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.


Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The director of the Institute of Population and Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Cai Fang predicts that by 2009 there would be a widespread shortage of workers, pushing up industrial wages. Figures from the UN Population Division show that China's working age population will decline in the years ahead. There are two things here that matter. The millions of people in a socalled surplus labor force that can be tapped so that industry can hire more people expand and grow without wage inflation, and second the working age population 20-29, younger people being preferred by employers for the long hours, single people who can stay in dorms and can be mobile to move near factories and do not have the restrictions of married people with children. The one child policy has limited the growth of the working age population. After rising by 1.3% a year according to the UN Population Division during the decade to 2005, the population of working age is expected to increase at an annual rate of 0.7% until 2015, and then shrink by 0.1% ayear until 2025. The surplus labor pool figures estimates vary from 150 million people to 200 million people, but the Economist estimates the true figure to be much smaller because government figures for the rural labor force include millios of migrants already in the cities and others working in rural industry not farming. The population of workers in ages 20-29 fell from 233 million in 1990 to 165 million in 2005. Because of this shrinking of supply of eligible labor especially considering the preference of textile and electronics firms to hire young women because they complain less and put up with long hours and for single men preferred by construction firms, Cai Fang believes that this preferred or eligible labor pool is shrinking to the point where it will be a problem in the years ahead. This will have the impact of shrinking the growth rate to around 7% sometime after 2009. Problems that remained under cover because of the Olympics will also become evident as 2008 winds down. Some experts argue that there are other factors that will contine to sustain the pool of available workers, but its this pool of preferred available workers that will be in short supply according to Cai Fang. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A joint article by Robert Rubin, Clinton era Treasury Secretary and Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute. Rubin was senior adviser to Citigroup during the period that Citigroup leveraged itself and invested in lower quality securities that have left the firm exposed to substanital losses, and led to hiring a new CEO Vikram Pandit to clean up the mess. And this may explain the joint article with a less well known economist Jared Bernstein, and the tentative nature of their advice as the two differ on the important issue of long term fiscal deficits and still agree on investing heavily in healthcare, education infrastructure, worker training and energy. In a short recession they may be complementary and you could have the best of both worlds as in the other postwar recessions. But this is unlike any of the postwar recessions and is shaping up to be a long and deep downturn unlike anything seen in the postwar period. That Rubin does not even mention this shows that probably he is out of touch, as he was during his years when Citigroup was acting much like the other banks that were in serious trouble this year. Some of the decisions for lax regulation during the Clinton years were taken with the support of Rubin and Greenspan. What Rubin calls the longest expansion could have been for the most part good fortune and a steady period for the economy with Rubin's contribution being fiscal discipline, stewardship of the Mexican rescue package and committment to free trade policies, but not facing upto huge headwinds in the economy that required challenging leadership and judgement. Here Rubin mentions nothing that suggests bold vision and judgement, instead hoping that old policies that worked during the good times would somehow work today. And on some issues like labor being squeezed and getting a smaller portion of the economic pie with no support for unionization, a drop in the number of unionized workers and weakened labor bargaining strength, Rubin who now sees this as a bad trend for the working middle class incomes, did little in his years in the Clinton administration to reverse or slow this trend. He cites productivity growth of 20% from 2000 to 2007, and yet the real income of working age middle class households was falling $2000 or 3%. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Growth is back in the eurozone. The OECD estimates 2.1% growth in 2017 and 1.9% growth in 2018 for the eurozone countries. Business investment is up significantly- up 5.7% in the first half of 2017. Worldwide business investment in 2016 was at 1.3 trillion euros, up 7.2% from the prior year, according to Eurostat.

New investment for electric vehicles in the auto industry is also up significantly in an industry that provides 10% of all jobs in manufacturing. Yet business investment is only half of what it needs to be- to makeup 5% of GDP- to spur good job creation, says this report in the WSJ. Use of automation is also limiting the number of jobs created. Real wage growth is also lacking.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Lowenstein, author of the book "The End of Wall Street," says that the government should not let firms like Goldman open a table for wagering on corporate failure just as it would not let Caesar's Palace open a table for wagering on corporate failure. He says the first priority for Congress is to end the culture that as he puts it "financializes" every economic result. turning every mortgage or bond issue into a speculation with second level and third level securities. No factories are being financed, no no new products are being launched in this wild speculative frenzy that has overcome Wall Street and endangers the safety of the financial system and its integrity, and character.

Overheard

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Harvard professor, Benjamin Friedman, reviews journalist Timothy Noah's book "The Great Divergences: America's Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It." Friedman says, Karl Marx got it wrong when he predicted greater inequality based on the situation he saw in Europe and the U.S. in the late nineteenth century. Inequality actually decreased in the U.S. and Europe with industrialization, technological progress, higher educational and income levels by the early part of the twentieth century. Similiarly Simon Kuznets, Nobel Laureate, also got it wrong when he extrapolated from what he saw in the early postwar period, assuming greater equality and better opportunities in future decades. The approach Noah and Friedman advise is to look at individual factors that promote or discourage less divergence in income levels, opportunities and upward mobility. And based on this shape policy and action agenda for better outcomes. A whole range of issues fall in this range- promoting manufacturing and higher wage jobs, immigration policy, investments in education to upgrade skills, better educational opportunities, vocational training, upgrading education to keep up with new technology, and investments in research and new technologies for new industries that would create better opportunities. Because inequality is increasing worldwide, and countries are focussing on improving competitiveness as well as preserving the social fabric in a global economy, this is an issue facing all countries that seek a better future....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The IMF's World Economic Outlook in March 2008. The IMF Outlook has been behind the curve in looking ahead at the world economy. The IMF chief economist Simon Johnson cut the baseline forecast cut its US growth forecast by a percentage point since its January outlook, its now at 0.5% for 2008 and 0.6% for 2009. But thats when the Fed minutes already show the discussion about a" severe and protracted recession " in the USA, so it looks like its a bit late and after the fact. And some experts expect a contraction in the US economy this year. More indicative is its forecast of the European economy which is not as upbeat as the OECD estimates and suggests that the ECB may be more receptive to monetary easing and lowering interest rates because of lower growth in the Euro region. IMF sees eurozone growth at 1.4% in 2008 and 1.2% in 2009. Germany and France are expected to grow at 1.4%.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman coins the term weaponized Keynesians for those who say building new warplanes is a good idea because it creates jobs, but do not say the same about job creation for building bridges, and other infrastructure.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The figures are startling, alarming dangerous whatever you call it. How many homeowners are under water or owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth today in today's depressed market? And how many more will be under water in tomorrow's even more depressed market as unemployment gets worse in 2009, and much worse after that in 2010. Moody's Economy.com's chief econmist mark Zandl has worked out some figures. And he says one in 6 mortgages in America today are under water, that is 16% of 7.5 million households that own homes they live in, or roughly 12 million households. To give some idea of how quickly this is deteriorating while Congress, the Administration and the general public could not reach any agreement or consensus about assisting homeowners avoid foreclosure in steps that cover all homeowners across the USA. The comparable figures were roughly 4% under water in 2006 and 6% in 2007. Thats a huge jump from 6% to 16% and was not expected to be such a steep jump in 2008. And it may be accelerating for 2009. And of the homeowners who took on a mortgage in the last 5 years the figures are startling, 29% are under water according to estimate by real estate Web site Zillow.com, that is one in 3 almost. Which is why absence of government help on a comprehensive scale covering the whole country and all homeowners facing foreclosure remains the one huge gap in the rescue package passed by Congress for $700 billion at Sept end 2008. Why is it dangerous? Because it accelerates the downturn in the economy and exacerbates the problem of toxic mortgage assets on the books of overleveraged banks, as dropping housing prices from higher foreclosures depresses the value of those assets even further. And this creates a vicious circle of lower consumption spending followed by lower production, higher unemployment and leading to lower consumption spending in a repeat cycle leading to higher foreclosures as a consequence of higher unemployment....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
POLITICO Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Brazilian economy is growing too fast, and this pace not only won't be sustained, but it has signs of serious trouble ahead. The Brazilian economy grew at an estimated annualized pace of 10% in the last 6 months and generated 962,000 jobs between Jan-April of 2010. Growth in 2010 is expected to be 7%. The jump in growth is partly the result of the stimulus measures of the Lula government. But a consensus of experts is that Brazil still saves too little, has not invested enough in infrastructure,and its economy has the potential of 5% sustainable growth each year. The central bank has increased interest rates - increase of 0.75% in April 2010, and economists in Brazil think the rate will go up to 13% in 2011. About $10 billion in cuts in spending have been announced but they are cuts to an already growing budget approved by Congress, so in reality it will only slow the increase in spending. Public debt is at 42.7% of GDP. Real interest rates have fallen from close to 20% in 2003 to between 5-10%. Costs per unit of labor are increasing at about half the rate of real wages according to a finance official. The National Development Bank or BNDES played a role in helping the economy with subsidized loans when the financial markets ran into trouble. It has expanded lending by 50%, with money from the Treasury of 180 billion reais. Some of the measures of the Lula government has reduced the skewed income distribution Brazil, and in doing so has increased consumer demand. Meeting high consumer demand, and meeting the need for commodities like soyabeans and metals from China, has boosted growth in Brazil to twice the sustainable rate and it is now at a par with China and India. But this places Brazil too dependent on the boom in Chinese demand, especially as the stimulus in China slows and the property bubble threatens China's economy. See links to China. A new President after the upcoming Presidential election will have to tackle the high interest rates in 2011, lower commodity prices, and the need for better infrastructure, and make the adjustment to a sustainable pace of growth....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Major decline in oil prices in Oct. 2014 as prices drop to $81 per barrel and are forecast to reach $70. U.S. oil production increased by about 56% or 3.1 million barrels a day since 2004. U.S. demand for gas and fuel declined 8% compared to 2004. Initially instability and wars in the Middle East sustained high oil prices in 2012-2013. Yet with growing output from shale and other sources in N. America and slowing economies of Europe and China, the situation reached a point in 2014 where supply exceeds demand. This shift more than offsets any instability in trouble spots. The situation affects the U.S. consumer favorably with an estimate of $1 billion in savings for American consumers with every one cent drop in price at the gas pump, by one estimate from Deutsche Bank analysts. Typical American families gained an extra $50 a month from the decline June to October 2014, according to analysts at Gasbuddy.com. The declines are a boost for the slowing economies of Europe, Japan, China, S, Korea and India. China's imports for 2015 are estimated at 61% of oil consumption, using official estimates. In the current slowdown the lower prices offer relief. India which imports 75% of its energy benefits signficantly, as this helps lower inflation and reduces cost of fuel subsidies for state run companies. Russia is adversely affected by the declines as it depends on oil and gas exports for 50% of the nation's budget. Estimates by AFK Sistema economists show the Russian economy contracting in 2015 with oil at near $90 per barrel (Brent crude is at about $85, and WTI at $81 in early Oct. 2014). Russia's former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin reflects opinion among Russian executives and politicians, when he told state television that Saudi Arabia may be pushing prices lower to target Russia's oil resource based economy and Mr. Putin, in an effort to broaden the effect of sanctions. (The Saudis have strongly protested the Putin intervention in Syria.) Venezuela has used $120 per barrel and Angola $98 for its budget, leading to a strong hit for the economy. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Zweig, Light and Pleven reflect on the experience of the last 5 years in the stock market. Investors who went through severe anxiety for higher investment allocation in stocks in 2009 now feel the opposite for low investment allocation in stocks. What does one make of this, and what have we learned, is the question posed. One lesson is that investors should be wary of relying too much on predictions. At one point predictions of Goldman Sachs and other bank economists was for the S&P at 1250 at the end of 2012, when it was 1421 in April 2012. The eurozone crisis and the sluggish U.S. job growth, debt overhang, were major factors in their assessment. The eurozone recovered faster than expected and the Iranian nuclear crisis risks were reduced through negotiations. QE 1, QE 2, QE 3 by the U.S. Fed under Bernanke provided support to the market. Banks recovered faster than expected with help from the Fed. Another lesson is that this can happen with higher volatility, 900 point drops occured in May 2010 and there were drops in April 2012 and other dates. Zweig gives April 2011 as a date for the start of a 5 month bear market, citing Oct 4, 2011 as another date with the market dropping 21% from the April 2011 peak. Another lesson is that performance statistics can play tricks, a month or a year can make a big difference. If 2013 is not included the statistics look very different, if 5 years go back to Feb 2009 when there was a 11% decline instead of March 2009 when there was a 9% improvement the numbers change quite a bit. Another lesson is that macroeconomic news played a major part in the story of the stock market in 2009-2014 and continues today, with continuing support and vigilance from the U.S. Fed and the ECB. The bad news from the eurozone throughout 2011 and into 2012, and sluggish job markets in the U.S., took a positive turn in 2013. The U.S economy is improving and the eurozone is returning to growth gradually in 2014. Because of different timing in their recovery P/E ratios are higher in the U.S., than in Europe....
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Economists at the IMF estimate that the public debt of the leading 10 industrialized countries would reach 114% of GDP by 2014, from 78% today. The governments then owe about $50,000 for each person in the country. Unlike World War II this situation is not temporary, because of the pension and health care costs of a population that is getting older. So what is to be done? Without the stimulus, the deep and prolonged recession would lead to greater damage to the finances of these countries. But continued in this manner the government would crowd out private investment and lead to lower economic growth. In some countries, Greece, Ireland, Italy Portugal and Spain it might lead to default, in other countries the real cost of the debt may be reduced through inflation. In the USA yields on 10 year Treasuries reached about 4% on June 10th, in December it was about 2%, a consequence of the economic recovery. If interest rates are allowed to rise too fast, it might abort the economic recovery. A rise in taxes is also not the answer, because in Europe the taxes are already at 40%, in America they are around 30%. But raising consumption taxes at the time when the economy was fragile, aborted a recovery in Japan during Japan's earlier crisis decade. A caution signal that says fiscal tightening can backfire, especially some years after a banking crisis when things are still in a weak condition. Some steps that can be taken are raising the retirement age, which would cut pension costs as people work longer and would boost tax revenues, and eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage payments in the US. Its important to build credibility that the government and the legislative bodies are serious about controlling the finances and acting with prudence. In America wasteful health care spending is a priority, as this would reduce the burden on public finances considerably , and should be as much of a priority for the new Obama administration, as providing universal health care. With today's finances its not something that can be put off....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Dean of Harvard Medical School says the Health Reform bill gets an "F" grade. He say its disingenuous to call this reform, and Congressmen and the White House are deceiving the public if they attempt to pass this off as reform. What it will do is accelerate health care spending in the US, and the bill has simply postponed most of the major health care problems, especially the ones that drive cost including the fee for service system and delivery of health care.There are no substantial efforts to control the growth in health care costs or improve the quality of care, which makes this effort unacceptable as reform. In his discussions with other health care leaders and economists, Dean Jeffrey Flier, says he has found the opinion unanimous on this point, that whatever the final legislation looks like in Congress, it will only serve to accelerate health care spending rather than contain it. On the present system's failings he is explicit- the current system he says promotes fragmented care making it difficult to assess outcomes, the true costs of care are disguised, and competition based on price and quality is made impossible. The new legislation while expanding access to coverage makes a terrible tradeoff of an accelerated crisis of health care costs and merely continues the current dysfunctional system. The experience of Massachusetts, where access to care was expanded but spending went up, is that this won't work. He points to the Special Commission on Health Care Payment System in Massachusetts recommendation, that the health care system there must be changed from a fee for service system to one with "capitated" payments. So what is really disingenuous about this whole affair? Congressmen making it look as if reform has happened and congratulating themselves on increasing access to health care, when many of the serious problems of funding health care, skyrocketing costs, and a dysfunctional system, have only been kicked further down the road for some future legislators to tackle. With the national debt about 12 trillon dollars when this plan is factored in, this is cause for serious concern. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
David Wessel, looks at the economic forecasts, and figures comparing this downturn to others in the 20th century, and looks at what experts like Eichengreen at Berkeley are saying. He puts the odds based on this information and comes up with 75% chance that this will be of the kind that produces a lost decade, a recovery that takes many years.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How the Australian Central Bank raised rates starting in May 2002, with the key lending rate at 5.5 % in July 2005, compared to 3.25 % in the USA. The idea was to control the housing bubble which has scaled back, with the Australian economy growing at 2% and this growth coming mostly from the commodities demand in global markets. Meanwhile the US central bank under Greenspan is holding onto the view that its hard to tell when a bubble is occurring, and it would hurt a healthy economy to raise rates to cool developing bubbles. Australia's central bank holds onto the other view that it is wiser to act now before the bubble gets out of hand. Governor MacFarlane of the Australian central bank said in aspeech in early 2003 that a "scaling back" of household borrowing and property development would be in "the longer term interest of the Australian economy." And the state of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, instituted a 2.25% tax on the sale of investment properties. This move discouraged speculators who bought and "flipped" properties for quick profits. By early 2004 a glut of downtown apartment units emerged in Melbourne, and the bubble began to scale back. During the height of the boom consumer spending was growing by more than 6% ayear, in 2005 this has slowed to 3.5% a year. Because of commodity demand, Australia was able to see growth at 2%, and still avoid the longterm effects of a bubble in housing markets by scaling them back. Patrick Barta closes with a reference to Texas in the 1980's and early 1990's, and Southeast Asia in 1997, when housing prices and the economy went down in tandem hitting employment in the oil and banking industries in Texas. In the case of Asia hitting the economies of some Asian countries with the fall of their currencies. He refers to the overstretched US consumer with load of debt, and the possibility of housing and the economy going down in tandem in the USA, similiar to what happened in Texas and Southeast Asia....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The European Commission forecast for 2013 shows a decline in GDP of 0.3% for the eurozone economies. The forecast shows a return to growth with GDP increasing by 1.4% in 2014 for the eurozone. The larger European Union is expected to grow by 0.1%. Unemployment is expected to increase from 11.4% to 12.2%.
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....

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