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 ›
LyrArc Article Gist
During the election campaign Obama talked about sending at least 2 more combat brigades to Afghanistan. The Defense Department is already planning to send 20,000 additional troops in response to a request of General David McKiernan, top commander in Afghanistan,including 4 combat brigades and an aviation brigade with helicopters, increasing the American troop levels to 58,000, with an additional 30,000 NATO troops already there from other countries. The timeline for this is 12-18 months but with the escalating insurgent attacks in Afghanistan this will probably be done more quickly. Obama and some Democrats talked about Afghanistan as somehow being the good war and he vowed to defeat the Taliban and militants in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a different place and most military experts are suggesting that a good strategy will be needed, for example winning over the tribals and some of the militants, and not trying to win militarily. However with the deteriorating situation there the only way to win over tribals and militants may be to get the situation to where the NATO and US forces are in a strong situation. The two big handicaps in this are first history, where the terrain and rural distribution of the people make it difficult to exercize any control over the vast region of mountains and deserts. So throughout history no one has controlled this region and there is no history of centralized government, with different tribes controlling their regions. The other is the problem created by the corruption and lack of any popular support for the Karzai government, which is made worse by the involvement of its officials in the opium trade with opium growing booming in the southern part of Afghanistan. How does the US and NATO create an effective Afghan army and police under a state that does not enjoy any popular support. And yet the strategy that Gates. Petraeus and McKiernan are pursuing involves preparing the Afghan army and police for the task of controlling the vast mountainous region against a rural insurgency that knows its way in the mountains enjoys rural support because of the independent spirit of the Afghan people who find it easy to see the NATO forces as white foreigners in their country. The Afghan army is small for such a vast mountainous region, only 70,000 in a nation of 32 million people, and the police forces of 80,000 mostly corrupt and ineffectual. The present plan is to build the Afgan army to 134,000 still small for such a large region. The other problems stem from the Pushtun population in Pakistan that supports the rural insurgency in Afghanistan and the support of tribal people in the border areas of Pakistan. The picture tells the story, a small number of NATO soldiers in a remote ridge in Afghanistan. And the problems actually are across the whole of the far northern region of what was once British India, of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the Pakistan government is quite fragile, having an army that operates as a power center of its own with little accountability to the central government. And years of war during the previous military government of Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq, in which Zia with the support of the Reagan administration supported another rural insurgency in Afghanistan that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, and the subsequent sponsorship of the Taliban movement by the Pakistan military in Afghanistan, has created a situation in Pakistan where militants now operate freely and with impunity in Pakistan itself, disregarding both the Pakistan military and the Pakistan elected government's power structures....
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Basel 2 got its start in 1999 in the midst of the Asian banking crisis. By 2004 financial regulators had come up with a set of rules for Basel 2. The idea was to make banking safer and reduce unsafe lending. It makes lending safer by requiring banks to match the size of their capital cushion to the riskiness of their loans and securities. Because banks are in such a precarious state with amny risky loans and securities the implementation of Basel 2 in the USA in 2009 would mean that the banks have to set aside an even bigger capital cushion and this would mean an even lower lending for capital needs of business than otherwise in a lending environment that is already constrained, thus making the economic conditions worsen. Critics point to this to show their concern that this would be a good thing but at the wrong time leading to a bad result. But Basel 2 is so far along that its likely to be implemented especially since the current crisis is partly a result of extensive leveraging and not enough capital has been set aside to account for higher risk for loans and securities. Basel 2's plus point is that it requires more shareholder capital for riskier loans a bank makes, and its shareholders who are first on the hook in a default protecting depositors and tapayers and creating an incentive to lend with due diligence and carefully. In the current situation though once a credit crisis has started its extremely difficult to get more money from shareholders. European countries have implemented Basel 2 starting in January 2008 and no adverse effects on credit have been seen. But the US credit crisis much worse and is expected to worsen in 2009 so the timing for Basel 2 is sure to cause concern. Regulators can ease up on implementation of Basel 2 if this is the case. Note that these regulatory rulebooks are always a work in progress as for instance Basel 1. Under Basel 1 financial firms were not required to have capital backing up lines of credit if they were for less than 1 year, so banks decided to game the system by issuing short term lines of credit and rolling them over. And banks learned to get the loans off their books so they were not required to have capital to back these loans by securitizing the loans. Basel 2 also uses mark to market acccounting which would put more pressure on securties prices in times of distress. But Stefan Walter of the Federal reserve Bank of New York who is secretary general of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision says theree are built in stabilizers such as letting banks estimate their risks on average using historical data and lets national regulators use their own judgement as to what is acceptable. Note that a research paper by greenlaw of Morgan stanley Hatzius of Goldman Sachs , Kashyap of the University of Chicago, and Song Shin of Princeton Unicersity, 4 leading economists, released feb 29, states that highly leveraged financial institutions reduce their lending by $10 for every $1 of capital they lose. by this estimate bank lending could be down by as much as $900 billlion from the $90 billion in mortgage loans losses that have been seen. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....
WSJ Original article ›
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This leader in The Economist reviews an essay in the magazine's October 8-14th, 2016 edition by U.S. president Obama. In it Obama points to the unfinished tasks of his presidency and what comes next as tasks to be done for the U.S. economy. The Economist points out the problems in the 2016 election campaign where there is a lack of discussion of economic issues as a serious problem. Obama lists as priorities efforts to improve conditions of people left out in the recovery, reducing inequality, offering more job opportunities, and increasing productivity.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Boskin, the elder president Bush's chairman of the Council of Economc Advisors was instrumental in setting up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Here he points to the dire need to open up trade between India and Pakistan. Trade today between the two countries is $2.7 billion. Under trade models Boskin says the trade could be 20 times larger, about $50 billion. This would increase benefits and wages in both countries and is badly needed and long overdue.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....
WSJ Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Detroit News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This is important piece becasue it identifies what Mullally sees as the biggest opportunity with Ford- he identifies it as" the single biggest opportunity." Surely because Ford really has never really tapped on all that this means- does it make any difference in a global market whether some part or feature is invented or developed in Brazil, India, England or the USA? Basic parts of an automobile remain the same. All markets want the latest technology and features, it is a global market and you better operate as one to get maximum impact of an engineer in India, Brazil, Russia, UK, Germany or the USA, they all develop the best parts, and the best technology of an automobile and it is marketed in many countries. Example Opel Astra under the Saturn name in the USA, what about the Mondeo for goodness sake in the US not just in Europe, and why a better Focus for the European market and not the same Focus for the US market in quality and technology?
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Galston focusses attention on the major problem facing democracies in Europe and the U.S.- that of providing decent paying jobs and improved economic prospects for lower and middle income households. He cites the surveys from the Pew Research Report and the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics showing how middle income households median net income remains stuck at levels of 1997, and lower income households at levels of 1996. The median net worth of American households adjusted for inflation presents an alarming picture of being at $96,000 in 1983 and $98,000 in 2013 for middle income families, and being at the level of $12,000 for lower income families the level of 1975. Most of the new jobs as much as 95% are being created in the low wage service sector and the BLS statistics show the future looking much the same- with huge numbers of low wage jobs, fewer decent manufacturing jobs because of automation and jobs shifts to low cost locations overseas, remaining manufacturing jobs in the U.S shrinking by another 800,000 to 7% of the workforce by 2025. The result is the alarming rise of populist politicians like Trump in the U.S., Le Pen in France , and populist politicians in Hungary and Poland. Cultural liberals in the Democratic Party and the Republican establishment are both threatened by the rise of cultural illiberalism, xenophobia, and nationalism, as economic anxiety increases, and fears of terrorism and immigrants add to this anxiety. Progressive tendencies in the Republican party since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and of professional elites in the Democratic Party could become endangered if no serious effort is made to come up with solutions to the problems these trends present. The disconnect between the concerns of the working and middle class and the professional elites as the gap widens and the social compact in America and Europe breaks apart, means a new mindset will be required in America and Europe to deal with this. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ford Motor has better relations with the UAW than GM or Stellantis. It is expected to come to an agreement with the UAW as the two sides are close, says this report in WSJ. The supply chain is likely to be affected particularly the smaller suppliers. Suppliers have long term contracts and have not gained from the increase in prices from the shortages of production during the pandemic. Shawn Fain is introducing new ways for the UAW to get to its goal of income and wage fairness after the wage concessions made a decade earlier and a two tiered wage workforce.

BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The impact of increasing use of labor saving machinery on jobs.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
According to the Labor Department nonfarm payrolls went down by 131,000 in July 2010. 71,000 jobs were added in the private sector and 143,000 temporary census workers were jobless. For June data, a revision shows that payrolls declined by 221,000 and not by 125,000 as previously reported. Overall for the first 7 months of 2010 the US had 100,000 jobs added a month on average, which will not make a dent in unemployment. Unemployment remained at 9.5%. In addition to poor rate of job additions in the private sector, the budgetary situation of states and local governments is exacerbating the situation. 48,000 jobs were lost in state and local governments in July. 45% of the unemployed or 6.6 million Americans were jobless for more than 6 months, making finding a job more difficult.
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Figures from the Labor Department show the unemployment rate in the U.S. unchanged for June 2012 at 8.2% and job additions of only about 80,000.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
OECD studies and views of experts show India's current inflexible labor laws hurt manufacturing workers by denying workers the benefits that would come from larger enterprises in a formal economy, and reducing job growth. Labor laws currently in place provide inducement to keep companies small, with less than 100 workers, the threshold at which labor laws on hiring and letting go of employees are enforced. The Modi government is implementing reforms as pilot programs in states where it is running the state government. Rajasthan is being used for this pilot overhaul of labor laws to attract manufacturing investment.The idea is to create competition between states to attract investment as one state gains in employment growth and good jobs.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Why rebalancing the world economy will not be easy. Rebalancing depends on the success of American companies selling goods in China and Germany. China and Germany report large gains in exports through August 2010. The US trade deficit in 2010 is up 40% from 2009. One reason is that it involves changing behaviour of consumers. Another reason is each percentage point reduction in the annual savings rate in Germany and China would increase consumer spending by $42 billion. By comparison each percentage point increase in the annual savings rate for the US reduces spending by $100 billion, according to estimates by McKinsey Global Institute.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Madras High Court decides that it has no jurisdiction over whether Indian patent law violates WTO guidelines on intellectual property. Novartis had asked the Madras High Court to clarify this point. Indian patent law (2005 patent legislation) states that a drug qualifies for a patent only if it is a new invention or a significant improvement, not a new version of a drug from before 1995. The court upheld this. Novartis's modified version of Gleevec, a leukemia drug, was denied a patent by a Indian court. Was it right in doing so? The Madras High Court affirmed this decision, and it will not be appealed to the Supreme Court.

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