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.


WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What happened on September 10, 2024 in the Harris Trump ABC television debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis? It is hard to prepare for a debate, things can go wrong, unanticipated situations may arise. 67 million audience, 51 million for Biden Trump last debate, it can stress you out- UNLESS you Trust your authentic self knowing people can see through you if you are not honest forthright and stating it clearly. Harris could say she did approve fracking now as policy action she cast decisive vote for new oil leases. I am from a family like yours struggled with a single parent mother, ("not $400 million platter")I also support small businesses. If the other side is telling lies prolifically, make it clear vigorously yet with it not changing your demeanor and your focus on housing, cost of living, experience for NATO "from the same old playbook" and a warning about the lies to come to prepare the audience very early. Save the time responding to insult to use every moment constructively to define your message for the question at hand which is in addition to the questions put to you which are merely for organization immigration, crime, economy, cost of living, chips and science competition, Ukraine, Afghanistan. Harris said nothing about "Marxist economic professor father, other personal insults just acknowledged "It is a tragedy," don't you think fellow citizens? What would 4 years be like under Harris? (and 4 years under Trump?) Here's my plan for housing, for not starting trade wars while letting chips and science help competitors as Trump.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union’s total defense spending increased by 30% from 2021 to 2024, to 326 billion euro or $341 billion. That is 1.9% of the EU’s GDP it's economic output, according to European Defense Agency. It is still short of 2%.  Britain will ramp up defense spending all the way up to 3% in 2027. Britain is short of defense equipment with transfers to Ukraine and with much of the defense budget going to maintain a nuclear deterrent. This leaves less for other defense needs. This report says most of the procurement for defense equipment goes to countries outside Europe.The Kiel Institute says 80% comes from outside EU. It is not mere shortage of funds it is the severe bottleneck from lack of defense manufacturing industry  that is putting Germany, France and UK in a situation where they are too dependent on the US. It takes years to build this capacity. Russia built it up during 3 years of war by going to a wartime economy and it now produces 4 times the ammunition Europe produces. The US did the same to match and exceed Russian capabilities and capacity, Europe lagged behind with unwillingness of Macron and of Scholz in particular to switch funds from needs in transport, infrastructure to defense. The debt brake Merkel to stop debt based infrastructure investment is what ails Germany. It has had two pernicious effects it created the AfD's surge by lowering economic growth and investment in public needs - housing, transport, public services. It worsened the SPD and CDU performance by not investing in security with no policies to return crime committing refugees to their home countries. A combination of aid and other assistance, diplomacy, secured the cooperation of countries to take them back. A strong display of action on removing refugees committing any offenses would have lessened the number of terrorism incidents. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican party has split shows the New Hampshire and Iowa Republican  primaries says WSJ in this video that is essential to understand 2024. Demographic expert that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) talked to in this video say Donald Trump has brought in working class voters into the Republican party, no question about that. Yet in doing so and with his style he has alienated what are suburban Republican voters, higher educated with college degrees, the country club type that was long been associated with the Republican party since 1900. Taking the Iowa and New Hampshire voters the WSJ shows in visual dynamic graphs that half of voters in both states did not vote for Trump. There are no differences between Republican voters who voted for Trump and who voted against Trump when it comes to gender, age, they are evenly divided for gender and age. Difference is in education and suburban. Higher educated, suburban Republican voters acted to vote against Trump. This means says WSJ is that the Republican party has now effectively split up. Immigration is not as important to these Republicans who voted against Trump, foreign policy is also important which is not so for Trump voters. Ukraine matters for these voters who voted against Trump. Abortion also matters and the economy matters for these Republican voters who did not vote for Trump. In the backdrop of all this is the advisers who surround the president, the chief of whom may be Jake Sullivan, not just for foreign policy but also on issues such as immigration. Where Michael Shear of the NYT who has covered the White House for 30 years shows Jake Sullivan actively pushing to close down the asylum and parole avenues that are surging migrant flows, and to get Biden to close the US Mexico border under a bipartisan deal worked out by Lindsay Graham and Chuck Schumer in the US Senate. Sullivan, Michael Burns and other thoughtful, careful advisers are helping the Biden administration navigate the Israel Palestinian conflict and the Ukraine Russian conflict. The Middle East is what tripped Jimmy Carter with the Iran hostage crisis, leading to the Reagan period and Reagan economic culture that is unwinding today with huge gaps in incomes and educational opportunities that never existed before in the US. What also tripped Jimmy Carter was the split with the party that John Kennedy and LBJ built on the foundations of the FDR Truman period, and his handling of the Kennedys that effectively split the Democratic party. This is the situation that is now happening in the Republican party as the Reagan era and its culture of extremes comes to a close. Of extremes not seen since the Great Depression of a working family struggling to live on wages near the poverty level in a automobile factory in Michigan before the UAW settlement that Biden was on the picket lines for, and the $55.8 billion pay package that was put forward for Mr. Musk at Tesla. ...
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany is building the new pipeline that connects the Wilhelmshaven LNG Terminal to its natural gas storage tank in record time in the midst of an energy crisis in Europe. The new 26 kilometer pipeline for  the LNG Terminal is being built in a few months when it would have otherwise taken 8 years. See Rani Bhandari, Managing Director of Open Grid Europe talk about the project in this video from DW.com to get a sense of how Germany is moving quickly to address natural gas needs for the winter. Click on Original article to see it.

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union has adapted well to a cutoff of supplies of Russian gas. Alternative sources were quickly pulled together in a matter of months after the invasion and cutoff to tackle the winter of 2022-2023. Conservation was moved into high gear, renewable energy investment expanded, and alternative sources for gas established. Germany sought supplies of LNG from the US and Qatar and built gas terminal at Wilhelmshaven in record time of less than 6 months. Norway increased gas supplies to Europe and now provides one third of Europe's gas needs. German industry changed the way they used gas supplies to reduce usage and make it efficient.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ  shows that president Xi is pulling back from his signature economic policy to reduce wide gaps in wealth and opportunities in China. In 2021 this was a policy that Xi pushed to reduce inequalities that have built up over decades of hypergrowth. One tenth of the population owns 68% of the wealth in China creating an highly unequal society. Concerned about the future of the Communist party as disparities kept widening and 40% of the population was left behind, Xi early on in his first and second terms made tackling corruption and inequality part of his policy.  Yet the way China's economy is structured, its dependence on the construction industry for growth, and on local governments for investment, it is easier to tackle infrastructure projects than address widening gaps in society. Xi's efforts have led to slowdown in growth to 5% or less. With the US and Europe moving to shorter supply chains and moving supply chains to less integration with China, slowing growth to less than 4-5% presents a major challenge for China. Leading to a pull back from the Common Prosperity policies that Xi initiated and which are part of Communist party policy in its early period after 1949. A major problem for China says WSJ is that social security contributions revenue is 6.5% of GDP compared to 9% for advanced countries in the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Personal income taxes are 1.2% of GDP compared to 10% in UK and US. This prevents the better funding of programs for maintaining a better safety net and social support for the less well off in society. The pandemic followed by Ukraine war have added new urgency to the acceleration of the effort to build new supply chains, leading to new manufacturing innovation and manufacturing leadership in the US and European Union, and in countries such as Japan, India, and other parts of Asia. This too has made the goals of reducing inequalities and addressing the wide disparities in Chinese society more difficult with sharply slowing growth in China. This was also the experience of Japan and South Korea with decades of fast growth followed by sharp slowdown with unanticipated problems. ...
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese views on the India war of 1962 are shown at the Beijing Military Museum in a display effort "One Hundred Questions on the China-India Border Self-Defense Counterattack."  China's PLA on its 95th anniversary looks at the 33 day war and calls it a "counterattack." It also says China withdrew because its goals were accomplished of getting back the territory it lost since August 1959 to India, that on the Indian side "the decision making was in the hands of civilian officials who did not understand the military at all," and called it "chaotic." It also brings up the international situation that Russia supported both China and India in the conflict and India had the US on its side. It says PLA withdrew because of the difficulty of supplying the military in the Arunachal region at a great distance from China particularly after the famine that resulted from the Great Leap Forward. Today there is a clear chain of command and joint work by the Indian Air force and the Army, infrastructure to support mountain operations being built at rapid speed, and building of modern defense manufacturing capabilities for the airforce and army as shown at the Defense Expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, this week.  One of the first aspects of the border that one sees in the region is how close it is to large population cities and towns in India and how remote it is from large population towns and cities in China. In this sense China after the experience with Russian conflict before 1900, later a large Japanese invasion in 1931and 1937 appears to have responded to its period of semi-colonialism with an aggressive policy of extending its frontiers to regions that were throughout history acting as large buffers between India and China- such being the case of Tibet which was occupied in the 1950's leading to the war with India and a border dispute that had never existed before in history. Other aspects today are that in 1962 the PLA had fought the war against the Japanese and the war agains the Americans in Korea all within a 20 year period. In 2022 China has focused for 50 years on modernizing its economy. The supply chain in the Ukraine war showed shortcomings in the Russian army, and the difficulties of supplying forces at great distances. There is also the question of morale when it is about  miles of icy terrain at heights over 10,000 feet, thousands of miles away from major population cities and towns in China- for reasons of Russian and Japanese semicolonialism behaviour not to be found in regions that had never seen large armies in history such as Tibet or Arunachal or the Himalayan border regions. The distances tell much of the story- the distance from Shanghai, Shenzen or Beijing, to Tibet is over 4000 kilometers and the border region with India additional thousands of kilometers over some of the most rugged terrain on earth with only remote mountain communities existing in the most difficult environments.       ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The shooting of former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, a leader of the opposition in Russia, in Red Square, Moscow, on Feb. 28, 2015.
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Russian president Putin tells Russians at an annual news conference on Dec. 17, 2014, that the West wanted to deprive Russia of its natural resources. He says steps taken by the central bank and his administration were proper, including avoiding capital controls, except that the decision to raise interest rates to 17% in mid-Dec. should have been taken earlier. He deflects criticism that the sanctions and the decline in the ruble were "payment for Crimea" (Russia's takeover of the Crimea) by saying it was "payment for our independence, our sovereignty." Putin expressed unease with the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. He told Russians to expect that the crisis will last for 2 years and during this time the Russian economy will adapt, in particular shifting its heavy dependence on oil exports. During the 10 years of the Putin administration since 2004, Russia has not made a vigorous effort to diversify away from oil dependence. Progress was made primarily in better integrating the economy with the European Union, entry into WTO, building a sovereign reserves fund, until the crisis in Ukraine. The Putin years may be seen in the future as the transition years towards a more diversified economy, and may lead to a shift away from the kind of management of economic and foreign policy by a single leader that may have led to the disruption in relations with Germany, a critical economic partner for Russia. Chancellor Merkel said Germany would continue to support sanctions as long as Russia opposed the right of self- determination of people in Europe and European values. Germany continues even now to maintain dialogue with Russia through Social Democrat Foreign Minister Steinmeier, which is why Putin continues to refer to it as "our partners" and cites the differences with our partners, very different from the Cold War period when no such close relations with Germany existed. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senator Schumer calls it a "momentous 24 hours here in the US Congress, a legislative one two punch that you rarely see." Schumer negotiated a major climate change action bill for $369 billion in the Senate, that also covers tax changes to cover costs, and helps cut drug and health care expenses of Americans. The second quarter shows healthy job gains of average 375,000 a month and unemployment at 3.6%. The economy declined by 1.1% but much of this was from a slowdown in home and business construction sectors sensitive to higher interest rates and from higher inventory. Consumer spending increased by 1% during the quarter. The Fed's series of 0.75 percentage points interest rate increases had softened inflation expectations before they get entrenched in the economy. This makes it possible for Democrats to present a message to ordinary Americans that president Biden is getting things done with 2 legislative achievements. A $280 billion bill for investment in the semiconductor industry in the US. And a huge win on climate change with the $269 billion Schumer is negotiating in the US Congress. It is the opposite of what Republicans are saying is Biden's failure to tackle inflation. Appropriately Biden and Schumer are calling this the bill the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. How did Schumer get this done? After the Ukraine war and EU decision to shut down Russian oil supplies, cut oil and gas use by 15%, and the climate change action inducing fires and floods, there is increasing awareness about climate change action as vital for our future all over the world. This gives more confidence to Democrats to negotiate a temporary continuation of oil and gas, with increased exports of US LNG to Europe. Senator Manchin from an energy producing state of West Virginia was brought over to Schumer's side with this idea. What Biden gets is a 40% reduction of US carbon emissions over 2005 levels, enough to get within reach of the 50% he promised at COP26 in Glasgow. It is a win-win for all sides and for the American people, and shows that patience and hard work, and persistence in the face of adversity can bring results. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A steady decline in the price of Brent crude from $115 to $92 in the period from June to October 2014. Slow or no economic growth in Europe, and declining growth in China was the main reason. A cut in oil price by Saudi Arabia in September with lack of coordination in OPEC to control supplies when prices are declining, and increasing supplies from the U.S., provided additional basis for price declines. This price decline comes as large energy companies invested heavily in mega-projects to bring more oil supplies when prices were up to $128 by mid-2012. Consulting company EY estimate is that there are 163 such mega projects worth $1.1 trillion underway, most behind schedule and over budget. The projects were based on oil prices being over $100. Oil field development costs are increasing rapidly. Douglas Westwood, a consulting firm, estimate is that productivity of upstream capital spending has fallen by a factor of 5 since 2000, declining by 5% a year, as oilfield equipment and services demand exceeds supply. Greater technological sophistication also adds to cost such as Shell's Nobel Bully platform for deep sea drilling. See link- Noble Bully. Oil majors are now cutting spending, and some planned big projects are on hold. About $300 billion in assets may be up for sale. Shell plans to cut spending by 20% in 2014, Exxon and Chevron 5-6%. Shale oil projects in America need about $57 to be profitable with an internal rate of return of 10%, by one estimate. Yet this is an average and does not reflect differing producer costs. This estimate does not reflect the high cost producers, some of whom need closer to $110....
The Financial Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Russia's State Statistics Committee says growth slowed in the second quarter of 2013 to 1.2%, declining from 1.6% in the first 3 months. Inflation is at 6.4% for August, according to the Economy Ministry. The Russian central bank has resisted lowering rates because of the inflation target of 6%. The Putin adminstration is seeking 4-5% growth, after an average annual growth rate of 7.2% from 2000-2009, during the period of high growth in Putin's first term as president and second term as prime minister. There is a slowdown in foreign investment in the Russian economy, as investors in Europe and the U.S. shift away from emerging markets in 2013. In addition to this commodity prices are declining.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Speaking at a banking conference, advisors including the head of Russia's largest retail bank Sberbank, German Gref, minister of the economy, Aleksei Ulyukayev, and head of the central bank , Elvira Nabiullina, express deep concern about the economic prospects in 2015. Foreign investment is down from about $90 billion in the 1st quarter of 2013 to a negligible amount in the 3rd quarter of 2014. Capital outflows following the Ukraine crisis are estimated at about $110 billion by former finance minister Alexsei Kudrin. The ruble dropped to its lowest level against the dollar since the 1990's. And the sharp decline in oil prices with Brent crude at about $90 is another risk factor as 50% of the budget comes from oil and gas revenues and 60% of exports are still oil and gas, with no serious or effective effort to diversify under the Putin adminstration. Putin told the banking conference that a deficit free budget and reserves of $460 billion are "fundamental factors supporting stability." Advisors and leading bankers remain unconvinced. The problem is that even at the beginning of 2014 before the Ukraine crisis foreign investment had slowed to a trickle, similiar to what India experienced in 2013. The central bank head says her effort to open up the bond markets in Russia to foreign investors is now in vain because there are few foreign investors. Instead of reversing the situation as is happening in India with the new Modi administration, policy under Putin and the Ukraine conflict may have scared investors away with the increasing western sanctions and stagflation (estimated 8% inflation and about 0.5% growth in 2014). The head of Sberbank Mr. Gref told the banking conference- "The Soviet Union broke apart because of the mind boggling incompetence of the Soviet leadership. They did not respect the laws of economic development." The problem with sovereign reserves is that it can protect a sovereign currency such the Russian ruble or the Brazilian cruzeiro to some extent, but today's vibrant economies need foreign investment and foreign technology for growth. Even a country such as China with a trillion dollars in reserves needs the reserves in its special case because of its billion plus aging population, and is no exception to these laws of economic development about the need for foreign technology and foreign investment. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Major decline in oil prices in Oct. 2014 as prices drop to $81 per barrel and are forecast to reach $70. U.S. oil production increased by about 56% or 3.1 million barrels a day since 2004. U.S. demand for gas and fuel declined 8% compared to 2004. Initially instability and wars in the Middle East sustained high oil prices in 2012-2013. Yet with growing output from shale and other sources in N. America and slowing economies of Europe and China, the situation reached a point in 2014 where supply exceeds demand. This shift more than offsets any instability in trouble spots. The situation affects the U.S. consumer favorably with an estimate of $1 billion in savings for American consumers with every one cent drop in price at the gas pump, by one estimate from Deutsche Bank analysts. Typical American families gained an extra $50 a month from the decline June to October 2014, according to analysts at Gasbuddy.com. The declines are a boost for the slowing economies of Europe, Japan, China, S, Korea and India. China's imports for 2015 are estimated at 61% of oil consumption, using official estimates. In the current slowdown the lower prices offer relief. India which imports 75% of its energy benefits signficantly, as this helps lower inflation and reduces cost of fuel subsidies for state run companies. Russia is adversely affected by the declines as it depends on oil and gas exports for 50% of the nation's budget. Estimates by AFK Sistema economists show the Russian economy contracting in 2015 with oil at near $90 per barrel (Brent crude is at about $85, and WTI at $81 in early Oct. 2014). Russia's former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin reflects opinion among Russian executives and politicians, when he told state television that Saudi Arabia may be pushing prices lower to target Russia's oil resource based economy and Mr. Putin, in an effort to broaden the effect of sanctions. (The Saudis have strongly protested the Putin intervention in Syria.) Venezuela has used $120 per barrel and Angola $98 for its budget, leading to a strong hit for the economy. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A major shift in foreign investment may be taking place as the 2014 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum takes place in May 2014. Russian policy in Ukraine and tensions with the U.S. and Germany could lead to a shift in investment to other emerging market countries. China's tensions with Japan could lead to a similiar shift of Japanese foreign investment. At the same time India has elected a new government with an absolute majority and an overwhelming mandate from young people to accelerate development. The new government under the BJP party's Modi has a decade of experience attracting foreign investment in western India. Indonesia, Vietnam, Africa and other emerging market countries, could benefit from the shift in investment. Investment could also return to the home countries with lower labor costs in Southern Europe, lower labor/energy/transport costs in North America. For Russia the debate at the St Petersburg Economic Forum was about pursuing one of three policy paths with some riskier than others, or some combination also risky and uncertain- depending on state banks and oil windfall funds, increasing ties with Asian countries, continuing on the current path with lower foreign investment and continued capital outflows. The failure to use the time wisely to diversify the oil based economy which could have been better accomplished in an economy not overly dependent on crony capitalism and centralized economy, both current characteristics, will affect future progress. A key weakness for Russia compared to China is the centralization under one person Putin, more so in the third term. In China the two man team Keqiang and Jinping is part of a larger team chosen by consensus and negotiation and part of a rotational scheme. It has senior leaders who initiated the changes to a market driven economy in the nineties determined to see China on track....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Brent crude drops below $60 by Dec. 15, 2014.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Agriculture Department cuts its estimate of corn crop yield per acre in the U.S. by 15.5%, as a result of the severe drought in 2012. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, says the situation for farmers is better this time than during the last drought in 1988. Now 85% of farmers have crop insurance compared to 25% in 1988. The Agriculture Department estimate is for a 3-4% increase in prices in 2013. Capital Economics says the impact on GDP in the U.S. will be about 0.1%. Because 40% of the corn crop goes into ethanol production there is renewed debate about the 2005/2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires 13.2 billion gallons of corn based biofuel be made in 2012. Worldwide the bad weather conditions in Brazil, India and Russia are worsening the outlook for food supplies. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says global food prices increased by 6% in July 2012, with corn prices up 23%.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Casey describes the crucial policy errors in Brazil with over spending and lack of transparency in the years leading to the crisis in 2014-2015. Brazil raised interest rates half a percentage point in May 2015 to 13.25%. Inflation was at 8.13% in Brazil in March 2015. Brazilian companies have large dollar denominated debt accumulated during the boom years which needs to be refinanced as its currency the real declines. With current policies economic growth is likely to continue at 0-1%. Russia made policy errors with the departure of Kudrin as finance minister for Putin's second term as president. Policies to attract foreign investment, controlling military expenditures, and continuing growth were reversed as Russia took positions on Ukraine that led to western sanctions, capital outflows, and a sharp decline in the ruble. By May 2015 the ruble and oil prices had recovered from lows, but the ruble was still 35% below the level in June 2014, and the oil prices were still only two thirds of the peak in 2014. Russia sees the decline in the ruble as a way to reduce imports and increase import substitution for many products. The economy is weakened by high inflation- inflation was 6.9% in March 2014, going up to 16.9% in March 2015. In May 2015 Russia lowered the target repo rate by 1.5 percentage points to 12%. Russia faces stagflation- high unemployment with low GDP growth, and high inflation....
ZEIT ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

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