LyrArc Article Gist
Joseph Stiglitz describes policies and programs of the Obama administration that favor banks and avoid a government takeover of over leveraged and badly managed banks in the U.S. President Obama's policy transfers financial assets to banks on highly favorable terms even though some of the banks made bad decisions and highly overleveraged assets creating the 2008 global financial crisis. The policies avoid a government takeover of banks, policies which the U.S. aggressively pushed for in other countries such as S. Korea during the 1997 financial crisis with Rubin, Summers and Geithner at Treasury. These policies would come under strong criticism because it rewarded risk taking and kept in place an incentive system that led to such behaviours- creating "heads I win, tails you lose" psychology. It also delinks the performance-reward relationship that is the basis of free enterprise in western economies. A problem that would be left from the crisis and the Obama administration's response to it is "Too-Big-To-Fail," with banks larger than before. The FDIC and U.S. Fed's plans for banks to have living wills for an orderly windup under Dodd-Frank legislation only goes a part of the way in tackling this problem. In the U.S., and in Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, the related problem of high bonuses continues into 2014, with RBS bank in Britain one of the egregious examples and highly unpopular with the British public. The lack of similiar government help to homeowners, advocated by Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein and FDIC chairwoman Sheila Bair from the beginnings of the crisis stands in sharp contrast to the response of the Obama administration. See the links for Barr, Feldstein and Hoenig. In an ultimate irony from the crisis handling much of the damage from foreclosures was done to minorities which supported the administration. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Coordinated action by the governments of France, Britain and Germany each with its own package depending on its own circumstances but committing over a trillion dollars to rescue plans for financial institutions. In Britain the government moved to take majority stakes in 2 of its largest banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the newly combied bank of Lloyds TSB and HBOS in exchange for a $64 billion capital infusion. In Berlin the German government setup a 480 billion euros package consisting mostly of loan guarantees, with 400 billon euros in guarantees for inter-bank loans and another $80 billion euros for direct injections of capital to help weak balance sheets and purchase toxic or illiquid assets of German banks that are at the brink of collapse. The French have setup their own 360 billion euros package. The French government will create a fund to raise money to guarantee debt for upto 5 years in a bid to make cash available to banks. The banks can access these funds in exchange for putting up their own collateral, including debt not currently accepted by the ECB. And a state sponsored company will provide upto 40 billion euros in direct capital injections to banks that request it in exchange for equity stakes. In addition Netherlands made $220 billion euros available for capital injection into banks and other efforts and Spain will insure upto 100 billion euros in bank debt. Britain's step are the boldest ones yet and Britain's crisis is also likely to be one of the worst because of years of leveraging and overborrowing. But the German financial system is also under heavy strain and strong swift action was necessary to keep its banking system functioning. While other countries have setup the funds for capital injection like other European countries and the USA, Britain has also take the lead in taking majority stakes in two of its largest banks by Monday, October 13, with the departure of the executives who got these banks into such a mess. Gordon Brown has shown cosiderable leadership in this crisis and has been at the forefront in proposing and acting on workable solutions and swift response while Germany and the USA lagged behind. France's Sarkozy's contribution has been in the area of global coordination which he has argued and worked for and successfully achieved during the last 2 weeks....

LyrArc Article Gist
How the Cowley plant stands as a fine example of how foreign investment has helped regenerate the area around Oxford university. BMW has invested more than $560 million in the plant since 2000 and in April 2007 the plant produced its millionth Mini a car based on a contemporary design of the old Morris Mini car. BMW has with its investments contributed about 55,000 jobs and $5 billion to the British economy in 2004 according to Oxford Economic Forecasting. UK received foreign investment that was 37% of of its gross domestic product in 2005, higher than France 28%, germany 18%, and the USA 13%, according to figures from the United Nation Conference for trade and Development. It has helped the British economy as the unemployment rate is lower than most of the EU countries. In the financial services industry a lot of foreign investors from USA, Germany and Switzerland have bought British firms and the financial services industry has thrived with all the international presence and Britian has increased its position as a centre of global financial services....

LyrArc Article Gist
The crisis of late 2008 and early 2009 in the global economy saw huge stimulus programs, resposible economic management, and rapid recovery by the end of 2009 in developing countries. China put in place a large stimulus program, and in most developing countries, India, Vietnam, Brazil and other countries efforts were made to strengthen the safety net for the poor and to introduce stimulus for creating jobs. India and Indonesis saw the return of ruling party governments and in Brazil Lula da Silva had favorability ratings above 60%. So contrary to earlier fears in late 2008 their was both asense of political stability and asense of confidence in the developing countries. Capital is flowing into these countries and the IIF says that net private capital inflows to developing countries will double in 2010 to $672 billion. Russia which saw capital outflows of $50 billion in the first 9 months saw $20 billon of capital inflows in the fourth quarter of 2009. Half of the 140 million laborers working in Chinese cities returned home in early 2009, a fifth stayed there and another fifth counld not find work when they returned to the cities. But as the stimulus in China kicked in, and infrastructure development surged, (see link to the rail infrastructure spending) by the middle of 2009 jobless ness among rural migrant workers went down to less than 3%. This shows in the Pew Global Attitudes Project wth more than 40% of respondents in India, China and Indonesia saying that they were satisfied with their lives, in China this was 87%. In France, Japan and Britain the share is below 30%. In America 49% of those in the Pew pollingfelt that America should mind its own business internationally, 30 points higher than in 1964. When asked "Are you better off in free markets?" the respondents share fell in 2009 in Germany by 4 points, in Spain by 10 points. Shares rose in India and China, and stayed flat in Brazil and Turkey, so there is no backlash against free markets in developing countries....

LyrArc Article Gist
Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF, says Britain may have to turn to the IMF for assistance if those holding British assets lose confidence in the government's ability to pay its debts, and start abandoning the pound. This happened in 1976. In Johnson's view the bottom line is that there is abudget problem and a banking problem, and adjustments will need to be made - and these adjustments are easier to make with an IMF loan than without one. Britain's budget deficit is 11%of its GDP compared with 13% forecast for the USA for 2009. And government debt which is 40% now is expected to go up to 80% of the overall economy in coming years, even 100%. The ratio approaches 80% in troubled economies like Italy and Greece.

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Queen of England at age of 95 politely and firmly turned down the Oldie of the Year Award, saying "you are only as old as you feel." Actually Queen Elizabeth is doing all her duties making speeches, hosting leaders as normally as possible. The Queen will host international business investment leaders for a Global Investment Summit. She also told leaders that she was proud of Britain's efforts for climate change, and the moves to a sustainable future.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Third Biennial Update Report at COP26 Glasgow shows where India stands on renewable energy, solar, forest cover enhancement, and improving carbon intensity in its climate change efforts so far.  For instance a 17 times increase in solar in the last 7 years to 45 gigawatts, with target of 450 gigawatts by 2030. In carbon intensity 24% improvement between 2005-2014. Scientist Bhatt presented the report for India's Environment Ministry saying India represented 17% of the world's population and historically 4% of world carbon emissions, today 5%. Improvements of carbon intensity per unit of GDP planned under Mod's plan for 2030 require 45% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. This suggests the trajectory of China will be avoided where highly polluting parts of industries such as steel and cement were left unregulated and lacking strict supervision leading to rampant pollution in 2000-2021. Mr. Birol, head of the Renewables Energy Agency said on BBC's "Hard Talk" program recently that if you combine all of China's steel and cement factory carbon emissions, that alone would equal the total sum of carbon emissions of the whole European Union today. A quick look at a graph of global carbon emissions trajectories shows three fold increase of China's carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons to 12 billion tons between 2000-2021, the period and the explosion of carbon that is the one activity that singlehandedly created the crisis of climate change today. By comparison US remains at about 6 billion tons of emissions, and EU, US, Britain Japan show flat trajectories. Business, globalization interests, US and European financial interests, and local governments in China that financed this explosion in steel and cement ignored the implications of so much pollution in so short a time through unregulated activities- writing a chapter of failure with most of the world's people left to bear the results of such a failure.  It is this that India plans to correct with a 45% improvement in carbon intensity per unit of GDP by 2030, and nothing could be more important in the government's plan than this. New technologies will be key for this. Modi and India realize how vulnerable India is to floods, drought stricken areas, shortages of water, and climate extremes, and see these plans as critical for healthy growth that benefits all of India's people and regions, It is a long term vision like no other today and sets a new direction for all developing regions of Asia, Latin America and Africa. As India leads the way in new technologies and ambitious programs such as one solar, one world, one grid, these technologies will also break open new paths for the regions of the world that need this most from Brazil to Indonesia.  China too suffers from the impact of so much pollution. Even as early as 2010 reports showed the higher pollution had lowered life expectancy in northern region of China compared to its southern region. Yet the most polluting factories were not removed and only recently is the activity being conducted seriously leading to the shortages of fuel from so much overexpansion in the boom years, and making adjustments done abruptly today more difficult.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is strong cirticism from many quarters about low interest rates as a prime culprit in causing the bubble in housing prices. In comments before the American Economic Association, America's Fed Chairman Bernanke defended his role as Fed governor in 2003 when he along with Greenspan was an advocate of the decision to cut the Fed's target interest rate to 1%, and to leave it here for a year and raise it only slowly. Bernanke says countries like Britain, New Zealand, and Sweden had tighter monetary policy but there home prices rose more, and monetary policy explains only 5% of the variation in home prices. Analysis has shown he says that capital inflows such as those the U.S. received from China and other Asian countries explains 31% of the variation in home prices, supporting a contrasting theory that that its these global imbalances that drove the crisis. He also placed the primary fault for the housing bubble on relaxed lending standards and views that housing prices would rise forever. Alongside these comments Fed chairman Bernanke also said that bank supervisors and other financial regulators of which the Fed was one, has a better ability to contain the excesses that led to the economic crisis including housing bubble and other excesses, than the Fed as a monetary policy maker. By saying this Bernanke is acknowledging that the failure of regulation was a key part of what happened in the economic crisis. The failure to fix the regulatory system even now leads Bernanke to say that he is open to using monetary policy as a supplementary tool for addressing risks should another bubble develop, if the regulatory system isn't reformed. Still Bernanke and Greenspan were quite complacent at the time of the low interest rates and did not point out the dangers of global capital imbalances which were evident at the time, preferring to say that the United States could benefit from the inflows of capital from overseas without serious risks. And the Fed did not exercize its role of vigilance in alerting the country to excesses in the way the housing industry operated and in exercizing its own powers to that effect. Instead the Fed as regulator and in role as asafeguard for serious risks let itself become part of the cheering section as the worst excesses in housing were being exposed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Mussa's forecast at the peterson Institute of Intenational Economics shows world economic growth moderating from 4.75% this year to 4.25% in 2008 and 5.25% in 2006 with continued global economic expansion. The IMF is expected to forecast USA economic growth slowing to 1.9% in 2008 from 2.8% in an earlier forecast. The IMF global forecast of 4.8% for 2008 is in line with Mr. Mussa's estimate. The IMF trimmed eurozone growth to 2.1% in 2008 from 2.5% . One reason given for the resilience in USA growth is the boost to US exports from the weakening dollar and the increase in worldwide demand, so by these estimates the housing crisis will be offset by general global economic growth and factors such as exports and its impact will be softened. Also eurozone growth will continue especially Germany, France and eastern europe whereas Britain and Spain may see some fallout from housing bubbles. Overall growth in India, China, Middle Eastern countries, and other parts of the world, including Germany, and export led growth in the USA will keep the global economy in decent shape. general increase in exports as world demand contimues to grow....

LyrArc Article Gist
India stands true to the principles of Mohandas Gandhi and joins Pope Francis in strongly condemning the killing of innocent civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as Gandhi would have done in his own way when he even paused the nonviolent struggle against the British after the burning of police stations in British India. Of no less significance is the danger of food insecurity caused by the war in Asia, Africa and Latin America which India is meeting. India is America's true partner in the free world in a way that even Germany, France, even Britain fail to be now that we know Merkel's policy "errors" and Macron's lofty ambitions for Europe, emboldened Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. American and German business integration of the American and German economies with China may also have emboldened Russia and China in their perceptions of world affairs that directly conflict with China's Buddhist history, Gandhi's view of the world, and India as the land of the Buddha.  Mr. Biden will talk with Modi about the invasion of Ukraine , the Indo-Pacific, and the building of strong India-US partnership. A major issue that has not been discussed at this level is the challenge India is facing and meeting of food security after the war in Ukraine. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many developing countries are feeling the effects of the war with soaring food prices denying access to basic necessities in these countries. This extends to countries from Asia to Africa and Latin America affecting hundreds of millions of people.  India is providing food assistance following its effort to share vaccines in a remarkable effort that has not received the world's attention. Vaccination for over a billion people in India has taken place in one of the significant achievements during the pandemic. This was combined with food security assistance to hundreds of millions of people in India in India's population of 1.2 billion people. India is now in a position to meet some of the world's food needs with its own efforts in agricultural production. In this way the role played by the US since World War II for peace and security is being met by India as a significant partner in the free world, and in a way this is returning the kind of help the US offered India during the period of famine in the sixties. US president Biden understands this as he will discuss "mitigating the destabilising impact on global food supply and commodity markets" of the war in Ukraine. These are the hidden costs of the war that are not less painful than the gory war scenes unfolding today in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and because they are about food they are of no less importance. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT analysis of fund raising by the Republican and Democratic parties for the 2020 election campaign shows Republicans hardly raising any money from people with incomes over 250,000 and very little from incomes over $200,000 with most funding coming from the base white working class and lower and upper middle class. For Democrats fund raising is significant at the levels of income over $200,000. Geographically the Democrats get most of their funding from the east and west coast areas.  This reflects the changes in the parties starting in the the 2008 elections when higher income groups in software, finance, and in professions of law and medicine and Silicon Valley tech shifted to Democrats. The Democrats also held onto minority votes. In 2016 this changed with a sharp turn with tech on the west coast and finance professionals on the east coast shifting to the Democrats. The PPP agreement under Obama favored tech over the auto industry, and renewal fossil fuels such as solar were favored over the oil industry and fracking. In 2016 this helped shift the votes in Michigan and Pennsylvania to Republicans. Older manufacturing industries, oil and fracking were supported by Republicans who pushed back against ceding global dominance in manufacturing to China. By 2020 these changes are now entrenched with white working class voters in industries decimated and communities destroyed by foreign imports mainly from China, supporting Republicans. Republicans under Trump have made regaining the manufacturing leadership of the U.S. that was the situation after World War II, a top priority for the U.S.  The minority vote shifted with Hispanics moving towards Republicans to a much larger degree than before. The urban rural divide is similar to Europe where the similar impact of foreign imports mainly from China have destroyed older industries and led to sharp decline in older towns and communities outside major cities. This is the situation facing the U.S. and Britain, France, Italy Spain, and Poland. Germany as a manufacturing country dependent on exports is also affected but to a lesser degree. The unwholesome aspect of this is that the larger urban areas are divorced from the rest of the country  and rural small towns, smaller cities. In some form reintegration has to take place. The vast majority of the working class classified in today's terminology as the less educated lacking a college degree and white are  paradoxically with Republicans, and the wealthy professionals and industries in software, finance with Democrats. Nothing makes this more evident than a quick look at the map of the U.S. with blue on the opposite coasts for Democrats and mostly red in between and in the south. This is unprecedented in American history. A rising tide that lifts all boats in the U.S. and the return of the U.S. to the position it held after World War II could change this in the next decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute points to trade barriers reducing competition and free trade that should raise an outcry when free trade and competition advocates focus alone on the Trump steel tariffs. He points to estimates that show $90 billion in additional costs to Americans from the barriers that prevent Americans from paying world market prices for surgeries and medical treatment, prices similar to what is paid in advanced countries like Germany, Britain and France. A bigger barrier in pharmaceuticals prices being sheltered from market competition worldwide costs a huge $370 billion in additional costs to Americans. These two costs in healthcare would help Americans by a magnitude compared to tax cuts that do not work for average Americans with the business tax cut going more into share buybacks than into increasing wages or capital investment in 2018.  Bernstein points to Neil Irwin's column in the NYT that flags statements such as Senator Mike Lee, Republican, that the steel tariffs are a huge job killing tax hike, as being misleading. Bernstein says two actions were never taken that would have used benefits of free trade to help affected communities that lost jobs in industries such as steel and textiles, other industries affected by foreign competition.  He lists these steps as sectoral employment training, apprenticeships ,and job creation efforts in the worst affected areas. Basically no one really knows what is good trade policy, the textbook concepts and theories are out of date when countries can subsidize particular industries such as steel and dump products into the American market. At a press conference on CSPAN with the Swedish prime minister Mr. Trump stated that China was exporting more than what is officially shown as there are transshipments from other countries, some of them with no steel mills.  As Mr. Trump stated at that press conference he was elected partly because of the worst affected communities- in places such as Michigan and other states in the midwestern U.S.- that suffered from unfair trade. Bernstein admonishes the economists and politicians, media, for the headlines that are misleading in showing that bad trade policy is being pursued and trade wars are being started. This deserves attention because the Trump administration and advisors such as Lighthizer who served in the Reagan administration seek fair trade, and the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross successfully pushed for NAFTA trade deal renegotiation not the outright rejection of NAFTA that was mentioned in the election campaign. Ironically no one is helped by this trade rhetoric and misleading headlines. In fact the strengthening of the U.S. currency as the huge trade surplus of China goes into U.S. assets, and with the election of Mr. Trump, gives foreign competitors a continued advantage. And in fact Japan, South Korea, China, had a mild response to the tariffs as reported, because these countries are aware of global overcapacity created especially by China which produces 50% of the world's steel, and as China shifts to higher technologically value added products closing many older steel mills. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
To get the agreement of the 27 countries engaged in the talks to set new banking rules, the new Basel III banking rules are being phased in over a protracted period. Some changes go into effect in 2013, but others will be put into effect by 2019. The focus on the new rules is how much capital, or "common equity" banks will be required to hold as a cushion to absorb losses in a crisis like that of 2008. Large banks will be required to hold 7% of their assets in common equity. By 2015, banks will have to begin building a 2.5% buffer of capital, which must be in place fully by 2019. No action was taken on issues such as requirements for banks to have access to ample liquidity, what systemically important banks should hold in capital, and establishing a counter cyclical capital buffer.

LyrArc Article Gist
Th Basel Committee on Banking Supervision set strict financial guidelines for capital and liquidity that banks have to hold, but failed to implement early compliance. Banks get 8 years to comply for most of the banks, and 13 years for some of the banks. Increasing capital requirements by triple the current levels in the form of current equity, as required by the new Basel rules, gives banks a larger buffer in a situation that some of their assets lose value in a crisis such as the one in 2008. The US argued for stronger requirements and early implementation. Germany held back the implementation timetable mainly because its regional banks are saddled with bad loans; which might require $100 billon capital infusion by the German government, if early compliance was set in the new rules. The result is that the Basel rules have not grasped the opportunity to act quickly to strengthen the banking system, according to Prof. Jeremy Stein of Harvard University, a former advisor to the U.S. Treasury Department. In Stein's view the timetable is so far out, that another crisis will probably take place before the implementation. In the event, regulators from the U.S., Germany, and other countries let fears of tightened lending by banks prevail to an extent where the new rules timetable is stretched way out for 8-13 years....

LyrArc Article Gist
A German reporter questions the value of the G20 meetings following the violence on streets at the last Hamburg meeting. He says the first G20 during the global financial crisis was useful but later meetings have not lived up to the hope for discussion and search for solutions to world problems. Global trade is at the top of the agenda following the tariffs dispute between China and the U.S. Divergent interests of participants are a problem. Would going back to G-7 in private meetings be a solution asks this reporter.

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,   ...