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.


NBC News Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
European companies rushed to make new business investment in Iran after the lifting of Iran sanctions with the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015. This report in the NYT shows companies in Europe were wary that the nuclear detente with Iran would not last. As a result the European exports to Iran up to $12.8 billion in 2017 were up 30% but still ranked Iran as the 33rd largest trading partner, behind Serbia. Other problems were bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of coordination in Iran for moving ahead with projects. After the deal was signed companies such as Peugeot, Airbus, Total, Daimler moved ahead to invest in Iran. Yet the investments were made carefully considering the opposition of the Trump administration. In one deal Airbus agreed to provide 100 new aircraft for Iran Air's aging fleet, yet only 3 were delivered by May 2018. Daimler had a deal with Iran's Khodro vehicle maker for Fuso brand trucks, yet Daimler officials say demand was weak. A deal made by Total to explore for offshore natural gas may require a waiver under a "grandfather clause" say Total officials, or the option to turn over the investment to its minority partner CNPC, a Chinese state owned company. The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Mr. Grennell, says European companies should stop operations in Iran immediately showing the U.S. plans to take stronger action.  ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Monica Langley provides insights into Donald Trump's campaign strategies, some of them right out of his book "The Art of the Deal." His target voter is from a think big strategy to get voters across a broad spectrum using the slogan "Make America Great Again," with a knack of tapping into a deep well of voter frustration with the political establishment. How to get attention in the media is the next step Trump tackled by using social media to the fullest - using Twitter often, making statements that attract attention such as the ones on China, Mexico, Senator McCain and Muslims that tap into failure of political correctness to address voter frustration on trade and jobs, immigration and terrorism. The Trump campaign has 14 million followers on Twitter, and 50 million "engagement" accounts on Facebook- that cost very little. Social media is to Trump in 2016 what community networking on the PC dashboard was to Obama in 2008. As the WSJ pointed out in an editorial, the splitting of the Republican vote among many candidates, and the failure of candidates to grasp the nature of the unconventional campaign waged by Trump- descending into attacks based on target groups of voters on every candidate except Trump- created the opportunity Trump has grasped with his knack for improvising along the way. Commonsense campaigning without sophisticated strategies, improvising often along the way, using the available medium of social media at little cost to get the message and slogan across, helped Trump make the deal with voters to upset the political establishment. The Sanders campaign is also based on careful repetition of the same slogan and facts about inequality and lobbyists, over and over again, offering strong action on health care and college tution just as Trump offers strong action on China trade, immigration with the idea of the wall, and barring entry of Muslims for terrorism till "we figure out what's happening." The difference being that Trump thinks big and targets the entire electorate of his party's voters in the primaries from the beginning, and a broad based campaign on many issues. Underestimating your opponent carries many risks in politics, never more so than when you are out of touch or not listening to voter frustration, and fail to speak up to it....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ points out the dangers to the Republican party in taking the stand on immigraton along the lines suggested by Donald Trump in August 2015- deportation for all illegal immigrants, no birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and no remittances allowed for illegal immigrants to their home countries. It points out that remittances actually improve the economies of the countries south of the U.S. border in Latin America and reduce illegal immigration. There is a need for seasonal workers in farm areas where there is a severe shortage of workers even at $17 an hour. Reducing immigration is better accomplished by more guest worker programs. A likely result would be the move of farms and factories to regions with low cost labor in Latin America or other countries. For the Republican Party this type of policy would bring back the period of the 1920's, says the WSJ, when Irish and Italian immigration was opposed by the party, alienating the two ethnic groups till they were won back in the Reagan period- a sure way to lose in 2016....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Which dilapidated or broken road and bridge infrastructure will be rebuilt first under president Biden's plan? The WSJ looks at the $110 billion in new funding over 5 years to do this. In addition $66 billion for rail, and $39 billion for public transit. So much needs to be done. The list goes on and on. The head of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation, Mr. Tymon, says projects that were not going to get done in 6 years will now get done in 2 years. This is the big difference today, compared to the period under president Obama when little got done. After president Trump put a big spotlight on broken American infrastructure enough of a consensus exists to get on with the work in a big way. Normally the federal government provides about 50% of the funding for state highway and bridge projects. Take Rhode Island, Biden's bill would provide $300 million a year over 5 years, over $60 million over previous yearly levels. Of Rhode Island's 777 bridges 19% are deficient or dilapidated. The longer the bridge is deficient the costlier it becomes to fix. Bad infrastructure affects industry in multiple ways, a problem ignored for too long. Some of them date back to 1903, some to 1958.  In Woonsocket Rhode Island, 5 older bridges are deficient that are vital for local companies, including textile mill, and plastics manufacturer.  One deficient bridge at Naval Station, Newport, to Quonset Business Park with 200 companies is handling steady truck traffic. These are critical bridges for manufacturing says the city's Mayor.  Another state Missouri shows how the Biden investment will change infrastructure in the states. Annual capital funding of $1 billion will go to $1.5 billion over 5 years, says the Director of Missouri's Department of Transportation. That puts within reach all $3 billion of wish list projects that were considered high priorities. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The title may not reflect the content of this report on Admiral Giroir who heads the U.S. coronavirus testing effort. He is a pediatrician who worked for hospitals in Texas before heading a vaccine project at Texas A&M University.  Internal politics led to his resigning from the effort to build a vaccine development capability with pharmaceutical companies at Texas A&M. Most of the rest of this report shows a physician who is determined to pursue big projects such as the one he is tackling today. President Trump appointed him to lead FDA, and to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. With the missteps of Secretary Azar testing suffered in the early months of the crisis as reported in the WSJ. Adm. Giroir has taken a leading role since  this period. He also heads the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps of 6200 staff playing a vital role. On March 13 he was asked to lead the effort in testing.  He comes to this role with experience in the field of vaccines realizing that "the challenges are not just biological but engineering." New technology would be needed to make massive amounts of vaccine. His idea is that transformational efforts are needed. His idea for a billion dose per month facility in Texas did not work, yet he worked on it for about 5 years from 2010 to 2015 at Texas A&M University, at one point being the vice chancellor. He was selected by Texas Governor Perry as chairman of the task force in Texas in 2014 to oversee the effort to fight the Ebola virus. He now is in a position to bring all his experience and aspirations to tackle the coronavirus, cutting through much of the red tape and bureaucracy, and pulling together the effort combining science of pharmaceutical companies with the technology of manufacturing billions of vaccine doses in a record time. Today he sees capacity for testing reaching 40-50 million tests a month by September 2020.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jack Healy, who the NYT says writes about the rapidly changing politics and climate of the American southwest, provides this report from the border town of Nogales, Arizona, on the border with Mexico. In this desolate isolated border region America's future is being decided- Biden being the only Democrat since Harry Truman in 1948 to take Arizona and by just 10,000 votes. There near Nogales the border wall Trump built ends abruptly at the Kelly ranch in a picture shown in this report. Rural Santa Cruz County is except for migrants a solitary and quiet place along the border. Mr. Kelly moved here in 2002 and runs more of a hobby ranch unlike the bigger cattle ranches in the area. Migrants make their way through this part of the border and the Kelly ranch. In the most recent episode a migrant is shot and Mr. Kelly reports the shooting to police. Healy looks at the lives of the rancher and the migrant to give a snapshot picture of what life is really like on the border. And the different sides of the story seen from the rancher's and migrant's situation.  A border area where in a vast dry mesquite region ranchers on the Arizona side live alongside Mexico with people facing high unemployment where people are looking for work and choose to take the risks of crossing the border illegally. Crossings that are made at points on the border wall that end in canyons and riverbeds where migrants and their smugglers make their way. It affects the lives of the ranchers and the migrants in many ways. Ranchers who are in isolated areas- the Kelley ranch is 170 acres- feel isolated and vulnerable as they see a threat in the network of smugglers sending migrants across the border. This is also where the future of America is being decided. After the overconcentration of manufacturing in China, there is the border with Mexico, two regions that have little to do with each other but determine politics and emotions in the US about workers, about migrants and about borders. By understanding both sides of the story president Biden became the first president since Harry Truman to win Arizona in the presidential election of 2021. He won it by just 10,000 votes with a recount showing about 360 more votes. Without Arizona and Georgia both won by Harry Truman in 1948 Biden could not have begun the process of tackling the major issues facing America in 2021. Keeping uppermost workers and families, keeping uppermost the people of America as Truman had done in 1948.     ...
The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Biden's very conservative choices for his cabinet which one British reader of The Times calls UK One Nation type choices. Many of the cabinet members could easily have served under a Republican administration before Trump or a Democratic administration in the tradition of Harry Truman in the 1950's. No members of the cabinet belong to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  A look at the Truman administration after 1950 shows John Wesley Snyder, who headed a bank in St Louis and worked for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under Franklin Roosevelt performing a key role for integrating 8 million GI soldiers into the economy, and implementing the Marshall Plan. A similar job awaits another banking official Janet Yellen in Biden's cabinet to keep people employed during the pandemic. Xavier Becerra, currently attorney general of California, and formerly Congressman for 24 years, who endorsed "medicare for all" is the new Health Secretary. He grew up in a one room apartment with his Mexican parents. Secretary of State goes to Anthony Blinken, Dean Acheson was in this role under Truman as the Cold War surged with the Berlin crisis and the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Today the challenges from Russia and China are taking the shape of a revival of tensions. George Marshall who led American forces in the war, was secretary of defense. This position is given to a soldier Gen. Lloyd Austin who led forces in the wars in the Middle East. This has the potential to deliver better results after the years when America veered off course under the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, following the Truman, Eisenhower administrations that setup the recovery after World War II. Today after the banking crisis of 2009, disastrous healthcare and infrastructure neglect in the U.S., followed by the pandemic, a recovery like the one after World War II is needed.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...
BBC News Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...
SPIEGEL ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Vanderhei of Politico leaves to form a rival political coverage site called Axios, which has funding from Comcast Universal. The result of a rift between Mr Albritton, the owner, and the CEO, Mr. Vanderhei, is that many executives are now leaving Politico, putting it into a crisis. 

POLITICO Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the concern about the economy comes from the economic damage done by the coronavirus. The longer the shutdowns continue the more the damage. About 17 million have filed claims for unemployment benefits. The WSJ consensus of 57 economists is that 14.4 million jobs will be lost in coming months, and the unemployment rate will rise to a record 13% in June, from a 50 year low of 3.5% in February. The earliest the economy could go back to the level in February 2020 is 27 months says the WSJ economist survey. The brighter side of this comes in two aspects of this pandemic recovery curve. By flattening the curve and strict testing, contact tracing and isolation till the vaccine is developed about half the jobs lost can be recovered by the end of summer, says Moody's Analytics. The vaccine a year from now or in 9 months by November 2020 would allow the economy to recover faster. A more optimistic view comes from Daiwa Capital Markets which predicts many of people laid off will be recalled quickly allowing the labor market to recover in 6 months by September or October 2020. Only finance and real estate might take longer but most of the industries where the vast majority of jobs are could be back on their feet. The credible evidence supporting this perspective of a rebound comes from Colorado and Washington which require large employers to specify whether layoffs are temporary or permanent, 70% this year are temporary. Compare this to the prior 2009 recession where this figure was less than 1%- as reported by WSJ. The big push in this direction will be the $2 trillion that the Trump administration and U.S. Congress have committed to this task. Even more so is the determination of president Trump to protect American workers at all costs, that every job counts, and that businesses without exception to get the money have to show that workers are retained. The very success of the aid is being judged by how quickly people are back to work. Now for a look at where the situation is today- Oxford Economics, a UK based forecasting and consulting firm, projects 27.9 million jobs lost with industries other than those ordered to close making up 8 to 10 million of that number. It projects April's report will will capture late March layoffs. It will show cuts to 3.4 million business services workers, including lawyers, software groups, architects and consultants, advertising professionals, in addition to 1.5 million non-essential healthcare workers, 100,000 information workers. One conclusion of this report is that the virus does not discriminate across business groups and business service workers are also affected. Many companies that were hiring will cancel that move and many will cut hours worked. Many of these business services are not a priority. Hospitals are affected too, as they cut elective surgical procedures and routine care that are major revenue sources. Some are now charging for telemedicine visits to maintain some revenue stream. State and local governments employ 20 million workers. As tax receipts decline these local governments will face choices of cutting payrolls and services without enough federal government relief. In a way laying off workers and having them take unemployment benefits shifts that burden to the federal government so that services for overtime to police and paramedics, retention and deployment of nurses in schools.    ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The 2016 election will be decided by changing demographics and shifting coalitions between Democrats and Republicans. The changing demographics mean that a higher Latino vote in states such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida could bring these states to Democrats. And the working class vote in the industrial midwest in Ohio and the vote in some farm rural states such as Iowa could bring these states to Republicans. Michigan is another industrial midwest state which is uncertain as the older industrial centres such as Youngstown, Ohio, Scranton, Pennsylvania, and parts of Michigan- a big change from when unionized workers voted Democratic. The millenials, college educated women, and suburban voters in cities such as Denver, Miami, Las Vegas and Washington are now part of a new Democratic coalition. Most striking is the way the electorate is divided between better educated and less educated, between men and women, and between young and older voters. In fact with the conservative cultural emphasis in the Republican platform older voters are looking back to bringing back the 50's, while Democrats and the younger generation are looking forward to the future in this election. This is not an accurate characterization though because in 1948 with Harry Truman and in 1952 and 1956 with Dwight Eisenhower America was changing rapidly and looking to the future, so that by 1960 the civil rights movement was already established, and women were making the transition to being college educated and working in business and government.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Much of what is written here about Xi Jinping pursuing Chinese socialist vision was known since he became president in 2013 when China's Communist party was losing its appeal, and efforts were made to seize power within the communist party by a leader in the western province of Chongqing. Bo Xi Lai attempted to take advantage of the situation with appeals to the working class and without any genuine commitment beyond a power grab. It was well known that Xi Jinping is a son of one of the veterans of the Communist party under Mao, Xi Zhongxun, unlike leaders who followed premier Deng Xiaoping such as Jiang Zemin. Zemin was a relatively unknown figure who was in university during the crucial period of 1947-49 when Mao came to power in mainland China. It would not be correct to say that little was known about Xi's own ideas about socialism as the long term answer to China's problems. Xi also came in as president at a time when the Communist party was losing its appeal to working class people after three administrations that followed premier Den Xiaoping. These three administrations followed a form of state capitalism that allowed companies to pollute the environment, compete without any regulations, and allowed to operate without any controls as long as they pursued growth aggressively and expanded the economy.There was an effort by Communist party regional leader in western Chinese province of Chongqing, Bo Xi Lai, to use this as an opportunity to grab power in China. During his first year as president Xi had to resolve this issue by having a court trial after revelations of corruption and misuse of power by Bo Xi Lai.  Xi's father Zhongxun's role in the revolutionary movement offers clues to Xi's own convictions and faith in the party. Zhongxun was a communist soldier who set up the revolutionary base areas in Shanxi-Gansu northwest border region of China that provided a refuge for Mao's army following the Long March. Other clues come from Zhongxun's role as head of propaganda during the period after 1944 and in 1952. Xi's family background particularly on his mother's side shows a fervent commitment to Chinese socialist vision during the chaotic years when the Japanese invaded China and Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalist forces failed to defend China's sovereignty. One reason Xi has been less understood is that little attention is paid to Xi's mother, Qi Xin who was highly educated and fervently believed in Chinese socialism and nationalist spirit during the Japanese invasion in 1938. In fact Qi Xin had to leave middle school after the Japanese took over Beijing. She joined the Counter Japanese Political and Military University to continue education and in 1941 attended the Central Party school. She met Xi's father Zhongxun in 1944. In 1953 she enrolled in the Marx School of Communism, and it was her position at the school that offered her husband added protection during the Cultural Revolution that affected Deng Xiaoping and others. With such a history in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's it is likely that Xi was profoundly influenced by his father's role in the revolutionary movement, and his mother's faith in socialism with national spirit as the way to protect against the foreign invasions. It would now appear that by the time Xi joined the Politburo in 2003 there was no question about the future course China would take given the role of his parents, and the events of 1938 the fall of Beijing, his mother having to flee, and the events that followed. Xi showed resilience during the period of the Great Proletarian Revolution when he was sent to the villages at a time when he would be studying in school and college. He was sent to an agricultural commune in largely rural Shanxi province where he worked as a manual laborer alongside other people and developed a relationship with the local farmers. Unlike other leaders during that period which could even be said about premier Deng Xiaoping in 1989, Xi took a different lesson from this experience largely because his father and mother were committed to the socialist vision for the long run. His father was still not fully rehabilitated by premier Chou en-lai when Xi was allowed to enter Beijing's Tsinghua University in 1975. He studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua graduating in 1979. Upon graduation he worked as a assistant for 3 years to a vice premier who was minister of defense. He then left Beijing for Hebei province to work as a deputy secretary of the provincial CCP. He was made Mayor of Xiamen, then governor of Fujian province in 1999 where he tackled environmental conservation before moving to Zheziang province. His father passed away in 2002 and it would appear that he was carefully trained in different provinces instead of staying in Beijing, for a position of national leadership. Xi got his break in 2007 when the upper leadership of Shanghai city was tainted in a wide ranging pension fund scheme. He was made party secretary for Shanghai. This was the position Jiang Zemin had held before he succeeded premier Deng Xiaoping. In only a few months in October 2007 Xi was made one of the 8 Politburo members, ready to succeed Hu Jintao as president. Xi's perception of being sent to the villages and making it to university education was that it was part of the long run socialist struggle, with pain that his father had also endured as simply a phase in which things would be right in the end. Xi's mother comes across as a resilient figure and one who had herself gone through the struggles of the 1930's and aided her husband on one occasion. Some of this resilience could have been passed on to the son. Xi's wife is a zealous participant in Chinese dance and music performances that created enthusiasm for the Chinese socialist revolution from the 1930's period. In his conversations  with colleagues in the party, in culture and temperament, Xi has been forthright about this background and his style of work.  Xi is unlike premier Deng and the presidents who succeeded him such as Hu Jintao mentored by a former mayor of Shanghai Jiang Zemin who came to power in 1989. Xi is more in line with the leaders around Mao like his father in his outlook and thinking, with a cautious temperament that comes from years going through ups and downs of political struggles. He is once said to have responded with dismay about being in a top position in the government knowing how precarious this had been for his father. The education at Tsinghua, his engineering background, and his easy familiarity with farmers in the provinces, mean that he understands China and its history well enough to have the confidence to shape Chinese policies in a way that none of his predecessors had except Mao, premier Chou-en-lai, Liu Shao Chi and a few veterans from that time in the 1930's. That Xi waited patiently for so long to gradually assert his ideas about socialist vision for China may be the surprising part of his behaviour till 2021.  It may be that he wanted to make the changes only after he could persuade party leaders and colleagues of his vision and long run goals. And because the Chinese economy had grown so large that it would take time to steer the ship in a different direction for the long term. In most of the negotiations with president Trump he cautiously let trade negotiators handle the situation, all the time learning about how to tackle problems of China's relationship with US and Europe. US president Biden also has a vision that is veering towards a socialist perspective in terms of bringing gains of progress to workers and families. So does Mr. Trump, Mr. Boris Johnson in UK, and Social Democrat's Scholz in Germany. It is both economic and political as Mr. Xi is quoted as saying in this WSJ report. The necessities of such action are both economic, social and politically driven as capitalism has veered way off course.  In this report it is mentioned that Soho China 40% stake was taken by a large capital markets firm in New York in the hope of large gains, as Soho China developer was a tycoon who wanted to leave China. Seeing it as not favorable to his company following events in Hong Kong. This behaviour of capital markets groups in New York and tech companies in Silicon Valley, driven by profits and not aware of the social and economic problems of working class American families is a problem in the US and in Europe. It is also what has driven so many large tech companies to expand manufacturing operations in China, that hurt US manufacturing capabilities and American workers jobs- an issue raised by president Trump and taken up by president Biden. Biden has already moved to make Intel Corporation change its plans and invest in American manufacturing technologies in a quietly implemented U turn. US president Biden is left with the unenviable job of solving this huge problem during the pandemic. He has also committed to a somewhat socialistic vision with a $3.5 trillion plan for workers and families, as has vice chancellor Scholz in Germany with his own version of programs, after the failures of unregulated forms of capitalism. Scholz goes so far as to say his mission is to show that there is really no such thing as a self-made man, that it is help from society, his fellow citizens, and government, that makes it possible for him to do his work. In a sense the world is shifting away from Reagan forms of capitalism without regulation after seeing disastrous results during the pandemic. Not just China. Some form of government guidance and regulations are now seen as essential in China, the US, UK, Germany and India for a better society and a better, healthier life, and for opportunity for all in each country.   ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The CEO of the New York Times and the former director general of the BBC, takes a look at the public discourse in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and in the Brexit campaign, and finds some troubling changes. The use of words that can eaily be picked up by Twitter and social media to attack opponents, the complete disregard for facts, and outright attempts to denigrate and destroy using rhetorical tactics, and a section of the public that has turned away from the facts or is disinterested in facts, is deeply troubling for Mark Thompson. When the public discourse fails, then the politics as a whole starts to collapse, says Thompson. We are children of the enlightenment, says Thompson, and were taught to look underneath statements to discern the truth. This is a crisis in public discourse. Worse it is one in which truth telling by people who say they are outsiders and tell it like it is, is not about telling the truth. Which is what makes it so dangerous. Thompson cites the statement by Michael Gove that "people in this country have had enough of experts," as another dangerous sign. He says it is time that experts make themselves understandable and talk in a way the public can understand. The media needs to explain issues in clear ways, and professional policymakers language of discourse needs to be conveyed in better ways that the public can grasp, in which the Brexit Remain campaign failed, says Thompson. Its important to acknowledge the problem, as the health of our democracies depends on finding solutions to what has happened in 2015-2016 to change the public discourse and let it deteriorate to unimaginable levels.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Steve Bannon is described in this indepth report by Scott Shane as a workaholic, born to working class family with his father a telephone line operator, who went to Virginia Tech and joined the Navy in the hope of advancing a career in politics. At Virginia Tech he won a leadership position of the student organization. He was described by another student who knew him well as passionate but not likely to get much done. The period at Virginia Tech and in the Navy were the Carter years followed by election of Ronald Reagan. The election of Reagan had a huge influence on Bannon- the same overtones of that campaign of Reagan are seen today in the forgotten men and women, white working class families that Conservatives then and Tea Party Conservatives in the Obama years felt ignored. The downward drift of the lower middle class families that saw incomes drop as manufacturing hollowed out in the U.S. with foreign competition, the failure of establishment politicians of both parties to protect American manufacturing and working class families, added to the sense of angst for Bannon. Bannon just like politicians in the Obama camp such as Emmanuel, found the way to politics through finance and gains made as the banking sector and financial institutions made huge financial gains by 2008. This was a stepping stone for their political ambitions. Emmanuel who is also a workaholic and passionate about his views worked to elect a black president, Bannon choosing to do the opposite and push for bringing back the Reagan era. Most on the liberal side see him as part of a racist movement. Reagan was none of those things. How does one reconcile the two? It is possible that seeing the fight against the established politics as an impossible task, Bannon in his passionate temperament did not object to the support of right wing extremists, in the same way that Trump did. As both Trump and Bannon have people of Jewish origin and black people in their circle of friends or family. What incensed Bannon as described here by Scott Shane of the NYT, was that after the financial crisis of 2008, hardly any bank executives who had committed wrongdoing went to jail, his father's line operator retirement savings were devastated by the financial crisis, and working class families struggled harder than ever, that his daughter at West Point was with mostly children of working class families who were the ones fighting America's wars. Many ironies abound in the story. Bannon got his business start in the same financial institutions that were involved in the financial crisis of 2008, Bannon & Co was acquired by Societe Generale. He is from an Irish Catholic working class family in Richmond and attended Benedictine High School, with a mother Doris that worked on the campaign to elect Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, as the first African American governor of Virgina.  The other ironies are in that Bannon sees Trump as "an imperfect vessel" but still good enough, and Trump sees himself as "making all the decisions" when asked about Bannon, as a range of interests struggle to form a coherent movement on the right in American politics- an unlikely combination of a telephone operator's son and real estate magnate's son who built his own real estate business in luxury real estate towers far removed from ordinary men and women they represent. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points to Democrats having won consistently 18 states plus District of Columbia adding upto 242 Electoral College votes in every election since 1992. Democrats need 28 more to cross the needed 270 votes. Republicans consistently having 13 states with 102 electoral College votes. Demographic changes in recent years have shifted to where Hillary Clinton may not need to devote resources to Colorado and Virginia because of a more favorable position there.  Carrying Pennsylvania with these 2 states would put Clinton over the 270 required. Vice Presidential candidate for Clinton, Senator Keane is from Virginia and is popular in the state.  Pennsylvania has a long history favoring Democrats. North Carolina has also seen demographic changes favoring Democrats. The Clinton campaign is focussing ads on these states as well as the swing states of Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Georgia, Arizona and Utah which are becoming competitive for Democrats. By keeping up the effort in Georgia, Arizona and Utah, Clinton hopes to make Trump divert resources there. Other two swing states are Ohio and Florida, but this WSJ report says Clinton has to win only one of the four swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina to go over 270 and Trump needs all four. Of the 20 media markets Clinton or her super PACs have focussed their ads on 16 are in these 4 states. The Clinton campaign is looking at several alternative routes to 270 Electoral College votes, which gives it more flexibility to plan the campaign.  ...

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