LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reagan adminstration Budget director, David Stockman, faults the Republicans for not controlling runaway spending, and for tax cuts when the deficit was already growing to unmanageable proportions. The Republican party he says, has not acted responsibly by opposing tax increases for the nation's richest taxpayers of three percentage points. He adds in the municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits, and says with this the total debt reaches $18 trillion by 2015, a Greece style 120% of gross domestic product, which calls for much needed austerity.

LyrArc Article Gist
The plight of N. Korean refugees and China's policy towards refugees.

LyrArc Article Gist
Its incorrect to call a loan that has only slightly lower, same or higher monthly payment after modification, a loan modification. The intent is to make a loan affordable in monthly payments for the borrower, for it to be a meaningful modification. Says Tom Miller, the Attorney General of Iowa, "it should'nt be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same." Many lenders and banks do not want to have to mark to market a whole set of loans of one type in one geographical region, as an accounting rule now requires, just because they have modified one loan of that type, because their reserves are severely depleted and most are already or nearly insolvent. So their way of discouraging loan modifications as a solution is to respond by saying that loans go into foreclosure even after modification, when the modification they are talking about is tacking on interest penalties and fees that accelerate the home into foreclosure in some cases, and in others by leaving payments higher or the same make foreclosure just as likely as before. Tom Miller, attorney general of Iowa, also says that " if you do real modifications, the default rate is significantly lower." Some mortgage companies say that default rates drop significantly, some to as low as 25%, when loan payments are reduced to the 30-40% of borrower income range, which is becoming the standard for a meaningful modification. Analyst Ron Dubitsky's research at Credit Suisse confirms this, showing lower payments reduced defaults to less than 50%. Research by Credit Suisse and Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University also show that at this time loan, 2 years into the foreclosure crisis, modification has mostly resulted in higher monthly payments. White says banks like Wells Fargo, a large servicer of loans, have done have modified few loans as apercentage of their delinquent mortgages. Sheila Bair and others have long advocated reducing loan payments to 30-40% of monthly income since early 2007, because foreclosure is costlier for banks than loan modification, but met resistance from the banks and lenders and their lobbying groups. The relevant question is that if the banks are misquided in pursuing this course, and its not in the interests of the banks or the country's economy- because accelerating foreclosures or not taking modification action in the middle of a huge wave of layoffs may result in a even bigger wave of foreclosures that threaten housing prices and effectively leave banks insolventleading to nationalization- then what purpose did all this serve except to exacerbate the crisis and increase the price tag of the government's and country's ultimate rescue of homeowners?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Public opinion in the district of Steve King, a Republican in the House of Representatives favoring defunding of Obamacare healthcare law.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Leung, the highly unpopular Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and target of protesters demanding his resignation and universal suffrage in 2017 as originally promised, is a reserved man who does not interact much with the public. His secondary scholing was at Kings School in Hong Kong followed by studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic for a higher diploma in building surveying. He then studied valuation and estate management at Bristol Polytechnic in Britain graduating in 1977. He was a surveyor by training and worked in this field to help China open up its property markets in the 1980's. By 30 he was made head of the JLW real estate firm's Hong Kong branch, and in 1993 formed his own firm DTZ Debenham. Throughout his life he has worked for or had close ties to the authorites in Beijing in the property field, and has little political experience. In 1985 he was elected to the Hong Kong Basic Law Consultative Committee, and later became its Secretary General. This was followed by a position in the Chinese government as a member of the National Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference till 2012. His first political campaign in 2012 was itself of a limited nature because he only had to win support from members of a 1200 member pro-China, pro-business Executive Council that currently approves nominees and elects the Chief Executive. Albert Ho, one of three candidates in 2012, says Leung was completely insulated from political pressures, political give and take, and uses a "greenhouse" comparison to describe this isolation from the public. His progressive credentials for providing affordable housing involve ideas to open up housing development in territories near Hong Kong appear to be merely election period ideas. The large gaps between rich and poor, or rich and a struggling middle class in Hong Kong- becoming sharply accentuated in China to the point where China is probably one of the most unequal societies similiar to Brazil- are also keenly present in Hong Kong. How much part this plays in the protests is not clear in media reports, though the "Occupy Central" name for one of the protest groups suggests a connection to social issues as well. Protestors may see democratically elected chief executives as more responsive to voter concerns including social, income, housing and other issues, in sharp contrast to more than 1200 well heeled business executives who have prospered greatly in China's boom years. China's national leadership under Jinping and LiKeqiang appeared to sense this income divide as they focussed on extragavant displays of wealth in the transition, but may still have failed to grasp how big that gap has become and how the political processes of rigid control cannot keep up with the times even with the best of intentions. Especially when growth slows and the problems of the boom years such as hyperinflation in property prices and pollution remain unsolved. Bloomberg quietly let the Occupy Wall Sreet protests fizzle out clearing protestors at times, yet voters could peacefully elect Mr. Blasio as Mayor of New York in response, a level to which Beijing's political system has not evolved and to which Hong Kong offers both a challenge and an opportunity. As one protester quoted in the NYT put it- "we are not the enemy, we are the people."...

LyrArc Article Gist
In China since 1981 the poorest people making below $1.25 a day fell to 207 million in 2005 from 835 million in 1981. In India the number of people below $1.25 a day increased to 455 million in 2005 from 420 million people in 1981. The share of the people in poverty fell to 42 percent from 60 percent during the same period. Corresponding figures for East Asia including China show a drop from 80% of the people in poverty in 1981 dropping to 18% in 2005. The proportion of people living below the $1.25 a day poverty line worldwide fell over the nerarly 25 year period from 1981 to 2005 from 52% in 1981 to 26% in 2005. In subSaharan Africa, now the poorest region half or 50% of the people live under the poverty line of $1.25 a day in 2005 almost where it was in 1981. In absolute numbers the region had 380 million people living below the poverty line in 2005 compared to 200 million people in 1981. Note that the World Bank this year changed the poverty line from $1 to $1.25 a day, to make allowance for the inflation that is hitting the poorer countries. Is China a rich nation after the Olympics? Some parts of China, the coastal regions and the regions around big cities like Shanghai and Beijing are relatively affluent with pockets of poorer people but in the rest of the country there is poverty as defined perhaps in terms of deep poverty, poverty, poor middle class without health insurance or any kind of savings for emergencies. With 200 million people in 2005 below the poverty line a question could be asked how many people in China below say $2.00 a day which could be seen as being poor at a time when inflation in food and fuel costs has been significant in developing countries. If its somewhere in the range of 300 and 400 million people in China this explains why in relative terms China would identify with India and the rest of the developing countries and it also explains its stand in the WTO trade talks acting as a developing country protecting the rights of agriculture and farmers within China. And it also explains the reasons why China sees a long transition before it ceases to be a poor developing country and why there is real concern that these 300-400 million people as well as others adversely affected by the rapid industrialization and exercize of state authority, corruption and increasing gaps between rich and poor, adverse effects on environment, that these people adversely affected are listened to and accomodated in the interests of stable progress and fairness. Much of recent history has shown that countries open to foreign trade have done better given the right conditions and careful policy measures. China opened up around 1981, and India around 1991. Also progress and gains are more significant in infrastructure building and in poverty reduction in the latter phases of development as the synergies increase, capital pool increases, and the development accelerates, this shows why China's gains look significant compared to India's at this point in time. In ten years or fifteen years a better assessment could be made and then some points may favor China and some India, and the results will be a result of different history, experiences and problems faced and routes taken because of prior developments in each region and varying complexity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post says the Republican candidates Rubio and Kasich have the best chance in the 2016 presidential election because they are seen as truly concerned about the problems of working class Americans. Coming from aspiring working class families they are familiar with the problems of working class whites and minorities, and understand the significance of upward mobility in America's future.

LyrArc Article Gist
What happens to the 70,000 residents of Anacostia, near the Capitol in Washington DC where a third of the people live in poverty and there is a 40% dropout rate, and only 8% of all students there attend college. Vacant homes, drug use and crime sap the neighborhood here. Obama said he would bring 20 cities an antipoverty program successful in Harlem, New York that would include parenting and infant care classes, as well as early childhopod education and free medical care for children. An investment of $1 billion for 5 years for a transitional jobs program, to place the unemployed in temporary jobs. The Obama transition team did not return requests seeking comment on the 20 city plan or the $1 billion for transitional jobs, says the WSJ on January 20, 2008, the day of the inauguration. Its incredible that right in the nation's capital there exists another Washington DC of such neighborhood decline within sight of the Capitol.

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A study by the Pew Research center shows minorities are the ones hardest hit in the millions of foreclosures taking place in the US. Counties with black or Latino majorites and the New York region are hit severely. What appeared to be a boon five years ago as black home ownership rose sharply after decades of discriminatory lending and zoning practices, has now turned into a curse with families losing homes to foreclosure, neighborhoods seeing increasing crime and declining house values, and renters being evicted. Lenders like Mozilo's Countrywide and other similiar lenders simply used the idea of home ownership as a flag to get political support for a wild west in lending practices, which allowed predatory lending to take place in the deregulatory atmosphere of the time. See the link to the impact on minorities. Nowhere has it been shown more pointedly that prudence and character in leaders in all areas is the essential conditon for progress, making free enterprise a necessary condition but subject to this essential condition, than in the way the housing and foreclosure crisis is hitting the American and the world economy in so many ways. This is evident in neighborhoods like this one on 145th st. in Jamaica, Queens, whaere black households making more than $68,000 a year are five times as likely to hold high interest subprime mortgages as whites of similiar incomes. Defaults occur three times as often in minority census tracts as mostly white ones. And 85% of the worst hit neighborhoods have majority of black and Latino homeowners. Which may also explain why there is not agroundswell of support for serious government foreclosure prevention measures like bankruptcy legislation and other legislation such as that suggested by Martin Feldstein and others for homeowners nearly or already under water, when faced with fierce lobbying by the banks and financial institutions. Consumer advocates say years ago many banks drew red lines around black neighborhoods and refused to lend, then as deregulation became the rage five years ago, these banks under unscruplous leaders targeted these neighborhoods for subprime lending. A dozen banks and lending companioes that made big profits from subprime loans accounted for half the loans given to the New York region'sblack middle -income borrowers in 2005 and 2006, a case of reverse redlining that the N.A.A.C.P. says in its lawsuit against these lenders. Housing and Urban Development Sec. Shaun Donovan, in aspeech to New York University said that 33% of the subprime mortgages given out in New York City in 2007, went to borrowers with credit scoresthat should have qualitifed them for conventional prevailing-rate loans. For anyone taking out a $350,000 mortgage, says the NYT, a difference of three percentage points - a typical spread between conventional and subprime loans- tacks on $272,000 in additional interest over the life of a 30 year loan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Not much in any meaningful way is being done so far for homeowners facing loss of their homes. The bailout plan has wording that encourages the government to help but no concrete measures beyond that. At this point loan modifications by banks are doing little meaningful to help homeowners. Some critical measures of what is happening. According to Sheila Barr of FDIC troubled loan portfolios have yielded about 32% of book value compared with 87% for loans in which the borrower is current, in her statement in Congress. But with fear gripping the credit markets the banks are reluctant to take any immediate losses by writing down principal balances unless the government steps in, because their capital is under huge strain and some banks are going under. Deutsche Bank estimates 40% of homeowners or about 20 million households will owe more than their home is worth by the time the housing market stabilizes. This suggests he scale of the problem as Martin Ferldstein pointed out in the WSJ someof these homeowners may simply walk away from their home as a rational decision. It also suggests how this combined with rising unemployment could lead to significant drops in consumption spending making the situation in the economy much worse, and allowing rising unemployment to play an additional role in increasing home foreclosures for the first time....

LyrArc Article Gist
Porter cites a report by Kai Daniel Schmid and Ulrike Stein of the Macroeconomic Policy Institute in Dusseldorf. The report shows the top 10% of Germans having 26% of the country's income before taxes and transfers in 1991. This increased to 31% by 2010. For the same period of about 20 years the bottom half of the population took in 17% in 2010 dropping by 5% from 22%. The growing income inequality in Germany is comparable to what has happened in the U.S. over this period.