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,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Experts in both the USA and China say that the trade deficit will remain a problem in US-China relations, as China now wants to see not an appreciation of its currency but some devaluation of its currency to promote its exports. Additionally both Congress and Mr. Obama are looking at trade relations carefully. Obama has been critical of how unfettered free trade has not been beneficial to both countries.

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How other nations will negotiate such as EU, Japan and South Korea, which are allies of the US to reach trade agreements remains unknown with the ITT ruling. Will it have an effect, or will other nations recognize that DJT will pursue the Nation's interest in avoiding dangers of $1 trillion trade deficits and loss of manufacturing knowhow to other nations. As DJT has the option to issue tariff orders under other legal authorites which have firm footing such as Sections 301 of Trade Acts which were used in the first term.

LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
USC Justices Roberts, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett questioning Solicitor General Sauer, and lawyer for the small business Katyal, on Tariffs by the US president DJT in November 2025. Coney Barrett says the whole thing is a big mess. Treasury Secretary Bessent who watched the proceedings in the Court benches says the issue of fentanyl is one of the reasons for tariffs on China which has played a uncooperative role on this issue of fentanyl sourced by drug trafficking gangs on America's borders. Bessent saying that it is a policy tool when unfriendly powers seek to hurt America. DJT says a SCOTUS ruling against the Tariffs would reduce America to Third World status. Most American themselves are being told by the media interests that the issue of young Americans dying from fentanyl is an issue like many others not that it is the heart of the issue that more Americans have died from fentanyl than the youth of America who died in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. The wine import company with 19 employees whose lawyer Katyal filed a petition to SCOTUS is a tiny part of the people harmed by tariffs. It could easily be compensated from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026 as could other businesses. How does the SCOTUS decide what policy the US is to use. With recalcitrant Asian nations Japan and China the only way is years of negotiations that lead nowhere on world trade. Is SCOTUS responsible or Congress to the American people when the supply chain disruptions caused by concentration of the supply chain in China led to huge price increases making life unaffordable for the low income earners,  including cost of automobiles? Large companies acting on the DJT signals are reducing this concentration in China actively, the trade deficit is coming down, the tariffs revenue is a fund to offset the cost to Americans mostly smaller businesses as large businesses increased their margins in 2022-2024 pricing moves so that today only about 30% of the tariff cost is borne by the average Americans, the rest by large businesses and some of it by exporters in China and Japan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A weaker dollar is good for US exports. It also increases the prices for foreign goods sold in the US, increasing incentives for Make in the USA, and reducing the huge trade deficits with EU countries and China, Japan, South Korea. The US dollar has gone in April 2025 from 145 yen to the dollar to 157 yen to the dollar.

LyrArc Article Gist
Trade economists from Ivy League universities, are still peddling the old theories on trade from textbooks that make no sense and have got America in this huge mess that it is in where other countries are ripping America off with unfair trade practices. These economists have turned a blind eye, turned their backs to the great damage done to industrial towns and communities across America for two decades with the loss of manufacturing. Take Irwin's point that the US would have to monitor rates on 13000 tariff line items. This is ridiculous because the US simply needs to monitor the key products such as semiconductors, oil and gas, LNG. In just one negotiation with India the US having a trade deficit DJT states of $100 billion with India- terrible trade. By opening up supply of LNG and oil US can fill India's needs for Oil and LNG and cut the deficit to zero. Who came up with this idea. Indian PM Modi and his trade team. Once it was known that the status quo was unacceptable India came up with its own ideas lets import what we get from Russia from the US. Yes we had discounts from Russia but that was when oil prices were high. DJT's effort to get oil prices down by increasing US production will make it possible for India to get this oil at similar prices. India is a much bigger economy now than during Covid 5 years back India can do this. US and India win-win by doing joint aviation production deals and US gains with sale of F-35 stealth fighters. It is just common sense. Sadly, much of this is common sense that is beyond Ivy League Economics departments at American universities.  Reciprocal Tariffs make a lot of sense because this is how fairness is done- for China, for India. In the case of Mexico, Canada, China, on stopping flow of fentanyl- this reciprocal tariff is not a tariff it is as Commerce Secretarty Luttnick pointed out domestic policy of the United States. Which country would tolerate 490,000 deaths from fentanyl over 12 years and not take domesti policy action. It is not that the policy actions are taken it is that these action should have been taken a long time back. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A former Fed Governor sees the advantages of a dollar depreciation for US exports when the USA economy is facing severe adjustments in other areas, and reducing the trade deficit as a bright spot in the generally poor economic situation. The dooar may be sacred but no particular exchange rate is, is the tone of his views.

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein sees the need for some kind of tax cut in 2008 that would be triggered by increase in unemployment. He advocates further decreases in interest rates by the Fed in 2008. He doesn't see much relief for subprime borrowers. The doollar in his view is still overly strong and a lower dollar would help the US reduce its trade deficit by stimulating exports even further.

LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though U.S. president Trump has singled out countries such as Mexico, South Korea and China for trade practices, the U.S. today faces stronger competition in trade from Germany. The trade surplus with Germany for 2016 was $297 billion for Germany compared to $245 billion for China, according to Ifo economic institute. China's trade surplus according to the World Bank was down from 10% of gross domestic product or GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2016, while Germany's has gone up to 8.5%. The Chinese currency is seen as not being undervalued by some experts, while the euro has lost a quarter of its value in the last 3 years, giving Geman exporters an edge. The U.S. also competes with Germany in nine of the 10 export categories such as machinery and electronic equipment, according to the Peterson Institute. Then why is the focus under U.S. president Trump not including Germany? One reason is that China's products have put a downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages, and the the speed with the Chinese manufacturing has grown in certain industries. Germany has very few of the manufacturing subsidies that China provides to its industries. And the depreciation in the euro is not favored by the German government as it opposes the policies of the European Central Bank. Germany also has a higher propensity to save about 10% of GDP compared to about 3% for the U.S., according to OECD. As a result Germany is accumulating foreign assets at a faster rate than any other nation, while the U.S. is borrowing capital from overseas. Ways to change this are minimum wage regulations introduced by the government, but larger measures such as increasing government investment in the economy are not supported as the country prepares for the future with an aging population.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 China exports to the US $438 billion vs $143 billion the US sends to China - the US deficit with China 2024 equals $295 billion. This is the fact that the media continues to ignore. Behind this is the gutting of the industrial base of the US shipped offshore to China since 2000 by American companies. 5 million jobs lost and tens of thousands of factories destroying the backbone of the economy, America's middle class.  Much of the US exports are oil and gas which can be shipped to Europe, India and other places. The soyabeans and grain from America's farmers is the other part of exports of $13 billion. The US can find other markets for the farm products including India under a trade agreement, and farmers can be supported with agricultural subsidies. It only makes sense to rebuild America's industrial base and pull back from an unfair trade arrangement that can only be the result of serious neglect of their responsibilities of previous administrations before DJT in 2016. The piecemeal efforts 2016-2024 have not worked to rebuild America's middle class,  recover jobs and factories, as a result a new bolder approach is needed in 2025 to rewrite the rules for world trade for an even playing field where everyone is treated with fairness. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Biden's efforts to rebuild the American economy are getting so little mention in either the NYT or WSJ or elsewhere that Biden writes this article in the WSJ to share what he has done for the American economy, workers and families in the US since 2020. It comes at a time when the US is being challenged in not only chips, science, defense, but also at amore basic level as education and healthcare, public services. Only one third of American children in 8th grade can pass NAEP test reading comprehension yet much of $346 billion going into ventures in 2021 is being wasted as America's capital allocation system and capital markets fail to serve the American people is shown in today's WSJ pages. The scale of what can be done with the right amount of capital going into the right places and not the wrong places and with determination to rebuild can only be imagined- Mr. Biden says here that additional $2.5 trillion can be reduced in the deficit by "cutting the wasteful spending on special interests and ensuring the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their fair share of taxes." It also means vital investments can then be made in education, in infrastructure, science and technologies, and other areas where it is missing today through planned misallocation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US has 1 trillion in trade deficits each year and it is completing the destruction of manufacturing in the US. Half of this is with China as China exports through Vietnam and Mexico, third countries, in addition to 295 billion dollars of trade imbalance the US has with China. China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam are the largest offenders. No country can long endure with such a loss of its manufacturing base. The US Navy itself is in danger without the manufacturing to compete with China in shipbuilding. China has taken up over 50% of shipbuilding, and soon the US Navy will not be able to protect the free world if these types of economists and self serving German or other foreign interests drive a false narrative and the US acts on such false narratives.  Without the US Navy in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans no one is safe, not Germany, not the EU, not India, not Latin America or the rest of Asia and the world.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that some depreciation in the value of the dollar is welcome because it would make US exports more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. He says China's policy of keeping the yuan pegged to the dollar actually devalues the Chinese currency and makes it possible for China to siphon off growth from other countries. So what should America do. By putting pressure on China to revalue the yuan upward would America be risking China responding by selling some f its $2.1 trillion in dollar assets. This would not be such abad thing if the Chinese sold some of their dollar assets says Krugman, as lowering the value of the dollar at this time is not such abad thing. Malpass and Alan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon, point out the importance of maintaining the value of the dollar in a separate piece. There the idea is not to have sharp fall in the value of the dollar that could economic disruption because of loss of confidence in the currency as opposed to a gradual decline.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Trump proposes a 10% tariff on all goods imported into the US at Columbia, South Carolina, says this report in WSJ. A universal tariff of this type is similar to Herbert Hoover's Smoot Hawley that brought on the Great Depression in the 1930's in outright beggar thy neighbor policies which don't work, says WSJ. This opinion describes the impact of such a tariff in failing to reverse the trade deficit which is $951 billion in 2022, but fails to point to the lack of effectiveness of tariffs alone in bringing back American manufacturing jobs. As president Biden has pointed out the Trump administration made much talk about returning American jobs but did not accomplish much for American manufacturing to lead the world in the way the Biden administration has done. To do this the Biden administration passed laws to fund a entire new electric car industry, renewable energy industry, and promoting other industries in advanced technologies, including aerospace, to bring back America's leadership in manufacturing of most of the twentieth century with a bold vision for the future. Mr. Trump lacks the experience on this issue and is simply playing the rhetoric to his base without any plan to deliver the goods to sections of the American public that have already suffered the most from decades of neglect of manufacturing by Republicans going back to Reagan and Bush, Democrats Clinton and Obama. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Supreme Court hears arguments from D. John Sauer Solicitor General of the US on DJT Tariffs Wednesday, November 5, 2025. The Supreme Court will hear about a case brought by a small wine importing company with 19 employees. The US president used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that allows the president to impose tariffs. The IEEPA was introduced by president Jimmy Carter in 1977. It was used during the Iran hostage crisis. It has been used for the Venezuelan regime after elections were rigged with human rights violations, on Belarus as early as 2006, and on Mexico for drug cartels. This increases the responsibilities of the Justices of the Court as these sanctions have broad support of the American people. Tariffs were imposed on China for illicit fentanyl flows and a 25% tariff was imposed on Canada and Mexico under Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 20% on China under Executive Order 14195 in 2025 for illicit drug traffic flows across their borders into the US. Illicit flows that has taken the lives in the case of fentanyl of more young people than were killed in the Vietnam, Korean and First World Wars combined.  For the reason that the economic aspect of tariffs now overlaps with trading partners abuse of basic rights of their largest trading partner the US in the case of Canada, Mexico and China not stopping such flows, the issue before the Supreme Court is basic to the US as a Nation to protect its citizens under these Executive Orders and IEEPA- not the kind of interpretation of the law the USC does for most or almost all of its cases. In 2025 a lot of the discourse is distorted and does not reflect the way citizens of the Nation should show concern for the welfare and safety of their fellow citizens in communities around them severely hurt by the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids making their way from other countries conducted by drug trafficking gangs outside the US.  Also relevant is that the tariffs are correcting trade deficits of $1 trillion of the world with China that threaten the economic security of the US, EU, India and other countries. Larger companies are moving their supply chains out of China to reduce concentration in China, impact on inflation is slight with 3.0 % inflation in September 2025. Smaller companies such as the wine company in this lawsuit are unable to do so. Most of the smaller businesses affected can be compensated with a fund from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026. In this way the goals of the US as a Nation can be achieved of reducing the supply channels concentration in China, cutting supply chain concentration in China, for fair trade with trading partners EU/Japan, and for action on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Justice Roberts and his team have a lot to think about in this effort by the Nation to correct abuses that should never been allowed to happen. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
International Court for Trade in New York (Customs Court for New York setup 1970) ruling on tariffs May 29 2025. An obscure NY federal court that few know about has issued a ruling saying tariffs are not legal under emergency powers of the president. In the first term DJT used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which provides firm legal footing to act in the Nation's interest. This court says there is no emergency not considering the trade deficit of $ 1 trillion and with it a loss of manufacturing technologies lost to other nations a danger. A loss of manufacturing technologies that comes with shipping manufacturing overseas, that makes it impossible to make the ships the US Navy need on time, as not posing  dangers to the Nation.  The administration says unelected judges should not be making such decisions. The Court jurisdiction is to review the decisions of customs officials on import duties. Was the Court in New York City with judges appointed by the president, expected to decide on what presidential decisions in the Nation's interest were legal. Nothing about its history suggests that it was designed to do this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt interviews Seiji Maehara, Japan's Foreign Minister. Hiatt says Maehara is committed to easing immigration and increasing tourism and student exchanges. A new program of child allowances is designed to reverse population decline. Prime Minister Kan has proposed closing the deficit by raising the consumption tax. What struck Hiatt most from the interview was the emphasis on the US-Japan partnership and shared values of democracy and open trade, and the sense of a shared disillusionment with China.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.K.'s deficit in trade in goods widened to 8 billion pounds in January 2010, even with the 25% decline in the value of sterling against the dollar and the euro. This suggests that devaluation is not likely to help rebalance the economy and things will have to be adjusted the hard way in the manner being done in Greece, Ireland and possibly Spain with cuts in spending. In the past the devaluations were accompanied by drop in interest rates, but this time interest rates are already low. And the U.K.'s weak manufacturing and excessive reliance on financial services does not help in boosting exports.

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's DW.com says in this report- "However, economists have pointed out that the US benefits from having large trade imbalances with the rest of the world, as the dollar is used in most trade, and offers major tailwind effects to the US economy." Which economists one must ask? Most of these economists had turned their back on the working people in factories in America, on their wages turned into a downward spiral, on their jobs, their factories lost for three decades. Today the American people have a sense of the true cost of this colossal failure to protect American workers and small towns across America depending on manufacturing. The pandemic exposed the risks of supply chain shocks and inflation by overly concentrating manufacturing in China.  The US has 1 trillion in trade deficits each year and it is completing the destruction of manufacturing in the US. Half of this is with China as China exports through Vietnam and Mexico, third countries, in addition to 295 billion dollars of trade imbalance the US has with China. China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam are the largest offenders. No country can long endure with such a loss of its manufacturing base. The US Navy itself is in danger without the manufacturing to compete with China that has taken up over 50% of shipbuilding, and soon will not be able to protect the free world if these types of economists and self serving German or other foreign interests drive a false narrative. Without the US Navy in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans no one is safe, not Germany, not the EU, not India or the rest of the world. ...