LyrArc Article Gist
Steep drops in economic activity and loss of so many jobs is the reason why total lockdowns are not the best solution as seen from the experience gained by August. Selective lockdowns are now being applied across France, Germany and Britain in specific areas. About 400 million jobs have been lost, 13 million in the U.S.  Hospitals overwhelmed in northern Italy by March is what made the total lockdowns necessary.  These steps for total lockdown were made with very little known about the pandemic and the need to protect hospital and health systems. These decisions at that time are not questioned today. It is that now  with some treatments found, a vaccine close to being introduced, hospital system protocols established, health ministries and departments organized to respond quickly, and the public awareness at high levels,  it is now possible to impose these selective lockdowns effectively and quickly. As the WSJ now says the CDC had botched the initial development and distribution of tests in February- see WSJ analysis and our Lyrarc links of how 3 crucial weeks were lost in Feb with failure of the CDC and HHS in testing- making test and contact trace strategy window to be missed. China had not cooperated in letting a U.S. team quickly in the early days of February creating more uncertainty and risk. In that situation total lockdown suddenly became the reality to avoid a catastrophe. Today a carefully applied selective application of solutions can be done and is seen as the right way to protect jobs and livelihoods of people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In Germany's consensus based politics the term flip flop does not have the negative meaning it does in other countries. Chancellor Merkel is adept at presenting changes in policy as coming from careful thought and analysis. She has remained Chancellor for the longest period since Chancellor Kohl, doing this by co-opting the positions of other parties including the SPD. On refugees, atomic energy, same sex marraige, and other issues Merkel has adopted positions that reflect the majority of people.  As the magazine editors of Der Spiegel told Merkel in an interview she is the best chancellor the socialist SPD party ever had. Merkel has the unique ability of doing this and still sounding genuine in a way few leaders could. This may be the result of her background and life as the daughter of a pastor in East Germany who professed socialist ideals and yet was part of the opposition to the GDR regime and reflected changes in Germany as the Berlin Wall came down in 1990. Merkel joined the Democratic Awakening just as the German people in the east gave up on the communist regime. Merkel first major change was on the nuclear energy policy after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Yet looking at it one can see that Merkel could present her change in belief as sincere. Under Merkel Germany has shifted away from nuclear energy and coal in a way no other nation has. It is now considered one of her most positive achievements in Germany. On the refugee crisis she also shifted her views on the need for enhanced security and on putting in place controls in an agreement with Turkey, addressing the causes of migration in home countries. As a result Merkel now has over 60% support in polls before this weeks election in Germany in September 2017. Contrast this with the sharp decline in support for Sarkozy and Hollande in France, Cameron and now Theresa May in Britain, and for other leaders in the U.S., and one can see how Merkel is different. It has much to do with sincerity and authenticity as a politician. Her favorite soup is potato soup, she drives a VW Golf small car, and lives modestly, shopping in the local grocery store. When it comes to protecting ordinary German people in what Germany owes in bailouts to indebted countries she could be tough with bankers and politicians. All this makes people of different political views see something valuable and to be respected in Angela Merkel, particularly at times like this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Spiegel Online's interview with Emmanuel Macron, on the TGV 8434 train from Bordeaux to Paris. He is joined by Mrs. Macron. Macron says he is aware that he does not have a bloc of core support like Ms. Le Pen, yet he says this means he will try that much harder for voters on the right and the left. He says their is no political renewal in the political class in France and that it remains closed. He says particular attention must be paid to rural France outside big cities like Bordeaux, Lyon, Marseille and Paris, where people have had a different encounter with globalization. On the European Union he sees the need to revitalize it by having a closer union focussed on countries that are interested in this. He sees the need for a joint finance minister and permanent head of Euro Group. This might be a smaller EU without countries such as Britain, and others who are not interested in a closer union. He does not agree with the idea that any member state of the EU can stop other member states from proceeding. Macron does not believe in moving to the right as in the Dutch election because he says people are "not idiots" and in France this has not worked for Nicholas Sarkozy, which has some truth to it as authenticity (and humility) matters to French voters. A personal approach worked for Fillon early on till the scandal over payments he received. Macron brings to this personal approach and relative youthfulness, his sense that he must appeal to all segments, rural and urban, educated and less educated, and at the same time be true to core values such as preserving the European Union, and authenticity in terms of views on Algeria. He also says he is aware he faces risks but that this is something he believes in deeply.   Macron has not hesitated to express his views on topics such as Algeria, calling it a crime against humanity, and later elaborating on what he meant. Macron says his movement En Marche is different in style and manner from the closed nature of French politics. He believes in transparency, term limits, and removing conflicts of interest in French politics, as a way to make a fresh start. The first round of voting is on April 23, 2017, followed by a second round of voting between two candidates.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein is back after his proposal that the government step in with low cost loans to families thatwould help homeowners reduce what they owed the bank by 20%, for those homeowners who are close to negative equity but not there yet. This is needed to prevent the next big wave of defaults on loans, from homeowners who see that walking away from their loans is a rational solution once they reach the point of negative equity. Feldstein hammers away at some critical points that point out that reducing rates risks more than it accomplishes. Food prices globally do not benefit from lower rates, as governments may have to raise interest rates to cool inflation in their economies. Rising food prices threatens the livelihoods of poor and working classes in the global economy, especially in developing countries of Asia and Africa. It also does little to stimulate the economy in the USA and actually helps increase inflation for commodities like oil and food products. So why is the Fed lowering rates even though the costs are more significant than the benefits. Lowering rates would be counterintuiive in this situation as Feldstein points out. Bernanke's response would be that its a temporary crisis response, lower interest rates helps financial firms restructure their debt and helps them restore health to their balance sheets in the fragile financial markets, where the financial architecture itself is being questioned. And the immediate crisis was in the financial markets, whereas some other solutions could be found for the damage this caused to the overall world economy in terms of inflation. Feldstein quotes estimates of inlation at 4% in the last 12 months and of 4.8% this year. The inflation rate in China is estimated much higher at about 8.5% and has become the focus of government efforts including relaxing the exchange rate, as the rise in prices especially of food affects the large working poor in China. Another aspect of lower interest rates is that lower rates surely would do little when there is such a large inventory of unsold homes. Significant also is the fact that lowering rates for fed funds by 3% from this time last year, has done little to lower mortgage interest rates which have come down only by 0.5%. So it does not give much relief to homeowners either. So is lowering rates a medicine that comes with a lot of side effects that you adminster only because the patient is in a critical condition, as the financial and credit markets appeared to Bernanke and Paulson that weekend only a few weeks ago? Probably so,which takes one back to Feldstein's main point. That main point is that the only way to get to solutions that strike at the core of this crisis is to help homeowners avoid default on their home mortgage loans, by reducing the loan amount by something like 20%, through government loans which can later be recouped to some extent. It cautions the Fed to use the medicine of lower rates sparingly, and urges the market participants and the public that insists that there be no "bailouts" to come to their senses, and accept that their will be tolerable losses for all if there are not to be intolerable losses for all....