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.


WSJ Original article ›
Hindustan Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With the aggressive actions taken along the 1600 kilometre border in eastern Ladakh by China's People's Liberation Army, India needs a younger soldier to protect the border at high altitudes in below freezing temperatures. The entire 3500 kilometre border in the high Himalayan regions from east to west need technology driven surveillance with soldiers fit and ready for such duty. Agnipath's goal is to bring down the average age in the army from 32 years to 26 years to better reflect the youthful population in India. A tighter better disciplined force with high tech is needed. Bringing in more and new recruits is intended. Both the 25% of recruits retained after 4 years benefit and the 75% benefit. The 25% will have opportunities to move up the ranks. The 75% who come back out of the military will have the advanced technical training and courses, certification, that would make them attractive to the public and private sector companies in 2026 and beyond when India's economy will be 50% larger than today at growth rates of 10-12%. This is already seen in the way technologically trained military recruits from World War II in the US Army, Navy and Air Force were quickly absorbed at high salaries in the high growth period of America 1950-1970, with incentives like the GI Bill. Modifications that could be discussed- The 25% retained after 4 years. There is no magic number it could be raised to 30 or 40% during these post pandemic years and then lowered to 25% as the economy grows rapidly by 2025, or kept at 30% without changes, a number of options could be open.The financial aspect of the training can be modified where the 25% retained could have these 4 years added to their years for calculating pensions. The 75% are given 1.2 million rupees and even this can be adjusted upwards so that they could start businesses as entrepreneurs or have the time to pursue higher education before taking up for example with free education to enhance their education in areas of interest as was given by the GI bill to Americans in the armed services after World War II in 1946. Ideas from the GI Bill signed by president Franklin Roosvelt in 1944- Adding one year of unemployment payments, low interest loans to start a farm or business, full tution and living expenses for college. In 2008 the Veterans Act in the US continued support for education of servicement by making eduction free at a public college or university.  The Roosevelt GI bill benefited about 7.8 million servicemen in the US armed services. 2.2 million went to college, 7.6 million took training programs. It was an impressive achievement. No scheme is perfect there are budgetary constraints such as how to manage pensions to give the armed services the best possible funding including the training and course capabilities that also need good financing and the higher pensions for armed services. Every political party  government around the world without exception will have to face these budgetary constraints and the goal is to do right by the armed services providing the income and opportunities they deserve. Was a decent effort made with the right goals set? This is how these matters of national interest for India and the Free World that includes South East Asia, Africa and Latin America, should be discussed.    ...
DW.COM Original article ›
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There are differences between the governors of 10 worst hit states and the president of the U.S. on when to reopen the economy. The seven on the East Coast including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and three on the West Coast including California and Washington, all but one have Democrat governors and want to wait beyond May 1, till it is believed to be safe to reopen.190,000 of the 592,000 infected cases and over 10,000 of 25,000 cases of deaths are from New York alone. This is as though a third of the problem is in one state. The feeling in New York is that it should be the last to reopen, other states can go first in the middle of the country. The position in the U.S. Constitution is for states to maintain public order and safety. This was the basis of the president's position to work with the governors and continues to be the case, though there is pressure from economic advisers to the president to reopen earlier balanced by the opinion of health experts around the president.  Some states are taking action to reopen because the virus has not severely affected these states. President Trump says it is for governors to decide what is best for each state in consultation with the federal government. The U.S. government would step in if a state is taking risky action with the coronavirus. On the issue of whether the president could have acted quickly in February following his decision to stop flights from China and set up quarantines in January, the BBC has this to say. Dr. Fauci, the president's respected health expert was one of many public officials who did not see the magnitude of the crisis evolving with lack of good information from China. BBC North America Editor Jon Sopel cites Dr. Fauci's comments on February 13- that the coronavirus danger is "just miniscule" compared with the "real and present danger" of flu. As it happened the president acted alone in his sense of the danger from the outbreak in China through incoming flights and not relying on others. Here is what the situation of each country on reopening is- India -  has extended the lockdown to May 3. France - has extended the lockdown till May 11. U.S. - has extended the lockdown to May 1. States are taking the responsibility. UK - continues lockdown restrictions till May. The French president Macron had a simple answer to the question " when will we be able to get back to a normal, prior life?" Macron said "Quite frankly, humbly, I have no definitive answer to that." Some nurseries and schools will reopen May 11. Not restaurants, hotels, museums and theaters. By May 11 France will be able to test and quarantine anyone with symptoms and general public masks will be available to all. This is what Dr. Fauci in the U.S. also wants to see before being able to reopen, that testing and tracing, isolating, procedures be efficient and reliable. ...
WSJ Original article ›
The Economist Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A critical point mentioned is that for a heavy polluter like China, the slowdown means less production of heavy industry like cement and steel that produces few jobs and has large emissions. The slowdown is an opportunity to make a transition to a greener economy that creates more jobs. The spokesperson for the European Commission says it depends on the vision and foresight of European, American and Chinese leadership whether they use the transition as a short term bitter apple to create new sectors that help in conservation, the environment, and for jobs, all at the same time. Government incentives and mandates, education, and leadership may be critical to doing this. Business and the private sector and markets can be shortsighted in this respect, and lack the will and staying power to see it through, leading to suboptimal results at best or destructive results as critical time is lost in indecision or inaction.
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Government GDP figures show the GDP shrank by 1.8% in the third quarter of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015, the first such contraction in the economy since 2009. Household consumption was down 3.2%. The sharp decline in the value of the lira by 20% in 2016 makes imports costlier, in an economy dependent on consumption spending and tourism for higher GDP growth. Political uncertainty with instability in Turkey following a crackdown on opposition and media also leads to decline in foreign investment and investment by domestic firms.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The bottom half of all U.S. households have only recently recovered the wealth lost in the 2009 financial crisis. They still have 32% less wealth than in 2003 when inflation is taken into account. The top 1% of households have more than twice as much as they did in 2003. Wealth is defined as net worth that includes houses , savings and stocks minus any debt. The wealthy have 85% of their wealth in stocks and bonds. For the bottom 50% half of the assets are in the house or family home. Economic and regulatory trends have happened in ways that favored the people investing in stocks, and rescued people investing in stocks with policies designed with this purpose by central banks and the U.S. government. By contrast for the bottom 50% buying a home is more difficult today. The problem this WSJ report points out is that the next recession would most hurt the bottom 50%, even before they have recovered from the last one which was a result of shaky practices of banks in financial lending and not some cyclical swing in the economy. Policy was then geared to provide a recovery first for stock markets as a way to economic recovery. The bottom 50% have little stake in the stock market, the top 1% have most of their gains from the stock market. Much of the popular anger comes from the way policies by both Democrats and Republicans differed little in past administrations in the way they approached this in shaping economic policy. As a result infrastructure building and investments in public services took less priority in this period of 30 years with trade imbalances with China building up on the external front, in another side to this development. The shift to Trump and to right wing populists in Europe is only the first phase in the corrective action that has to take place to return to a fairer distribution of wealth that existed before the last 3 decades. Eventually it is not right wing or left wing factions or parties, but healthy policies, that matter to create a better balance for society.  ...
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Efforts to impeach two previous presidents including Democrat Clinton failed in the Senate where the vote requires a two thirds majority. The first impeachment vote against Mr. Trump failed in the Senate. In the House of Representatives only a simple majority is required. Majority Leader McConnell says he will not reconvene the Senate before president Biden takes office. Vice President Pence has refused to invoke the 25th Amendment. House Democrats have moved ahead to vote for impeachment of president Trump for the storming of the Capitol offices in Washington D.C. Their impeachment statement says president Trump's remarks that his supporters had to fight like hell or they would not have a country, constituted incitement of supporters. President Trump won 74 million votes in the last election more than in the 2016 election and lost with Mr. Biden winning 81 million votes after polarization of the country. With such a large portion of the country voting for Mr. Trump Mr. Biden risks his agenda of fighting the pandemic, and other parts of his program, becoming immersed in partisan infighting. This would also result in continuing the division of the country, and continue polarization.  About 5 House Republicans are expected to support impeachment. In the Senate some Republicans say there are impeachable offenses yet only Mr. McConnell and the senator from Utah, Mr. Mitt Romney, favor impeachment.  Mr. Trump's style of governing was controversial from the beginning of his campaign in 2016, strident and taking on critics. He governed through relative moderation compared to his aggressive posture towards critics. For instance on Mexico his remarks offended critics, yet he negotiated a new trade agreement with Mexico replacing NAFTA to ensure worker protections in Mexico, and worker jobs and wages in the U.S. Negotiations with China on trade were conducted by a seasoned veteran, Mr Lighthizer,  who was deputy Trade Representative under Reagan, and negotiated the trade agreement with Japan that worked to reduce Japanese trade surplus in the eighties. On the economy before the pandemic hit in March president Trump made significant progress reducing unemployment.      ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
China's central bank says it will stay with normal policy as long as possible and not lower interest rates. The strong stimulus following the 2008 financial crisis led to debt expansion problems in the Chinese economy. This time China is cautious about monetary and fiscal steps even as the economy is slowing with the tariffs imposed on Chinese products by the U.S.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What is liquidity, Roche the author of "New Monetarism", asks. And points to all the credit that was created and moved off the bank's balance sheets and onto the balance sheets of nonbank financial intermediaries. This changed the very nature of credit as in this manner a theoretically infinite amount of credit could be created. Credit that is not supported by real money, because as credit soars real money remains the same or grows slightly. The whole traditional notion of liquidity had changed. What is suggested is that central banks can do litttle about it because whats on the balance sheets of the financial intermediaries is not going to go away and Citigroup in fact put that back on its balance sheet after Vikram Pandit took over at Citigroup. And this means that banks will be lending much less from now on and setting aside money for the bad loans as well as for any new loans they make shrinking the pool of available money to lend significantly in 2008 and beyond. Significantly China is mentioned as the next place to watch as the bubble that might pop with bad effects for the global economy. The exchange rate in China keeps Chinese goods from costing more and the US consumer bubble kept soaking up imports from China both of which will now go in reverse. And the Chinese stock market bubble is also something to watch that might pop....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The declining prospects for construction and heavy equipment manufacturers in the Chinese market with the slowdown in growth in China. This affects Caterpillar Inc, Volvo AB and Komatsu Ltd. Between 2008 to 2010 investments in machinery, construction projects and other types of fixed assets went up by 61% to $4.36 trillion. China's domestic manufacturers Sany Heavy Industry Co. and Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology Co. also expanded during this period. Now analysts see demand in China as having collapsed compared to the earlier period. Monthly sales of hydraulic excavators for July 2012 declined by 23% to 5886 units, and first half sales were down by 38%, according to machinery trade association. China's stimulus spending also contributed to the surge. The new stimulus planned for 2013 is more selective in investments and much smaller because of overcapacity and overbuilding in many sectors. Some investments such as John Deere's new plant under construction in China and two in Brazil also under construction, will move forward at a slower pace and impact margins. Cummins CEO, Linebarger sees the situation continuing throught he second half of 2012 and recovering gradually in 2013. The slowdown is not deterring construction machinery equipment manufacturers. Caterpillar CEO, Doug Oberhelman, sees demand accelerating after the lull and is slowing its plan to double workforce in China to 11,000, and quadruple excavator production by 2015, but not idling assembly plants so that he has inventory on hand for a recovery. Exports of made in China excavators is also an option, and exports increased 115% in July 2012, over the prior year. But this may be based on manufacturers belief that the drop in demand in 2008 and recovery in 2010 will recur, which may only result in higher inventories as the current stimulus is much smaller and selective. The Chinese government plans to follow the DRC/ World Bank Report and is moving away from the large role of state run firms in the economy....
Economist Original article ›
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....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The International Energy Agency sees a shortfall of 12.5 million barrels a day when it compares the needed 37.5 million barrels a day by 2015 with the planned supply increases showing 25 million barrels a day. A lot depends on the assumptions and what the 37.5 million barrels a day is based on. Does it account for a slowdown in the world economy and a drive for fuel efficiency and conservation habits by 2015? How much of this is reflected in the numbers? And on the planned increases of 25 million barrels a day- does it account for increases that may be planned in 2009 and 2010 in response to prices above $150 a barrrel which is expected? The IEA has a team of 25 analysts working on the forecasts but it gets no cooperation from Saudi Arabia about its individual fields production, and Venezuela, Iran and China also keep their information a secret. This makes supply forecasting a difficult business. IEA uses IHS Inc a data provider, USA Geologic Survey, oil and service companies information and national petroleum councilds information....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There may be psychological hurdles in China's growth with the effects on mental health from lockdowns in major cities, the revolt in the property sector with home buyers losing confidence in developers, the loss of confidence of foreign investors from US and EU. The dependence on the property sector to carry so large a burden of growth for the last 2 decades in China may now look like an error. The dependence on foreign investment may also be an error as the loss of confidence could mean some withdrawal and a lack of sustained investment.  It could even be said that restraints on both sectors property and foreign investors could have created alternative paths to growth, and reduced the shift of factories from the US and Europe to China that have now caused trade friction and and a reverse shift of investment back to home countries of US and EU. Trade friction has it appears backfired in a way that extends to the overall relationship which could have been prevented by preventing the hyper growth that happened. Greg Ip of the WSJ has argued that compared to Japan's growth in the sixties and seventies from a country of 100 million the hyper growth for a country of 1 billion for 2 decades created a massive impact on communities in US and EU that were dependent on factories that were lost to China. This has alienated large sectors of the public in the US and EU which could have been prevented by restraints on hyper growth in China. Ip says the growth was too large and too fast for the US to cope. It may have permanently damaged the relations between the two countries showing that trade and globalization had unintended effects when left to business and governments staying away from keeping an eye on how it was happening. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ says China's government faces severely strained government finances. Local government entities sale of land financed 40% of local government revenues in China, and most of these have dried up with the very real loss of confidence in property sector. Government now faces $900 billion in shortfall in revenues says this report. There may be psychological hurdles in China's growth with the effects on mental health from lockdowns in major cities, the revolt in the property sector with home buyers losing confidence in developers, the loss of confidence of foreign investors from US and EU. The dependence on the property sector to carry so large a burden of growth for the last 2 decades in China may now look like an error. The dependence on foreign investment may also be an error as the loss of confidence could mean some withdrawal and a lack of sustained investment.  It could even be said that restraints on both sectors property and foreign investors could have created alternative paths to growth, and reduced the shift of factories from the US and Europe to China that have now caused trade friction and and a reverse shift of investment back to home countries of US and EU. Trade friction has it appears backfired in a way that extends to the overall relationship which could have been prevented by preventing the hyper growth that happened. Greg Ip of the WSJ has argued that compared to Japan's growth in the sixties and seventies from a country of 100 million the hyper growth for a country of 1 billion for 2 decades created a massive impact on communities in US and EU that were dependent on factories that were lost to China. This has alienated large sectors of the public in the US and EU which could have been prevented by restraints on hyper growth in China. Ip says the growth was too large and too fast for the US to cope. It may have permanently damaged the relations between the two countries showing that trade and globalization had unintended effects when left to business which has no comprehension of how the macro developments can affect the relations between the peoples if the other effects in the relationship such as community impacts are ignored which business says is not its role,  and governments staying away from keeping an eye on how it was happening and adjusting for ill effects with restraint and redirection of business policies. ...
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." ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions raised by Nicholas Kristof of the NYT on Russian hacking during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kristof says the implausible or far fetched idea of foreign interference in U.S. elections is not as implausible as it may appear.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US economy expected to grow 1.5% in 2008 down 0.3% from estimate in October 2007 World Economic Outlook after taking into account a recent update in the model that lowered all forecasts 2005-2008 by half a point. Of this about 0.2 or 0.3% may be the impact of the stimulus package which is included in the estimate. Is this a bit on the high side? Its expectation of growth suggests it does not expect a recession or that it will periodically revise its estimate downward based on new information and the extent of consumption, housing and investment deterioration it sees unfolding in the months ahead. For the European economy it has taken its earlier estimate of 2.1% down to 1.6%. This suggests that it sees the US crisis having an impact in Europe. China's rate of growth will be 10% down 1.4% from 2008 and the Middle East growth about 6% unchanged from 2007, Latin American growth 4.3% down from 5.4% in 2007. This suggests global growth outside USA will remain healthy. However its not clear what would happen if the idea of a recession in the US becomes likely with new information in coming months, and if this is introduced into the model how much would growth in China and the Middle East and India come down in that event. This is the kind of scenario that should also be available from the IMF to know the downside and whether the global growth would sustain till the US recovers from the housing and credit crises in years beyond 2009, given that it would take some time for the excesses there to correct themselves....

The Twinkie Manifesto

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman on taxes, Simpson Bowles and "low rates." He describes the U.S. under Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican president and war hero. A period which he describes in which unions had bargaining power, a third of workers were union members, and in contrast to to the 1920 business executives lived modestly and paid higher taxes. And yet the U.S. registered high rates of growth. There are several aspects to this period in contrast to the present that also need to be kept in mind. The post war booming economy after two decades of slow growth and war. Much of the present infrastructure in the U.S. was built during this period including the interstate highway system started under Eisenhower. The workers of developing countries of China, India and other parts of the world were not a part of the global labor force till the 1990's, with technology and transportation making global manufacturing a reality. The major factor in lowering wages and creating lower levels of unionized workers in the automobile as in other industries is the competition from lower wage labor in China and other Asian countries, and the presence of non unionized plants in the U.S. The choices made by economic decisionmakers of both parties in the last two decades, say experts including Fed chairman Bernanke, created a huge inflow of capital from Asia that led to housing and other bubbles, creating economic crises such as the one in 2008 and aggravating economic inequality. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
G-7 nations reach agreement for a global minimum tax of 15% a floor for taxes that the Biden administration finds acceptable. This agreement was reached at a meeting of the Treasury chiefs of the 7 G-7 countries in London on June 5, 2021. The G-7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, and US. Next agreement from Russia, China, India and Brazil in the G-20 nations would establish new ground rules for the major economies. The G-20 meeting is in Venice July 9-10. The OECD is steering the international efforts to achieve that goal. For the agreement to be effective a number of small nations that use tax rates of below 15% to attract business have to be part of the new rules. One of these countries is Ireland with a tax rate of 12.5%. For the Biden administration in the US the goal is a significant one as president Biden seeks business to pay its fair share so that long neglected priorities for education, healthcare, infrastructure, post pandemic improvements can be met. France and other nations in the EU face similar needs in the post pandemic environment. By setting a floor the Biden administration is both creating a new cultural concept of fairness in taxation and making it possible to finance the $2 trillion spending programs for these priorities of president Biden. Behind this are important facts that have left the large tech businesses paying little or no tax depriving governments of the very revenues that are needed for infrastructure and services for a modern well run state. The Biden administration seeks to include the tech businesses as well as all businesses in the new tax rules so that a uniform idea of fair taxation applies across the whole economy for the first time in two decades. In this way it makes up for the missed opportunities in the OBC administrations of Obama, Bush, Clinton that have led to loss of faith in the state and institutions in the US. A similar situation prevails in the UK,  France and Germany where previous administrations failed to address this important issue of fair taxation and financing infrastructure and priorities in health, education, and critical needs of the people.   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese company investments in Korean companies are not doing well because of widespread feeling among Korean workers in these companies that the Chinese company is only interested in transferring the Korean company technology to China. Also hopes of selling products in the Chinese market have not been realized. Instead the experience is that the Korean company ends up up laying off most of the employees after being hollowed out. In 2003 BOE a Chinese company paid $380 million for Hydis, a Korean maker of displays for cellphones and laptop computers. After the transfer of technology to build a new display panel factory in Beijing, Hydis was left o hollow out and went into bankrupptcy protection in 2006. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation bought a controlling stake in Ssangyong Motor of South Korea in 2004. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, one of China's top state owned companies saw this as a push abroad, as China accumulated large dollar reserves from foreign trade, and a chance to acquire foreign technolgy for SUV and luxury car manufacture. Shanghai Automotive has partnerships with GM and VW to use foreign technology to make cars in China. The Korean economy after the financial crisis of 1997 was opening up to foreign investment. In this climate the Korean side was expecting China to open its market to Korean cars from Ssangyong, but this did not happen. Instead Korean workers say the company transferred technology to its Chinese parent, and after 5 years the partnership is falling apart in protests by the workers, layoffs and bitter battles amid declining sales. The Korean workers even have a word for such foreign companies that have come to Korea, during Korea's opening to foreign investors after the 1997 banking crisis, when Korean firms went for fire-sale prices. That word is "meoktwi", a slang term that means "a thief who eats and runs away." This has hurt China's reputation in South Korea, and its reputation as an enlightened investor in other countries. It also is what may be happening with Taiwanese investment in China in this downturn. Companies like Hon Hai, with its Chinese subsidiary Foxconn, are reported by the Economist to be shrinking their Chinese operations in a large industrial city sized campus employing 250,000 workers in the Shenzen area, to 100,000 workers. That factory city made laptops, PC's cellphones for Western companies using foreign technology....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....

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