World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports from the comments of current and former members of the Chase Chief Investment Office (CIO), that risk officers at Chase were ignored when they raised issues about the complex trades made by trader Iksil. Iksil's trades had the support of his manager Mr. Macris, and Ms. Drew who was in charge of CIO. The comments also indicate that at one point Mr. Macris brought in a Risk Officer with whom he had worked closely for many years. Risk Officers are supposed to be independent and their concerns seriously heard, with the authority to halt trades that pose excessive risks. Which made this kind of cozy behaviour in the CIO trading offices in London cause for alarm. These reports also say Mr. Braunstein, the new CFO at JP Morgan Chase, did not strengthen controls after he assumed office in 2010. Bank officials disputed this. The New York offices did not fully grasp the complex trades being made in the CIO London offices, and upper management let the CIO operate pretty much on its own, especially with CEO Jamie Dimon's confidence in Ms. Drew's management of the CIO. This led to another gap in the process of risk management. Dimon had other priorities and distractions, from problem mortgages coming with the acquisition of Washington Mutual, pushing back aginst financial regulation after the 2008 crisis, stress tests and others. At the same time the U.S. Federal Reserve, regulators, and Treasury's coordinated effort to merge failing banks with other larger banks- because of the lack of the process of unwinding failed banks provided later under Dodd-Frank legislation- created mega financial banks. Unlike what the U.S. under Treasury Secretary Rubin pushed for in the case of S. Korea during a banking crisis in 1997, Treasury under Geithner and Fed officials did not push for unwinding of failed financial institutions such as Countrywide and Washington Mutual in 2008-2009 Chase's own portfolio of assets under the CIO, increased by an astounding amount from $76 billion in 2007 to $356 billion in 2011. Even if Ms Drew had managed CIO well before, managing a portfolio of this size is most likely to have presented a whole set of new challenges and problems for which the CIO office was not prepared. Similiar concerns were raised by other Fed officials such as Fed governors, Hoenig and Fisher, who raised the issue that such mega-banks posed unacceptable risks and were too big to manage. Pressures to increase investing profits, growing complacency, relaxing risk management controls, led to the situation where a single trader Mr. Iksil, who had only joined the bank in 2007 according to other reports, could create large losses. This follows a situation at UBSin 2011, where a novice trader made bets that resulted in large losses....
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A former chief of naval staff looks at India's effort to keep the sea lanes open for trade and shipping in the entire Indian Ocean and adjoining ocean region.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
UAW's Shawn Fain's support of US 25% auto tariffs April 2, 2025. Fain says-“We applaud the Trump administration for stepping up to end the free trade disaster that has devastated working class communities for decades.” US president Biden supported the UAW, even standing in a picket line to support UAW negotiate a contract for fair wages for workers with the three US automakers, Ford, GM and Stellantis. For decades workers in the US faced the threat of outshoring to Mexico to reduce wages. This action on tariffs will increase depressed wages for American workers in the same way that president Biden's action helped negotiate better wages. In this sense both Biden and DJT are on the same track. In fact president Biden 2020-2024 decided to keep most of the tariffs put up by president Trump in 2016-2020. It is likely that a future Democratic administration will continue DJT tariff policies to achieve domestic goals such as fair wages for American workers, and for rebuilding American manufacturing in the way president Biden has done. This is in fact one of the singular achievements of the Biden administration for building the working class and middle class neglected by Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. On this issue both Biden, Trump and any future US president will be on the same page, because it is about fair trade, to even the playing field, and is right by American workers and American values. History will show that this required courage and persistence on the part of Biden and DJT, and was done not on whim as is falsely portrayed but on the advice of people who had the experience, wisdom and sought the best for America such as Robert Lighthizer ,the US Trade Representative in 2016-2020 and his deputy Jamieson who is the USTR in 2025. Lighthizer is notable because he handled the unfair trade with the Japanese in the 1980's as Deputy USTR under Reagan, and knows fair trade and how to get it to build a strong American economy. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The difference between US imports and exports is down from $418 billion in 2018 to $280 billion in last 12 months (August 2024 to July 2025) showing the impact of tariffs and policies of the DJT administration to level the playing field and for getting out of the trade deficits that hurt American jobs, workers, and communities. Tariffs of 20% for fentanyl issue and 125% made it 145% for import tariff on China after Liberation Day. These were lowered to 30% after trade talks. This where it stands today. 

The figure of $280 billion is higher because of transshipping by China through Vietnam- for transshipping the 20% tariff on Vietnam goes up to 40%. Another aspect of the figure of $280 billion is that it is last 12 months which reflects 5 months of the Biden administration, and the surge in imports before deadlines when DJT tariffs would come into place. Battery imports are up, smartphones, toys and apparel is down.

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The foreign lobbying by Pakistan and then India in Washington DC for access to the White House using lobbyist firms in the US. This enabled leaders from Pakistan to visit the White House in the US soon after conflict between Pakistan and India erupted over terrorist incident. Terrorist incidents happened in New Delhi and Islamabad in November 2025. The DJT administration may have gained support from Pakistan/Turkey for the Hamas settlement through this lobbying effort. The DJT administration inadvertently put itself in a position of being influenced by lobbying in this case for access to the White House. Following that event China's president Xi Jinping tightened restrictions on rare earths in trade negotiations with the US for a temporary agreement that gives access to the US market. This leaves the issue of illegal fentanyl flows from China and Mexico to the US, important to the US, and of restructuring world trade, also important to the US, major goals of this Republican administration in abeyance.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ committed to orthodox economic theory thinks of tariffs as tariffs such as Smoot Hawley from the 30's. This is why it is not true- It is about fentanyl flows that have led to 490,000 deaths over 12 years in the US and few in the US like to talk about it. Smoot Hawley had nothing to do with fentanyl, drugs trafficking and migrant trafficking that every nation not only has a right but a No.1 responsibility to its citizens to keep its neighborhoods and its children in neighborhoods safe. Smoot and Hawley were US Senators and US Congress was isolationist in mood. Their grasp of the world trading system was meager and they stepped in at a time when the world had economically not recovered from World War I, and the French against US General Pershing's advice had set the most punitive arrangement in Germany that crushed Germany after an armistice Pershing opposed that left the Kaiser's political structures intact. Tariffs is not DJT's idea. It is the solid experience of Deputy US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer under Reagan who conducted negotiations with the Japanese who stalled and stalled Lighthizer says, let negotiations drag on into endless nights, and Lighthizer and his team stood firm. The relentless Japanese relented and Lighthizer secured the agreements that ended this phase of trade relations in the 1980's. Lighthizer was Trade Representative in the DJT first term 2016-2020 and launched the negotiations with China. This is now 8 years since 2016 and 2016 itself was 35 years after Lighthizer negotiated with the Japanese. Today's US Trade Representative is Jamieson who was Deputy Trade Representative under Lighthizer in 2016. Each detail is carefully thought through to bring it to a fair conclusion in the interests of the world and the US. Information traveled slowly GM could not tell at any time how many cars were in inventory on its lots in 1920's. US lacked basic infrastructure for government that FDR and Labor Secretary added firt in New York in the 1930's and which was transferred to 50 states by 1940's. Today information is quickly at fingertips and consultation processes are built in between industry and government at all levels. A lot of information is carefully evaluated. USTR as DJT showed, the major study of USTR Office in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, has all trade barriers carefully analyzed in minute details for every country. And is working on this for 40 years. There isn't even a slightest  comparison between this and the Smoot Hawley crowd in the 1920's.  The goal not to beat anybody. Just to set the goal of a level playing field for world trade. That is the foundation of trade that is fair and respected, and is a win-win for all. WTO's basic foundation No. 1 principle is a level playing field. It is just that this was a kind of Marshall Plan for Asia of the US to let poor countries such as Japan war wrecked in 1950, and China colonial power wrecked by first Britain then Japan struggling and poor in 1990's, giving them some time to rebuild by ignoring unfair barriers to trade for 10-15 years 2005 for China. Barriers that never got dismantled and technology that leaked from the US 2005-2016 under the Obama administration. Smoot Hawley was not about the US Navy building its own ships and US shipyards in the 1920's. In 2025 US shipbuilding industry is stolen, this is why the words used "pillaged" "looted" were used in the Rose Garden. Little by little American private enterprise capitalism was superseded by a new form of capitalism in Japan then in China that combined state capitalism with private enterprise capitalism. This then was the threat America faced, and needed to redouble its energies and seek fair play.   ...
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The World Trade Organization is about to choose a new director-general to succeed Mr. Azevedo, a career diplomat from Brazil. The two candidates are a former finance minister from Nigeria,  Ms. Okonjo-Iweala supported by the European Union and the trade minister of South Korea, Ms. Yoo Myung-hee, supported by the U.S. Japan supports the Nigerian candidate because of its trade disputes with South Korea. The role of head of WTO is important today because of trade issues between countries particularly the trade issues between China and the U.S., U.S. and other countries. And the sense that the WTO arrangement is not working for many countries in recent years without a level playing field in many industries from improper subsidies. Before the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization not much attention was given by the U.S. to how it had changed after new elections. As a result non profit foundations like the Gates Foundation from the U.S. played a leading part in representation of American interests and China played a leading role leading to the crisis facing WHO today. During the coronavirus pandemic the WHO lacking adequate influence of U.S. or European Union countries was not able to act in a way that met the needs and concerns of these countries with advanced health systems. In the past pandemics were better addressed worldwide when the U.S. and EU played a major role from the beginning because of long experience and technological resources,  a role that was missing in the current pandemic. Ebola and other virus were tackled in Africa only when the U.S. or European countries played a leading and critical role. This role was sorely missed in the current crisis. This is why changes at the World Trade Organization matter. World trade is important for the world economy and can best operate when the concerns of U.S. and European Union about a level playing field and fair competition are met. This level playing field and fair competition also meet the interests of developing countries such as India which are industrializing rapidly and need to protect their own markets from unfair dumping, as well as Indonesia and other parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa that are part of the supply chain for the world economy. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
For the Jan. to Nov. 2011 period Japan shows a trade deficit of 2.3 trillion yen. Analysts expect a trade deficit for the full year- the first since 1980 and setting a new trend as long as the yen stays at a high level. The yen is at 77 yen to the dollar in Jan 2012. Japan still maintains a current account surplus because of returns from investments overseas. The Bank of Japan reports that the economy is expected to contract by 0.4% for the current fiscal year.
The New York Times Original article ›
Economist Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden's multi-trillion dollar spending plans for infrastructure, climate change plans, education and healthcare, are based on a changing perception about the effectiveness of the public sector spending initiatives. The Reagan period idea that the public sector is not as efficient as the private sector that lingered through the Clinton, Bush and Obama, Trump administrations is no longer accepted. After the pandemic another perception is taking root that when it comes to health infrastructure the government has a leading and indispensable role to play. Gone are the doubts about this that hung like a cloud over the nation's plans for infrastructure in health, education and supply channels. Following the global competition with China a new factor is also playing its part. The need for government to play an active role in trade, in protecting technological resources, and in supporting US technological firms in competition with other countries. There is a new perception that the government should be determined to play this role. In the effort to be self-reliant after the pandemic the government is expected to play a role in redesigning the supply channels and providing the direction and incentives for supply channels worldwide that give America a competitive advantage and less dependence on other nations. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese leader Xi Jinping .at APEC Summit in Gyeongju and meeting DJT in Busan, South Korea, October 30 2025. At the Summit and in meeting with DJT temporary trade arrangements with US and concerns expressed by Japan's PM Sanae Takaichi. The US, China and Japan are in a delicate diplomatic effort to continue working with each other till issues are resolved.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Powell needs agreement of others on Fed Board to set US interest rates August 2025. There is now a divergence of opinion with some Fed members looking to lower interest rates in coming months to aid the US economy as it resets the terms of world trade for a level playing field for all, something that had not happened by the ineptitude of previous presidents.

The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How financing for ambitious infrastructure and Atman Nirbhar Bharat (self-reliant economy) development is being financed in India is explained here. The central bank acting as debt manager for the government of India is pushing government securities to trade in lots of 5 crores or more, seven crores being about 1 million dollars. This is now being traded among commercial entities. These are essentially 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month treasury bills, and long term debt instruments for the government that run to maturities of 5 to 40 years. Retail investors are being provided opportunities to participate in a different pathway. Currently institutional investors such as banks, mutual funds, insurance companies are major participants.The government needs 1.2 million crores or $175 billion from the financial markets to fund its ambitious capital expenditures for 2021 financial year. To do this it turns to financing such as government securities. Higher demand for capital leads to higher interest rates. The RBI and the government want to keep interest rates down and one way its to broaden the base of investors for government securities which it is now doing. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
China's central bank reduces its reserve requirement ratio, required money set aside by commercial banks and not used for lending. It lowered by half percentage point to 13% the amount of reserves Chinese banks are required to set aside. As the economy has cooled recently with trade tensions with the U.S., China's growth has slowed to 6%. The move frees up $126 billion for lending. In a speech this week president Xi used the word "struggle" over a dozen times. The State Council has plans to allocate more money for vocational training, to expand railways construction.  Analysts of S&P recently estimated China's economic growth over the next decade at 4.6% on average if the trade dispute gets to a stalemate, if trade dispute worsens it could drop to 3.7%. The trade dispute has dampened the mood at China Development Forum in Beijing, with attendees saying the distrust between the U.S. and China is based on deep concerns about each other. Besides the lending increase planned, the central government is pushing local governments to find projects to create jobs. Local governments fear this would worsen the already high debt burden they carry. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The impact of the investigations into the Autonomy Inc. acquisition, the Barclay's rate rigging for LIBOR, and the UBS London trading desk's huge bets by a young trader in the twenties, have dented the reputation for integrity of London markets.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
More oversight of oil futures markets by the Commodities Futures Trading commission to look for market manipulation.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein points to the beneficial effects of a decline in the value of the euro for the trade of troubled eurozone economies with non-euro countries helping reduce the current account deficit and trade deficits.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A survey of 414 National Association of Business Economics (NABE) economists shows Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson with 15%, overtaking Trump at 14% on who would best manage the economy. On protectionist views only 9% support this. 15% said they have no opinion and 55% said Hillary Clinton would do the best job of managing the economy. About 62% say the election uncertainty is holding back growth. Some aspects of Hillary Clinton's economic plan are the $275 billion infrastructure investment over 10 years, taking action against companies that ship jobs overseas, a capital gains tax paln that encourages long term investments, supporting $15 minimum wage, making upward mobility a top priority, providing government financed access to public colleges for working class and lower income groups. Donald Trump's plan has suffered form lack of specifics, shifting comments, lack of careful study, and excessive use of slogans. Both candidates oppose trade agreements that shift jobs overseas. Trump's plan also suffers from lack of credibility overseas as this is important in a global business structure, with fears of protectionism increasing. and reminding people of the protectionism under Smoot-Hawley that increased the damage from the depression of the thirties. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows it has collected $63 billion in tariffs over the preceding 12 months. Even though there is no agreement on trade with China, president Trump says the U.S. is benefitting from higher tariffs by tens of billions of dollars. In May he estimated tariff revenues could reach $100 billion.This report in the WSJ says this could happen if the the new tariffs of 10% on additional $300 Chinese goods imported to U.S. goes into effect on September 1. This is likely considering that China sees this in different terms than the U.S. such as its sovereignty, whereas the U.S. sees it simply in terms of fair trade. With new elections China may be simply putting things off till the election is decided as Mr. Trump has pointed out. The tally of what the U.S. Treasury gets annually if $100 billion is generated in tariffs goes something like this. Of this $30 billion was generated previously for the U.S. government, so the incremental amount is $70 billion. Of this about $16 billion goes to offset the effect of loss of farm exports to farmers, mainly soyabeans exports to China, through a rescue fund. This leaves additional $54 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Money that could conceivably be put back into infrastructure that the U.S. badly needs in mobile and fixed to improve internet speeds and move up from its low rankings compared to China and other countries. A WSJ report this week shows Germany in worse shape than the U.S., both countries having dismal status in mobile infrastructure- the U.S. at No. 37, and Australia No. 4, Canada No. 3, and even Croatia No. 9. This throws some light on why this trade dispute has become intractable, for China the right of a sovereign nation to move past middle income status even as its telecom technology with Huawei 5G is top class, and for the U.S. the right not to fall behind in advanced technologies such as Telecom. It is also why one hears so much about Huawei and why it has become a flashpoint of the conflict in trade and trade practices. It is thought Mr. Trump is conducting this trade dispute. Yet less known is the fact that prominent Republicans in Congress such as Senator Warner have stated on television talk shows that they are concerned Mr. Trump may give up too much in negotiations that lead to the U.S. not being able to compete in telecom advanced technologies that matter for competitiveness and for national security. What was treated by Bush and Obama administrations routinely without much attention to the consequences is now a top concern for Republicans and others in Congress and business. ...
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Hall of trading firm Phibro, which traces its roots to the Phipps Brothers a German scrapmetal and raw materials dealer from 1900, and is now a part of Citigroup. He started making big bets after 2004 that futures in oil prices would instead of the then prevailing 20% discount to current prices be priced higher than current prices because of the rising demand from China and India and shortage of supplies. Once he had locked in on this idea and had researched the facts he got the agreement of the head of Ciigroups trading group to place large bets such as buying a lot of oil futures at the prevailing prices. As oil prices shot up this paid off and Phibro kept 20-30%of the profits. Hall made about $250 million dollars and put $100 million into his art collection of new artists. At a time when speculative buying by investors has pushed up oil prices this is a story of one person who made big bets and thrived.

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