LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the statements on the IMF Blog on Inclusive Growth raises the question-Does the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, as an American institution funding developing countries, and economists, grasp what people find troubling in 2022? One of the lessons of the economic crises for families and workers in the US and other countries is that wisdom, a grasp of the soul of a country and its people through the thinking of its founders, and common sense, should drive managing of economies, with a knowledge of how economies work- not economists. Some of that is already happening. America's central bank is headed by Jerome Powell who has wide experience and has knowledge of how the economy runs, is not an economist. He was chosen by president Trump and continues to have the confidence of president Biden for this very reason. Some of the statements on the IMF economic blog are- "Why jobs are plentiful and workers are scarce" Jan 2022 "In the US and UK recent labor market the puzzle, can be partly explained by mismatch, the pandemic's effect on women and older workers leaving the work force." The Reality Wages for teachers are depressed compared to workers in the financial and economics industries, in a frighteningly disproportionate way. When it comes to logistics, hospitality, leisure and restaurants industries workers were paid poorly for what is hard work and long days. In case the IMF economists, and economists at companies, missed this it was called the Great Resignation, people simply choosing to reject the conditions that were handed down to them by the financial industry and economists who built the economic structures of recent decades. Women leaving the workforce are faced with issues of mental health coping with added responsibilities of children at home for the two years, loss of income and widespread mental health problems. The word mental health may be beyond the grasp of economists and the financial industry, yet it is the one of the biggest problems for people. Another pernicious effect noted on the pages of the WSJ is that young white men are dropping out after school because they cannot afford college in alarming numbers. Leading to the kind of discontent for workers and families that president Biden is struggling to address. On IMF Blog- "IMF Podcasts: The Year in Review" Dec. 2021 "The past year has brought us new challenges even as the old ones persist. If anything, the ongoing pandemic has taught us to think differently abut tackling the challenges and questions when it comes to thinking about big issues such as climate change, gender equality, inflation and economic measurement." The Reality Climate change lumped in with economic measurement and inflation. The floods, fires, river and reservoir water levels affecting access to basic life supporting water, drought, all over the world are of a magnitude that is missed entirely.The response to a challenge of this type requires the kind of leadership that president Biden has provided for the world with his $360 billion climate change bill as just the first step of many, and  comprehensive policies covering all aspects of the climate crisis. ON IMF bog- "How Domestic Violence is a Threat to Economic Development." "Stopping violence against women is not only a moral imperative, new evidence shows it can help the economy." The Reality Domestic violence hurts children growing up in such households. It is not so much a moral imperative as it is bad for men, women and children. So many things are wrong about it and it is made worse in conditions of low wages and poor working conditions in poor neighborhoods lacking education. These neighborhoods are also affected by lack of healthcare and the opioid crisis and mental health issues. Not investing in education and healthcare in these communities is what is simply wrong, and which the founders of America as a nation, particularly Lincoln, would find appalling.   Relationship between Capital (the Financial Industry) and Labor (Workers and Families) On the basic issue of the relationship between capital and labor, the IMF and the financial industry, economists, and the economic structure they built in recent decades, have simply got it wrong. It violates both common sense and wisdom, and violates the spirit of the founders particularly Abraham Lincoln. This is what Abraham Lincoln had to say on Upward Mobility, the ease with which each generation can do better than the one before it, as critical in the fight to save the Union. This is from the Annual Message to Congress Dec. 3, 1861, at the start of the Civil War. That upward mobility has been lost in the US with ideas that "place capital on an equal if not above labor, in the structure of government," for the last three decades in the US after the early post war period of Truman and Eisenhower, Kennedy-Johnson.  And Lincoln says this about a hired laborer being fixed in that condition for life, or of future generations of that hired laborer facing disabilities and burdens, similar to the loss of upward mobility for the people today. "Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences based on them are groundless." "Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed, if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are worthy of protection as any other rights." "Again: there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these states, a few years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all- gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all." Lincoln even offers this warning- No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty- none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost." US president Biden has these ideas in mind as he struggles with one piece of legislation after another to restore what once was, to open the door of advancement, to remove these disabilities and burdens that Lincoln speaks of, and in so doing restoring liberty.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican presidential debate with Chris Christie former governor of New Jersey, Nikki Haley former governor of North Carolina and UN Representative, Senator Rick Scott, Ron DeSantis governor of Florida. Mr. Trump with his lead in the polls chose not to participate. Nikki Haley comes out on top with her experience at the UN and in foreign policy.  Absent in the debate discussion of cost of living issues or issues about wages of workers, climate change, reshoring, or any of the major issues confronting the American people today.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How will posterity view Angela Merkel. As she ends a fourth term this BBC News report says it will remain a contested legacy. Much of what went right has already been written. A woman, a pragmatic scientist who hewed to the center not just as a scientist but with a knack for politics. Much of her early period in office was one in which she had to tackle the eurozone crisis. The euro's weakness had its roots in the way Mr Kohl allowed eurozone membership for countries such as Greece without adequate entry requirements. Some of the other problems were also left behind by an overzealous mentor Helmut Kohl who pushed for German reunification that never really happened in terms of bringing all east Germans into the idea of the Federal Republic. These problems in a neglected eastern part of Germany around Dresden were never tackled by Merkel. They were social issues that Merkel's pragmatic thinking failed to grasp. Letting in migrants from Arab and African countries was a move that Merkel made without realizing the full implications. This policy was reversed but led to the emergence of extreme right wing sentiment in parts of the country. It is left to a future German leader to tackle the social and economic disparities that affect Germany today. As time passes people reflect and a more careful view prevails. Dr Rudiger Schmitt-Beck reflects this when he says that the Merkel years were about  a bizarre mix of modernization and backwardness. Merkel rejected nuclear energy after the events at Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. As a scientist she was able to tackle such issues. Yet on the major social issues of the day Prof. Schmitt-Beck of the University of Mannheim, says she left Germany "grotesquely behind"- on child care, climate policy, digitization, infrastructure building, on demographic change. These are the issues that the Social Democrats and the Greens are standing up for today. Ironically Merkel may be remembered more for something that is not even mentioned in this BBC report. This is the European solidarity shown by action to financially support all EU countries including Italy with EU funding during the coronavirus pandemic.  This may be her biggest achievement because it will be lasting. Without it Europe would not be the better place it is today, resilient in the face of the pandemic.  Seen from outside Merkel will be seen as a German leader who failed to see the potential for India and other Asian countries with almost twice the population of China. Fascinated with 13 visits to China she studied Chinese history, politics and economics, says the WSJ. And did too little to balance Germany's close business and trade ties with China, with efforts in India and other countries. Seen from America as pointed out in the WSJ front page on September 23, Merkel made no effort to rebuild US relations with the Biden administration after the tumultuous period under presidents Obama with spying on her phone and with Mr. Trump over the EU's participation in NATO defense. She seemed resigned to a view that America had seen her best years, a belief that today does not exist anywhere in America. US president Biden's first phone call to Merkel was put off for a few days says the WSJ, and Merkel continued to build close ties with China, ignoring the fact that this was a new administration closer to that of presidents FDR and Harry Truman who did so much for Germany. And a president very different than any of Biden's five predecessors. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
With Obama's popularity rating in 2016 similar to Reagan's in his last year in office at 51%, he announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. Obama is likely to campaign in 2016 for Hillary to reunite the Democratic Party, bring Bernie Sanders and Sander's supporters behind the Democratic nominee, including younger women.

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT fails to see the importance of delivering on infrastructure building in scale, reshoring, wages and jobs for workers, and climate change action that president Biden is achieving to build a better America. NYT looks at the 2023 and the midterm elections and points out a well known fact that women (and men) in the suburbs care about legalized abortion rights for women, and this extends to states that vote Republican in the south. No attention is given to the importance of infrastructure building, increasing wages and jobs for working class and middle class Americans, bringing factories and investment back to the US, three issues that brought Mr. Trump into office in 2016 coming out of nowhere. Mr. Biden is old is the refrain. Yet it is president Biden who has delivered on infrastructure where Mr. Trump merely talked about it -Building America Better- as Biden pointed out in the State of the Union address in 2023. Biden has delivered in support for wage increases for workers, even joining the picket line at the UAW auto workers strike in Detroit. He was able to do this because he has spent more years in Congress than any other senator, and like Lyndon Johnson for the Great Society programs and desegregation in the 1960's was able to win support from moderate Republicans. Being older, having the wisdom and experience was and is indispensable in the American project started by Washington and sustained by Lincoln, who nurtured wisdom, experience, fully comprehending the people's problems, and mindfulness in the way Mr. Biden does. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This leader in The Economist reviews an essay in the magazine's October 8-14th, 2016 edition by U.S. president Obama. In it Obama points to the unfinished tasks of his presidency and what comes next as tasks to be done for the U.S. economy. The Economist points out the problems in the 2016 election campaign where there is a lack of discussion of economic issues as a serious problem. Obama lists as priorities efforts to improve conditions of people left out in the recovery, reducing inequality, offering more job opportunities, and increasing productivity.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nicolas Tenzer, who teaches at Sciences Po in Paris, says that the new relationship between U.S. president Trump  and the French president Macron, is a result of Macron having the capacity to react quickly and follow his intuition. He says there is even a bit of seduction in this for the younger Macron to bring the older Trump back into the circle, knowing that Europe needed someone who could talk to the American president in a way that others did not choose to or just could not. This includes chancellor Merkel of Germany. The relationship started out awkwardly with Macron expressing some disdain after the Trump decision to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. Soon after the initial differences Macron's spokesperson Castaner said that it was an important task, that "of bringing the president of the United States back into the circle." It is an intelligent move and typical of Macron to move quickly and do things that make sense in the interest of the EU and America. On Bastille day the French are also honoring the U.S. for the sacrifices in two wars, and it made sense to bring the U.S. president in so that other differences could be set aside to work together on issues such as terrorism, mutual security, and trade. It is not uncommon to have seen such differences, and they were handled differently in the past. German chancellor Schmidt had a difficult relationship with president Jimmy Carter. Carter with his rural Georgia background as a peanut farmer was seen in the way Trump is seen in many parts of Europe. President Bush was also treated with skepticism in Germany, more for policies of going to war in Iraq.  For Macron it shows his uncanny ability to do things which for other people may not sound convincing. Being critical of the U.S. president may also have set the stage for a real relationship because it may have earned him the respect of being someone who had his views and was not hesitant to express them, just as he was on Algeria and other issues. And yet willing to have a friendly, open conversation with someone from a different background and with different views. At Lyrarc we singled out the Spiegel Macron interview on the fast train to Bordeaux, as something that showed him to be comfortable and calm  in unusual settings, and not affected by the magnitude of the task at hand or people's opinions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Coral Davenport of the NYT provides some of the basics of the Paris climate change agreement. This includes an effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half to avoid a situation in which atmospheric temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit.  The earlier effort to negotiate an accord failed in 2009 in Copenhagen. This time all 186 countries were asked to signup with the USA and China, the No. 1 and No. 2 polluters and India leading the way. Germany is well on its way to self sufficiency through development of solar and wind energy with the German government leading the way, and France leads in the use of nuclear energy. How did this happen now? As Davenport points out there are scientific studies. But this is not the primary reason China is shifting.Davenport fails to emphasize the health concerns and pollution concerns that motivated China to shift away from coal. China's industrial revolution of the last 3 decades has come at a huge cost in pollution of air and water, and president Xi Jinping has decided to make the shift away from coal a top priority. It is estimated that mortality rates for areas of high coal use north of the Yangzte river have higher mortality rates than areas of lower use of coal south of the Yangzte river. The other big polluter India is shifting because it is learning from China's experience. Davenport mentions the resistance to the scientific evidence in the Republican party. As a result it is already clear that it lacks support in Congress and under a future Republican administration. In a fashion similar to healthcare, president Obama failed to create a consensus before proceeding in the hope that this would be better than waiting. However American industry is already moving away from coal as documented in Links- "The Trump executive order on coal and the continuing shift to natural gas." Utilities in the U.S. are making the shift away from coal because of the economics and planning ahead as governments can change every four years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A German reporter questions the value of the G20 meetings following the violence on streets at the last Hamburg meeting. He says the first G20 during the global financial crisis was useful but later meetings have not lived up to the hope for discussion and search for solutions to world problems. Global trade is at the top of the agenda following the tariffs dispute between China and the U.S. Divergent interests of participants are a problem. Would going back to G-7 in private meetings be a solution asks this reporter.

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. ...