LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Merkel's now widely quoted words were made in Munich on May 27, 2017, after a NATO summit meeting in Brussels and a Group of 7 meeting in Italy, in which she was disconcerted by U.S. president Trump's positions on NATO, Russia, climate change, and trade. These words "the times in which we could rely fully on others - they are somewhat over." Merkel added "This is what I experienced in the last few days." After the election of Emmanuel Macron in France, Merkel expressed great relief at the outcome of the French election with Macron winning about two thirds of the vote, setting the stage for the election in Germany after several months of difficult watching and waiting. Now there is new confidence in Germany shaping its own future, with France and the rest of the European Union without Britain. Merkel says she "experienced this" meaning that she had undergone a transformation in these few months, and visibly in the last few days. She was also sending a message to Germans and people of the European Union - "we have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans." This also complements tactically to form the approach of Germany and France at the leadership of the EU, as French president Macron said at the end of the Group of 7 conference that multilateralism was intact, and the U.S. and EU shared many common goals.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this interview with Alessandra Galloni of the WSJ following the June 28, 2012 European summit, Monti says Italian spreads with German bonds would be 1200 or something if the Berlusconi government were still in power. Monti later called Berlusconi to say he regretted the extrapolations on spreads mentioned in the intervew that could be seen as banal or abstract. This is taking the phrase out of the context as the comment was made in the context of a question by Galloni asking why Italian spreads were so high even after the actions taken by Monti to improve competitiveness including labor reforms. Monti's answer was that this was because markets are sensing that eurozone governance is weak, that though France has done less reform its spreads are low because people think Germany would never let France go. Monti makes the statement here that the agreement of Europe's political leaders that they would do whatever is necessary to save the euro after the eurozone June 2012 summit, including stabilizing the markets through EFSF/ESM instrument, gives the ECB the political and moral justification to engage in buying Italian and Spanish bonds to stabiize yields at acceptable levels. He just hopes the ECB does not wait till the night before the catastrophe (disintegration of the euro) before it acts, and does this slightly before that time. And his words to Merkel and Germany about the need for ECB interventions to stabilize yields are clearly stated- Merkel risks facing an Italian parliament that rejects Europe and the euro and is not a friend of Germany if the action is not taken.Throughout Monti remains committed to the idea of a economic and monetary union of Europe. To give up on the euro is to give up not just a currency but a civic culture. It is the most forceful statement of any European leader during the eurozone crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
The concluding G20 statement asked the IMF to raise $50 billion for the poorest countries through IMF gold sales. Central banks in Russia, China and Japan will be counter parties to these sales.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein argues that the US and the Obama administration achieved most of its goals, even though the Europeans took the credit. On regulatory reform, Geithner's regulatory reform proposal he says, could well have been written at the French Finance Ministry, as at the US Treasury. And it gives Obama ammunition to prepare, as private equity, hedge funds, and banks try to water down his proposals for regulatory reform. By having member countries commit to adding $850 billion to the resources at the IMF, and regional development banks to provide help to countries in serious difficulties- and giving instructions that the money can be used not only for debt rollover, bank recapitalization and balance of payments support, but also for stimulus spending, infrastructure investment, trade finance and social support- the Obama adminstration has accomplished a great deal. It has succeeded in putting in place the necessary financial resources to support not only the financial systems of countries in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America that need help, but put emphasis on the need for resources to go for helping reduce job losses, create jobs, and provide some forms of income or support to people in these countries. This is a major step as it means the countries of Eastern Europe and other developing countries can deal with their crises in confidence. Mexico is taking loans from the IMF. Dominique Strauss Kahn had begun the policy of shifting IMF's focus to these social goals as significant parts of the recovery process in countries, but he faced the old mindset among the IMF staff, as when its reported staff wanted to increase interest rates in Pakistan by 10% instead of the 3% that was finally agreed to. That would have caused serious difficulty to the people of Pakistan, created chaotic situation and disturbed the social fabric of that country. See the link to this for S. Korea and for Pakistan. And as Gordon Brown put it the old conditionality that lay behind the IMF loans, is phased out. This makes it the new policy at the IMF backed by the G20 mandate. The Washington consensus which prescribed open borders, floating exchange rates and fiscal prudence is now ended. And to support this change the developing countries will have a bigger say in IMF policy and decisions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leaders of North Korea and South Korea, Kim Jong-Un and Moon Jae-in meet on April 27, 2018, at the military demarcation line between North and South Korea.  After handshakes and Mr. Moon stepping onto North Korean soil for a few minutes, Kim Jong-Un visits Seoul for peace talks.  This is a historic moment for the two countries as this is the first time since the Korean War (1950-53) that a North Korean leader has visited the South. No peace treaty was signed after the Korean War. During the period of six decades that followed the Korean War, particularly the period after 1980, the South Korean economy recovered from the war and expanded following the Japanese export model with large conglomerates such as Samsung. The North Korean economy has struggled in the period and North Korea is one of the poorest countries isolated for most of this period like Burma from the rest of the world. The development of nuclear weapons was pursued to prevent any external threats to the government, and decades of sanctions followed with aborted efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. Recent ballistic nuclear tests and the installation of a new anti missile system in South Korea led to tighter sanctions with the cooperation of China. This heightened tensions, followed by the tighter sanctions. Kim Jong Un and the government are looking for ways to win approval in the international community, and find a way out of the tight sanctions. South Korea, Japan and the U.S. government are not sure whether this will lead to any results in denuclearization. The summit with Moon will be followed by a summit between president Trump and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. If a way can be found for the North Korean government and party leaders to transition to acceptance in the international community followed by integration of the North and South's economies over an extended period, there is a possibility that denuclearization could work, because it is to maintain the current government in North Korea that nuclear development was pursued in the North. Ideological conflict is now less of a factor in the conflict between North and South Korea as it was in the early days of the Korean War with the Cold War and Communism's advances in Eastern Europe and Asia the big issue at the time. Today China itself is more of a state run economy under the Communist Party following capitalism with Chinese characteristics than the old Communist model, and ideological conflict is not an issue between the U.S. and Communist run countries. This leaves open the possibility of a solution particularly as at some point just as in the case of Vietnam and the U.S., North Korea could see its future more allied with that of South Korea than with China. That leaves an opening for a timetable of transitional actions plus effective implementation stages, with incentives for the U.S. and Japan to negotiate a settlement. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein points out why the recent agreement for a "fiscal compact" is no more than an empty statement about fixing the eurozone's finances. In this respect it is no different than the Stability and Growth Pact it replaces, with serious weaknesses. Feldstein cites the weaknesses in the language of the agreement. Each eurozone country is required to limit its"cyclically adjusted" budget deficit to 0.5% of GDP and bring its debt down to 60% of GDP. Compliance will be performed by the European Court of Justice and fines imposed. In practice the questions loom large- for a country like Spain with a 23% unemployment rate, isn't all of the 6% budget deficit cyclical? Again the agreement says deficits are calculated "net of one-off and temporary measures." Under this provision a lot of the stimulus programs would be considered in the category of "one-off." Other language lets eurozone countries frame budgets based on "exceptional circumstances" and "periods of severe economic downturn." Italy has declining economic growth, does it make sense to have a large budget surplus in that situation to lower debt to GDP, and how does that goal relate to "exceptional circumstances."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zeit Online takes a look at German chancellor Angela Merkel's statement made in a beer tent in the Muich suburb of Trudering- "The times in which we can completely rely on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days." Zeit Online says the words "ein Stuck" in German were meant to say a bit or somewhat, but the essence of the statement that the depending on the trans-Atlantic alliance was now over comes right through.

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The June 2012 referendum in Ireland on the EU Fiscal Treaty.

LyrArc Article Gist
The constructive contribution made by the G-20 meetings of leaders towards building agreement on economic and other policies for peace and progress in the global economy. The meetings were especially useful for coordinating policy and addressing issues arising in the global economy after the 2008 financial crisis. Here Li Baodong, China's vice minister for international organizations and conferences, international economic affairs, describes the path ahead: IMF reforms implementation, better coordination of macroeconomic policies, pursuing the anti-protectionist and free trade policies with further support to the WTO and ministerial MC9 meeting in Bali in Dec. 2013, and infrastructure financing proposals for developing countries on the agenda at the St Petersburg, Russia, G-2- meeting in Sept. 2013. Baodong says the mechanism called the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth as part of the G-20 meetings is a major achievement. Each G-20 economy submits it macroeconomic policy plan for a Mutual Assessment Process under this arrangement. The progress from the Bretton Woods financial architecture to the new arrangement- from the G-6 to the G-20 to include developing countries from India to Mexico and Brazil- is another major achievement, not fully recognized by the public, says Baodong. Interestingly Baodong makes particular mention to global rebalancing, rather than pushing what he calls the impossible task of increasing demand to get growth. This is a realization coming to China's economic policymakers under the new Jinping-Keqiang administration after the overly aggressive effort to stimulate demand in the 2009-2011 Stimulus, and the ensuing financial problems in the banking and credit system. It is indicative of the policy shift and its implementation underway in China in 2013-2015....

LyrArc Article Gist
Global aid to agriculture in developing countries is about $5 billion a year. Mr Obama made the decision to double U.S> aid to developing countries farmers to more than $1 billion ayear in 2010. THe NYT reports that with the G8 meeting in Italy in July, America will spend $3.5 billion dollars over 3 years for helping farmers in developing countries. This according to Michael Fromans, an Obama adminsitration official is going to be new money. As far as the other G8 countries are concerned it could include old money for the total $15 billion committed. Since the worst hit areas for agriculture are in Africa, and Africa has lost a lot of ground in development in the last 20 years, suffering neglect in aid to farmers over 20 years both form the American administrations and their own governments, it is surprising that the amount and the details for where it would go in Africa are not revealed. Mr Obama has grasped the need not just for shipping food assistance from the USA, but need to help farmers. He agrees with ANdrew Natsios former head of Agency of International Development, who says that most of the poorest people in developing countries are farmers and herders living in the countryside, the crux of any effort to improve their lives has to start with agriculture. Obama advocates using the "tried and true agricultural methodfs and technologies that are cheap and are efficient but can have huge impact" in the lives of people. Malawi, is a good example, say Prof. Sachs of Columbia University, as subsidies for fertilizer sharply increased food production. Sachs says it is possible to double or triple food production by giving small-holder farmers access to high yielding seeds, fertilizer and agricultural extension services. But more needs to be done and devloping countries themselves that have made progress like India, China and Brazil can provide their know-how and experts and should have been brought into this, which is another reason why there is no reason for a G-8 summit of countries of European origin. An enlarged organization can bring in the resources and ideas of all the major countries in the world, to especially bear in on Africa, where alot needs to be done. Just to get an idea the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization says the global economic crisis will put another 100 million people into facing hunger this year....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist continues to advocate nationalization of American banks as the only meaningful and effective solution.

LyrArc Article Gist
Here are 11 big infrastructure projects that are planned across the country. They are part of the $2.2 trillion of projects to build or repair infrastructure, that is estimated by the American Society of Civil Engineers as needed by America today. But there is only $100 billion for infrastructure spending in the Stimulus Plan, and much of this will go to keeping existing infrastructure, a dilapidated bridge here or road there in repair. Only $50 billion is available for transportation projects. The rapid transit planned for California with trains twice as fast as Acela for a 800 mile track is estimated at $45 billion, but there is only $11 billion in the Stimulus for mass transit aand cities like Washington DC for Dulles airport with its need for a airport train, and other mass transit projects around the country wil compete for the same money. As a result most will go unfunded. The Second Avenue Subway in New York at $4.35 billion, Miami Port Tunnel at $1 billion, Bridge to Canada from Detroit for $1.8 billion, Hudson Rail Tunnel for New York at $8.75 billion, Seattle Highway Tunnel at $4.24 billion, Gulf ports at New Orleans and Gulfport, Mississippi at $2.04 billion, tens of billions for new California aqueduct bypassing the delta around Sacramento to bring water from north to arid Southern part of California, NestGen Air Traffic Control for $15 billion to $22 billion, are the other projects on this list. Many of these are badly needed and have been waiting for years to get the necessary investment. This is only a partial list, and suggests that there are a lot of projects that can productively use government investment, so that wasteful spending does not occur. It appears that the projects are there because these areas were neglected for a long period, more like the situation faced during the post Thatcher period in the UK, where infrastructure and services had been neglected for so long that Labor governments could productively channel new investment in these areas to avoid wasteful spending. And it appears that the situation is very different from Japan where the Liberal Democratic Party had a vested interest in keeping its farm and rural base happy with new projects, like a bridge to nowhere, that led to wasteful spending for a decade or more, leading to rising deficits and investments that did not create productive returns in terms of economic growth. By contrast these projects have potential to generate productive returns for years into the future and also are large enough to create jobs and be spread out over a number of years. This could end up being a real bright spot in the current situation. Felix Rohatyn, who helped New York rebuild its finances afte a crisis, has a new book "Bold Endeavors: How our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now", using examples like the rebuilding of the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, and the Interstate Highway System, and says the US needs to build for the future with more ambitious, better planned projects today. He says, that infrastructure is not an expense, it has to be seen as a vitally needed and productive investment. People like Rohatyn and others see the Stimlulus plan as a missed opportunity because a lot of these projects mentioned here and the numerous others not shown here will simply not see much money from the government to support them and get them off the ground. The idea that this is wasteful government spending that is spreading, may be a danger to this vision and opportunity. At the same time the reality is that if all this was happening during the time of the Erie Canal or the postwar period of the Interstate Highway System it would have been much easier to support. The banking crisis fix is taking away so many of the dollars that could have gone here, that this may be the missed opportunity, the lack of room for visionary investments because of the danger of pushing the government deficit to 60% of GDP with the current spending plans. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Bell at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Andy Xie, economist in Shanghai, Zhang Habin, professor at Peking University, and Michael Meyer, author and hutong expert, talk about what issues are important. Bell says Obama mania is absent among the young in China, though they respect his intellectual abilities, and Chinese are not looking to the USA for ideals. They are looking to Chinese culture and characteristics, and democracy is seen in this light with emphasis on Chinese characteristics. This means the US has to engage at a deeper level with China. Treat China as an equal with something positive to offer, says Bell. Andy Xie is concerned about the US-China relationship, based as it is today on tenuous grounds, where what happens in Florida and California can have a significant and immediate effect on what happens in Guangdong. With 70% of the furniture sold in the US made in China, the effects are immediate when housing slumps. So he says the US lost 3 million jobs since the subprime crisis, and China lost 20 million jobs. And for the 5 million college graduates coming out in 2009, they will be adding to the 5 million college graduates from previous years who are seeking jobs. Ten million unemployed college graduates mean China is seeing whole new conditions as the backdrop of US-China relations. Habin says its important for the US to set an example in climate change and emissions of greenhouse gases. The US should sign an agreement with China with binding targets, make its technology available to China, and provide development aid to make this technology and other assistance accessible to China. Cooperation on this issue is vital to future relations says Habin. Meyer says the hutong, small enclaves of old Beijing with lanes and small homes, that the city officials call neighborhood slums, but actually have a sense of community and a vibrant life, are worth preserving. He questions the Walmart and Pepsi commercial culture, and questions building of the American car culture urban plan that generates pollution, lacks community feeling, and is not energy efficient. In fact he has a point here, because the US is shifting away from its own older urban planning design that encourages urban sprawl, as in California. The new Sacramento urban plan that is being adopted for the future in America has energy efficiency, more community and easy interaction, less urban sprawl in mind. See the link to this. But Meyer says Chinese planners insist on their right to make the same mistakes American urban planners made. And Meyer quotes the head of the first Chinese environmental NGO, who says, "if the Chinese want to live the American way of life we need 7 earths to support them". Which raises a disturbing question of the US postwar way of life with its large SUV's, urban sprawl, and less sense of community. Wouldn't the US have to join India and China in the worldwide scramble for resources to preserve this way of life? Just this week China signed $51 billion of deals for natural resources, see the link. And is the rapid decline of the SUV, just the first sign of changes that are taking place, with the economic changes in coming years leading to grappling with issues of better quality of life, smaller quantity of things, health and obesity and lifestyles, community, all coming to the fore. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
GE's share price falls below $10. It has dropped 77% in 1 year from the 52 week high of $38.52 a share. Last time it hit this level was April 17, 1995. And its GE Capital unit faces problems. For years it generated half of GE's profits, now it had to sell its commercial paper to the government when markets dried up last fall. It has had to use a government bond guarantee program for bond issuance in recent months, even though it was at one time one of the largest corporate bond issuers. It has been unable to sell its $30 billion private label credit card operations and it appliances and light bulb units, as there are no buyers. As the stock drops GE has to consider cutting the dividend of $1.24 per share, to keep more cash to navigate this crisis. GE's Immelt continues to have his managers focus on the operations, and its business reviews that were conducted weekly are now conducted daily, and the monthly reviews are conducted weekly. But being proactive hasn't helped in this environment. ....