% from its high late last year and 53% drop in Vietnam. Vietnam and India may benefit from a shift in production from China as companies try to look for alternatives to the higher cost environment in China but they would still see a significant drop in growth rates before resuming high growth rates. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The responsibility for adminstering LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate, is transferred in July 2013, from the British Bankers Association to the NYSE.

LyrArc Article Gist
How much is the drop in sales of light trucks, including truck based SUV's? Acttually not much so far, title is misleading! 2004- 55.7% of total vehicle sales 2005- 54.9% of total vehicle sales 2006 1st quarter- 53.8 % of total vehicle sales source: Autodata, NYT cite For GM in April 2006 situation according to GM figures Overall Light Truck sales up 1.5% Escalade up 127% Tahoe up 30% Overall GM down 7.3% in all vehicle sales in April source Ward's AutoInfo Bank But the mix weighted toward the Escalade, Tahoe, and new SUV's which are non-incentive and priced to meet demand, which mean higher profits to make up for lost volume in cars. This is occurring in the middle of bigger changes, and as GM moves to introduction of more fuel efficient cars with better quality and appeal to younger demographics. GM is restructuring to transform itself into a global company with growing Asian sales and shifting volumes overseas. It is shifting employee and capital base to more countries overseas to create new opportunities and make GM a new and different company, a global company. Incentives pay part of the gas price for buyers, and more fuel efficient SUV's also chip in to pay gas costs. Americans are not out to get off the SUV's just yet, as fuel effficiency standards go up.The investments oil companies are making are expected to provide a payoff in increased production by 2008-2009, and the new oil policy of Saudi Arabia kicks in (see Naimi at CSIS 2006 meeting). The situation eases up for families accustomed to carrying kids around or hauling stuff around. See also links to Tradin Frenzy (Mouawad, NYT, 4/29/06) speculators in oil markets cause 10-20% of price rise, could lead to drops later after ethanol part of spike eases, and if global demand drops with economies cooling off a bit. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Alibaba's TMall faces strong competition in retail sales from JD.com in 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
A trader at JP Morgan's CIO London office made massive bets by selling credit default swaps for the 121 companies on the "CDX IG-9 Index," essentially betting on the financial health of companies on the index. The result was paper losses for hedge funds on the other side of the bet and gains in January and February for Chase CIO's portfolio of assets of about $350 billion, funds depositors had given to Chase and were not loaned out. This gradually reversed turning into large losses for JP Morgan.

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSj points out that Britain is in a weaker position to tackle Brexit than it was when Boris Johnson called for supporting the Yes vote to Leave the EU three years ago in the referendum. Business investment is lower than France, Germany and even Italy. And today protectionism, nationalism, hostility to globalization mean that its not so easy to increase exports by signing free trade agreements with other nations. Even a treaty with a friendly Trump administration  is not certain as Mr. Trump favors looking at how he can get the best deal and reverse any advantages of other trading nations, Britain being no exception. A trade agreement with the U.S. could mean the U.S. barring Britain from signing one with China as a condition of Mr. Trump. Greg Ip also points out that it was precisely joining the EU that helped Britain catch up with German and French standards of living after a period of low growth, inflation, and balance of payments crises in the 1970's. Joining the European Economic Community was as prime minister Heath stated would " enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world."   ...

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.           ...