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.


New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, under the Ministry of Environmental Protection, has estimated cost of pollution in a new study of the costs of environmental pollution in China. The cost is estimated at $230 billion for 2010, or 3.5% of GDP, and close to 4 times the cost in 2004, showing the rapid degradation of the environment from rampant industrialization. The first such estimates were made in 2006 and since then come out spradically from the Environment Ministry. For 2004 the Environment Ministry estimated cost of pollution was $62 billion, for 2008 partial cost estimate was $185 billion. Even the $230 billion figure fo 2010 is incomplete say researchers. Only after strong public protests over Beijing's air pollution have government officials allowed candid reporting on environmental costs. Environmental costs extend to food contamination. A report on China Central Television recently said farmers in a village in Henan province used wastewater from a paper mill to grow wheat, which was then sent to cities as farmers in the village grow wheat for their own use from well water. A Deutsche Bank report in Feb 2013 says there will be a continuing decline in the environmental degradation for the next decade under current policies, higher coal consumption and growth in automobiles....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Now That The Sun Has Set

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Among the things that make the U.S. different from Britain, that Roberts does not mention, is the character of the U.S. as a nation of immigrants. As true today as it was for millions who came to these shores from Ellis Island at the turn of the century. This makes for a much more adaptable society with different strains of thinking. Another point that makes the U.S. different is that it has striven to be an anticolonial power in its policies- working to ease the transition to independence of countries in the former French and British empires. The U.S. business and economic system has worked to bring development and economic progress in all parts of the world, as a partner in contrast to a colonial power. In this sense the U.S. has a very different character and a different capability for renewal than the empires of an earlier period- and new basis for belief in itself renewable from period to period.
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A lost sense of moral purpose for the U.S. Presidency during the Obama years, ironically from a president who was eloquent in his writings about the rights of minorities and people struggling for basic rights everywhere. He wrote years ago that words written two hundred years earlier had to mean something, that the words made their claim on the community called America. The questions he raised have not gone away by being ignored during the presidency.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Glynn gives a vivid account of what driving was like in the old days in Australia, when his dad drove the family in a Holden station wagon from suburban Sydney to the coastal towns in New South Wales. He describes a trip down the Buli Pass.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sectarian conflict in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis following the U.S. withdrawal. Efforts by former Baathist party members and officers in the Saddam regime to aggravate sectarian tensions.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
SPIEGEL ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This piece in Der Spiegel points out that Brexit may be an opportunity if European leaders recognize that there can be different levels of unity, and that different countries in the EU can advance at their own pace with Germany and France providing a core group. There is no longer the need for continual enlargement of the European Union as has happened before. It also offers a time to take some deep breaths and reflect on the progress so far and where it has come short, what to do about it, such as the bureaucracy that has grown in Brussels, the different views on immigration, and public sentiment. Actually the whole progress towards the European Community, and then the European Union has evolved over time. In the immediate postwar years, after one setback Adenauer once said during the difficult negotiations in 1951-52 between France and Germany to set up the European Coal and Steel Community, predecessor of the European Community and the European Union- "arme Europa, arme Europa," (poor Europe, poor Europe). The Dutch and Belgian delegates had strong differences for the headquarters for the ECSC- Turin was rejected, Liege and Brussels were proposed, until Monnet was made head of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community with headquarters in Luxembourg. Monnet himself considered stepping down a couple of times because of differences, and the Editor of Le Monde described Monnet's plans for European integration as "a leap in the dark." This was the first of many difficult steps in the evolution of the European Union. Nationalist feeling was nothing new, as the Gaullists opposed Monnet's drive for European unity when it differed from their ideas. Still Monnet persevered and progress took place every ten years as it must now.  ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....
New York Times Original article ›
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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As Germany looks back at the mistakes of the past in failing to get immigrants to integrate and letting ethnic communities form that failed both in terms of jobs and language/culture skills needed to become full citizens, it is now taking a fresh approach to the task of integrating about 1 million new immigrants. For the first time the government is putting this approach into legislation that is sure to pass, offering new incentives, requiring immigrants to look for work and to take jobs in smaller towns and communities. It offers new opportunities and at the same time takes away benefits if this is not done. Chancellor Merkel calls this "a milestone," and said about this legislation- " We are a country that makes a good offer to those who come to us, to those who are fleeing war, persecution, terrorism. But we are also saying very clearly- because we have learned from the past  when we did not provide these integration opportunities- that we're also expecting people to accept this offer." The lessons were learned after large immigration from Turkey in the 1960's and 1970's with ethnic communities being formed that never integrated with the rest of German society. The new law requires refugees to stay in municipalities where they are first assigned when arriving in Germany unless they have a job offer elsewhere. The government plans to subsidize creation of 100,000 new jobs across Germany, in work such as maintaining public parks, helping elderly, an alternative says Labor Minister Andrea Nahles "to doing nothing." The law also makes it easier for private employers to hire people in towns across Germany. The new German approach is for a two way handshake, and to take a pioneering approach. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A brief history of Xinjiang which translates as New Frontier in Chinese. Its the western frontier of China and a vast area that comprises the desert region of the Tarim basin. It has 13 sizeable ethnic minority groups and borders eight countries. Because of the lack of irrigation technologies these arid expanses were settled very late in history, says Victor Mair, a Professor of Chinese language and literature at the University of Pennsylvania. Even the Uighurs were tribes from the Mongolian steppes who settled Xinjiang in the 10th century. For China it was mostly aplace for havin border military garrisons. Around the 10th century and the Tang dynasty in China, trade on the Silk Road- with places like Kashgar oasis towns on the fringes of the desert as hubs- was at its height. It was not until 1760 under the Quing dynasty of ethnic Manchus, that this area was annexed by CHina and serious effort made to settle it with demobilized troops. A civil and military administration encouraged immigration, say scholars Millward and Perdue in a 2004 book of essays by 16 scholars, "Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland." About 50,000 demobilized troops were offered benefits, seeds and land if they stayed. A similiar situation seems to have been repeated after Mao annexed Xinjiang in 1949. In the early 1950's the Chinese government established the Xinjiang Province Production and COnstruction Corps, which was setup to manage large farms and construction projects called bingtuan and provide jobs for demobilized troops. The bingtuan are profitable enterprises and an estimated one of every six people in Xinjiang are employed in bingtuan, or 1.3 million people. THe HAn who were 6% of the population in 1949, now comprise 40% of the 20 million population of Xinjiang. Another source of employment is in the oil and gas industry, with the Communist party secretary of Xinjiang for the last 15 years being aprotege of President Hu Jintao, from his days in the Communist Youth League, coming from the oil industry province of of Shandong. These jobs are mostly all reserved for Chinese which causes resentment among the local Uighurs. Wong quotes a Uighur university student as saying, who is the foreigner here and whose culture, language and way of life should be protected. This may be the crux of the grievances of the Uighurs, as their use of the language and religious practice is restricted, and they feel they are second class citizens in their own land. Other articles in the NYT and Economist go to point out that the links with international terrrism are not a source of the problem, and the unrest among the Uighurs is more about a feeling of loss of culture, language, religion and identity, and jobs. And the idea that the best way to work with minorities, or regions with different language, religion and culture, just as the British did in South Asia and India is doing now is through tolerance. See the links to NYT and Michael Wines on 7/11/2009 about the Communist party secretary for Xinjiang, Wang Lequang, whose policies in Xinjiang and now in Tibet through a protege, may be worsening this situation. ...
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ireland went off the cliff by taking enormous unregulated loans. The banks lent money freely and the regulators simply ignored the bubble that was developing through the last decade. The speculators, developers, bankers and regulators all let the bubble reach astounding proportions. One developer got a $6.3 million loan on a personal guarantee without meeting his banker. One 1000 square foot Dublin carraige house went for 3 million euros in an auction. One of the developers, Simon Kelly, says that everything was funded by the Germans through the European Central Bank. The sale of the Jury's hotel in 2005 resulted in the amazing price of 60 to 70 million euros per acre. Ireland's GDP which was $25 billion in the 1980's, reached $267 billion in 2008. The boom that was initially based on export competitiveness and the low corporate tax rate combined with an educated English speaking workforce, was followed by a speculative boom in real estate financed by Irish banks, where regulators simply looked aside and placed no controls on lending. To get an idea how the government looked at anyone who raised a red flag, look at this quote from Bertie Ahern, prime minister of Ireland from 1997 to 2008, who said at a trade union conference: "sitting on the sidelines cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit sucide." And this coming from an Irish politician who helped in arranging the Irish peace accords with the help of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The risks of such uncontrolled speculation in real estate was lost on regulators, the government, and politicians. And the bankers stopped paying attention to their loans, with everyone wanting to lend money to 10-15 deveopers who were able to drive the market. The regulator at the central bank simply didn't pay much attention to the reports he received every quarter about the lending. Now the average household in Ireland owes 132,000 to the banks, according to David McWilliams of the Central Bank of Ireland, and unemployment is at 14%. If the Irish had completely lost track of the picture, what about the German and British banks that loaned money to Ireland? Why was money being made so freely available to Ireland. One Irishman says getting a mortgage in those days was like getting cupcakes. With prices haveing reached the stratosphere at 60 million euros an acre, were the European banks also pushing money into Ireland beyond the ability of a small country like Ireland to repay? According to the Bank for International Settlements based in Basel, Switzerland, Ireland owes $139 billion to German banks and $132 billion to British banks. Easy money was also available from US banks for countries such as Argentina which suffered similar crisis in prior decades. Banking crises ocurred in Asian countries in the 1980's. Much of this experience was lost in the manner German, British and other European banks loaned money to countries such as Iceland, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Asian banking crises of the 1980's are being followed by European banking crises over two decades later. The ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The language and tone of the leaders says something about what is likely to be the outcome of the G20 summit. Its a first for significant participation, as countries as diverse as Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands are represented. The credible positions of both sides, the US, UK and Japan, and the European side of France, Germany and the Czech Republic, well presented, provide for some serious discussion and negotiations. France's Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel want to see a global regulator that would reach inside the borders of the US with stricter regulation. Sarkozy calls this "nonnegotiable." And he said that he would reject an agreement that puts off stringent new regulations on banks, tax havens, and hedge funds. He said "the compromise has to come from all countries around the world." US President Obama said that if there is going to be renewed growth it can't just be the US as the engine, everybody is going to have to pick up the pace," at the same time saying that the US had to be concerned about its own deficits. The fact is that the US stimulus will mostly help a severely impacted domestic economy recover with social safey net payments to local and state governments and unemployment insurance, as well as targeted investments in infrastructure, education, energy and health care. It will not mean anywhere near the kinds of imports the US made from other countries, especially China. And Obama made that clear when he said the US will never return to that situation, where the US had become a "voracious consumer market." For the Germans the major market for their middle companies is China, and China has its own stimulus spending on infrastructure spending, which should provide for continued imports of machinery from Germany at a much lower level. Thus Germany and France see a strong tendency to call the source of the crisis and repeat that call till the US listens, and refer to the failure of free market capitalism in its unregulated form. And to insist on fixing it through a global regulator with strict and systemwide rules. So you hear this in Merkel's words, "the foundation for this finacial architecture must be laid now, that is why we seem to be so tough." While the vivacious Sarkozy talks of compromise, and a US gesture in regulation in return for Franc's gesture of joining NATO, the mild mannered Merkel is clear and focussed about her concern. She rejects the idea of linking stimulus spending demands of the Anglo-Americans with the Franco-German demands for global systemwide regulation. "This is not a bargaining chip," she says. The media may mistakenly report lack of consensus as a failure of the summit. But in the long run in the presence of good positions on both sides, it could lead to some tough negotiations even if continued at another meeting. And result in something serious, credible and lasting in its impact, rather than something that was easy and did not in Andy Grove's useful words involve "constructive confrontation." ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration announced a policy of increasing the number of refugees accepted in fiscal 2017 to 110,000. This will be an increase from 85,000 in 2016, and 70,000 in the prior 3 years. Secretary of State Kerry says the target is consistent  with the idea that all countries need to do more, and if we could do more we would. After 3 years of cautious policy president Obama now follows Chancellor Merkel's lead.

New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of Iraq, on his vision for Iraq after the American withdrawal in 2011. Iraq's role as one of many democratic countries in a new Middle East and a new Arab region. He sees combining and expanding the powers of the provinces, while preserving unity of Iraq, as a way around the demands for more autonomy in the provinces. He also sees a policy in which Iraq turns down foreign interference in Iraq as the best way moving forward. He sees a building boom in Baghdad, as a millon homes are built for low income families and the country draws foreign investment.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

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