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.


Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As a group Hispanics are reported to be hit hardest by this recession, harder than African Americans. In a Feb 9, Washington Post poll, both African Americans and Hispanics were optimistic about the future for the next generation, even with the dismal economic prospects, because things have improved greatly for this generation of black people and Hispanics compared to their parent's generation. And this progress is projected into the future. As a group the most pessimism was shown by white people. Whites say the Obama administration is doing very little for their families, and not doing enough for the middle class and working class Americans and small businesses. They were much more critical about the the administration's cozy relationship and doing "too much" for Wall Street financial institutions. By a 2 to 1 margin whites saw the Obama administration's economic program as harming the national economy.

GM: Live Green or Die

BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of respondents in a Pew Research center survey conducted in December 2014 view with disapproval president Obama's handling of race relations, only 40% approve. This includes a steep drop among African-Americans of 16 points since the previous polling in summer 2014. Obama's statement that change is "hard and incremental" comes up short for many Americans who look for leadership in race relations. A cautious presidency fails to speak up for ideals it espoused, for human rights overseas and building a better future for minorities at home, losing precious opportunities at every turn.
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Basel 2 got its start in 1999 in the midst of the Asian banking crisis. By 2004 financial regulators had come up with a set of rules for Basel 2. The idea was to make banking safer and reduce unsafe lending. It makes lending safer by requiring banks to match the size of their capital cushion to the riskiness of their loans and securities. Because banks are in such a precarious state with amny risky loans and securities the implementation of Basel 2 in the USA in 2009 would mean that the banks have to set aside an even bigger capital cushion and this would mean an even lower lending for capital needs of business than otherwise in a lending environment that is already constrained, thus making the economic conditions worsen. Critics point to this to show their concern that this would be a good thing but at the wrong time leading to a bad result. But Basel 2 is so far along that its likely to be implemented especially since the current crisis is partly a result of extensive leveraging and not enough capital has been set aside to account for higher risk for loans and securities. Basel 2's plus point is that it requires more shareholder capital for riskier loans a bank makes, and its shareholders who are first on the hook in a default protecting depositors and tapayers and creating an incentive to lend with due diligence and carefully. In the current situation though once a credit crisis has started its extremely difficult to get more money from shareholders. European countries have implemented Basel 2 starting in January 2008 and no adverse effects on credit have been seen. But the US credit crisis much worse and is expected to worsen in 2009 so the timing for Basel 2 is sure to cause concern. Regulators can ease up on implementation of Basel 2 if this is the case. Note that these regulatory rulebooks are always a work in progress as for instance Basel 1. Under Basel 1 financial firms were not required to have capital backing up lines of credit if they were for less than 1 year, so banks decided to game the system by issuing short term lines of credit and rolling them over. And banks learned to get the loans off their books so they were not required to have capital to back these loans by securitizing the loans. Basel 2 also uses mark to market acccounting which would put more pressure on securties prices in times of distress. But Stefan Walter of the Federal reserve Bank of New York who is secretary general of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision says theree are built in stabilizers such as letting banks estimate their risks on average using historical data and lets national regulators use their own judgement as to what is acceptable. Note that a research paper by greenlaw of Morgan stanley Hatzius of Goldman Sachs , Kashyap of the University of Chicago, and Song Shin of Princeton Unicersity, 4 leading economists, released feb 29, states that highly leveraged financial institutions reduce their lending by $10 for every $1 of capital they lose. by this estimate bank lending could be down by as much as $900 billlion from the $90 billion in mortgage loans losses that have been seen. ...
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Tough's detailed and vivid account of the problems in Chicago's South Side in 1987 when Obama worked there as acommunity activist, in 2007 when Obama visited the area and expressed his vision about what was needed for the Roseland section, and in 2012 when Tough visits Roseland to document life today in this part of Chicago. He sees the same problems and a need for an all round approach to help kids of parents without work living below the poverty line to provide not just financial help but the kind of support and institutional help that would help them overcome the disabling effects of growing up in broken homes and counteract the destructive effects of a poor environment surrounding them. He left Roseland with a feeling that the President has not pushed hard to accomplish much of what he started out to do and let opportunities slip by.
Washington Post Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael McConnell, was Assistant General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1983. He is now a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University. Here he tries to throw light on how the budgetary process that is required by law, and which makes the formal budget proposed by the president available for public scrutiny, was circumvented through a sequence of events starting in February 2011. The Budget Act of 1974 sets specific deadlines and a process for generating revenue, setting spending priorities, and setting the debt limit. The President first submits his administration's budget by the first Monday in February. The Congressional Budget Office has until Feb. 15 to score the budget using identical metrics for all proposals for a consistent scoring. The budget President Obama put forward in February did not take into account the growing deficit and was rejected by the Senate 97-0. The President proposed a new plan in April 2011, but the proposed budget was so vague that CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said he could not score it. The subsequent efforts in June and July 2011 were carried out in closed door negotiations between senior Republican leaders and the Obama White House. This subverts the original intention of the law. The Budget Act says that both the House and Senate hold hearings on the proposal, with testimony from the administration, "national organizations" and the "general public." Transparency, openness and accountabilility are key aspects of a proper process that is democratic and prevents the parties from engaging in blame and competing claims. The closed door negotiating sessions and the lack of a concrete written budget proposal from the President has turned the current budget process into an effort by each side to see how it can best position itself for the 2012 presidential election. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Unemployment is over 25% on Chicago's South Side black neighborhoods. Conditions have deteriorated with the higher unemployment since the economic crisis. Residents see little improvement since the days of Obama as a community activist in this part of the city.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Matt Miller, a former Clinton aide, says both U.S. parties have failed to do serious problem solving. The reason is that both are looking primarily for election advantage and are not interested in blending the best of liberal and conservative thinking. He even goes so far as to say both parties don't trust the public enough to lay out all the facts openly and explain what action needs to be taken. This is clearly true in one of many examples- the way Clinton advisor Bowles and Republican Senator Simpson took up the job of coming up with a deficit reduction plan looking at things from all angles, and laying out all the facts. Contrast that with the way a Democratic president Obama shied away from openly discussing Bowles-Simpson's closing of most tax expenditures as a key a part of a new action plan. Republican leaders Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, instead of seriously challenging the Democrats to take up the Bowles-Simpson or Rivlin-Domenici proposals, focussed their attention on defunding the government unless certain conditions were met. Serious debates and discussion that should have taken place to arrive at a consensus never took place, eroding the credibility of politicians of both parties, as Miller points out. The failure of leadership brings America back to its roots in community organizing through independent intitiative at all levels for crucial problem-solving discussion. This is the way to arrive at a consensus of what needs to be done for renewing America....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A black supporter of Obama, Ms. Hart, tells him- " I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration. I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class." This encounter happened at an hour long town hall meeting on CNBC, which John Harwood moderated. Harwood asked Obama whether he was having difficulty connecting with average Americans because of attending Ivy League schools and spending part of his youth overseas. The incident reflects the frustration and disappointment felt by average Americans with the Obama administration and with Obama.
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
John Lewis, is the last surviving speaker of the March on Washington in 1963, when Martin Luther King gave his historic speech. Here he describes how Martin Luther King would see today's America. Foremost he points out is that MLK would want to see justice not just as racial justice, but justice in a broader sense that says something about the dignity and value of human beings. And this means, says Lewis, the president getting away from advisers and polls, and talking to ordinary people. It means focussing on jobs, the unemployed and people facing foreclosure, and seniors struggling on limited incomes. He calls for a "freedom budget" that would pool resources for infrastructure and investments that would create a better environment for people to live in.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Frederick Harris of Columbia University says there is a price to be paid for a black president and it may just be too much for the average black person. There is a difference betwen symbols and substance, betwen a role model and accountability in a representative democracy, which is sadly lacking when the black elites, clergy and politicians fail to debate the issues about the problems facing the black community. Problems related to the increasing poverty among black Americans, and the 14% unemployment for black people. There is he says a strange reticience among the black elite to hold the president accountable on these issues just as they would have done for any Democratic president, even one who was as popular with blacks as Mr. Clinton. He says the experience with Obama is not even remotely comparable to the transformative nature of the work of Rev. Martin Luther King in the black community. It may stem from Obama's multiracial background, growing up in many countries, his elite education and being part of a liberal elite more than of the black community. The price is too high in economic and social terms for the poor or average black person and it has created a divide between the average black person and the black elite, with different concerns and different priorities. Harris points out that poor and poverty are words not mentioned often by Obama. Related to this is the foreclosure crisis in which ordinary black people were hardest hit with no effective help from the president to homeowners badly needing relief. Sheila Bair of the FDIC and Martin Feldstein advocated aggressive help for homeowners under water which did not come from the president. Showing not just the limits of a black presidency, but false hopes, inexperience and lack of leadership in issues that mattered to all Americans in the housing and foreclosure crisis. A populist from Kansas, as Sheila Bair describes herself, had the right instincts and courage of convictions which the president lacked and the entire country needed....

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