LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Germany on Trump's economic plan and the need for changes by his advisors. DW.com's Wenkel says Trump needs to understand that 80% of job losses in recent years have come from not from globalization, but automation and higher productivity, rationalization. He says higher tariffs on Mexico could backfire.

LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...

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
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

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
The European Union Commission says Ireland must recover 13 billion euros in back taxes for giving tax preferences to Apple that are against EU rules. The EU Commission says Ireland allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, and .005% in 2014. The EU Commissioner says the use of Ireland as the place where Apple pays taxes on operations in Europe has no base in reality, as most profits are earned in other countries outside Ireland. Taxable profits of Apple "did not correspond to economic reality," according to Ms. Vestager, the EU Commissioner.  In the current environment where political upheaval is unsettling the democratic process in the U.S., Britain, Spain, France and Italy, as well as in Brazil and other countries in the developing world- because of deep recessions, and efforts to cut the deficits with deep cuts in state spending including in education and healthcare, basic services- the moves by companies to reduce taxes to these absurdly low levels such as .005% when other companies in the EU are paying 12.5%, is becoming increasingly unpopular. As pointed out in this BBC News article this sounds like the way Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt operated during the late 19th century, and were seen as operating in a manner that was above the law. Janet Yellen pointed out at a Boston Fed Conference on inequality in Oct 2014 that the bottom half of the distribution or 62 million households in the U.S. in 2013, had a net worth of about $10,000, One quarter of these households had a net worth of zero dollars. The working class and blue collar workers in the U.S. provide much of the support at Trump rallies. Younger college educated people support Sanders, because of the situation of the working and middle class in the U.S., and a similar situation exists in Europe. It is for the sake of the democratic process and delivering services in education, healthcare, and other basic areas to all, that companies small and large need to pay their fair share of taxes, regardless of size, influence, or technological advantages. Today this is is seen by most leaders who draw public support as the right way forward for the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asian countries, including proper allocation of resources to best serve the needs of working people. For example the 13 billion euros is equal to all of Ireland's healthcare budget, and 66% of its social welfare budget.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
No country benefited more than first Japan and then South Korea till 2000, and now China till 2022 from the trade and sharing of industrial technology enabled by the American backed system of trade and industry. Walter Russell Mead says in WSJ that China has chosen to challenge the system through which it developed into an industrialized nation with the US running huge trade deficits, sharing its technology and letting Chinese manufacturing displace American local manufacturing. China is seen as challenging the system. Yet what has happened is that this process of displacing American manufacturing and industry was not sustainable anyway and continued for a decade longer than it would otherwise have lasted because American industry could not easily reverse a course it had set of setting up manufacturing in China, once that manufacturing base had already been transferred from the US to China and American companies had grown accustomed to a new state of affairs of making overseas in China. Not much thought was given to how American workers would react to that situation as companies and industries making that transfer made independent decisions. This led to the election of Trump with wins in midwestern states that had suffered from loss of manufacturing communities.  The Trump tariffs on Chinese goods and the Biden administration lining up completely behind American workers and families for the first time for Democrats has sent the signal to China that it finds the situation of China's dominance in the trade system unacceptable. The document of "China 2030" of the Chinese Government with planned dominance in key sectors and industries was met with alarm across America in all parties. The paradox of Apple as a key sector in Chinese manufacturing and the largest American company is the result of policies pursued by America without realizing the true cost of shipping manufacturing out of the country. That process is now being reversed with change of management starting at Intel Corp. and other companies to bring the manufacturing base back to the US. This policy is being resolutely pursued by the US and will speed up following the pandemic which has further demonstrated how much of a mistake the policy of sending out manufacturing in critical areas such as health could be. This is the reality behind the rhetoric and verbal exchange between China and the US. With the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing countries such as India were put in a difficult situation  as this was preventing the local industrial base developing in India with Chinese imports in the same way as it had damaged that of the US and the EU. Worse it led to the use of US and European technology in China's defense industrial base including aviation and other sectors that threatened India's borders with repeated Chinese incursions in the Himalayas, from the Pakistan western Himalayas to Ladakh and the eastern Himalayan mountains. That situation existed long before the Trump and Biden administration and the Modi administration called for a return to America of its industrial manufacturing base and its technological leadership. Both the Bush and Obama administrations and the Indian Congress administrations failed to realize the dangers of letting the US, European and Indian industrial base wither. India is not just a country but a culture that extends from the Himalayas all the way across Bangladesh to the Indonesian islands which shares a common cultural history of Buddhism and the Vedanta. This is a region that has a population of about 2 billion people. In a larger sense the cultural history extends to  Vietnam and Japan with its Buddhist culture whose origins go back to India, and also of China itself. In the larger sense this is a population of close to 3 billion people. The economic development of this region and learning from the parliamentary traditions and scientific discoveries of the modern period since 1700 is a task for both the US, Europe and the people of the region.   ...

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
For the first time the U.S. focuses on the huge trade deficit with China in a serious way. The trade negotiating team led by Robert Lighthizer has set forth its negotiating terms.  1. China must reduce its trade deficit with the U.S. by $100 billion in the first 12 months. In the next 12 months it must reduce its deficit by another $100 billion. In 2 years the trade deficit the U.S. has with China must come down by $200 billion. The issue is no longer just the tariffs on steel, it is about the core issue of balance in  trade. 2. The U.S. says subsidies to state industries in the "Made in China 2025" program must stop. Here the focus is on gaining an unfair technological advantage with a combination of U.S. technology imports and subsidies to state advanced manufacturing industries to erode over time the U.S. technological lead.  3.  China is expected to cut its tariffs by about two thirds on imported products so that the tariffs match that of the U.S. This is the first serious negotiation the U.S. has conducted with China on the core issue of the trade surplus which is growing with a stronger dollar not declining. The surplus approaches $1 billion each day for about $365 billion a year, unsustainable from any perspective. The vital issue of the erosion of the U.S. technological advantage under the Made in China 2025 has turned this issue into one in which the U.S. is unlikely to back down. Especially now that Mr. Lighthizer is leading the  negotiations and has the confidence of the president of the U.S. Lighthizer is a veteran of negotiations from an earlier period -under the Reagan administration in a similar situation with another national competitor- then it was the Japanese. A relentless negotiator as the U.S. seeks to reverse a trade imbalance of stupendous proportions neglected by previous administrations.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Oil prices in the U.S. drop to $55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and $65 a barrel for Brent crude price. Earlier expectation of the impact of reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil shrinking global oil supplies have been reversed with increased production from Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S.

Another new development that caused this reversal in sentiment is that the Trump administration granted waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude oil. The U.S. trade dispute with China has also added to this with lower growth forecasts. Unlike in previous years OPEC or Saudi Arabia cannot by itself shrink global supplies with production cuts. The U.S. and Russian output also plays a significant part.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's 2017 budget is an effort to reshape spending priorities by the Republican party. Apart from Medicare and Social Security all other entitlement programs from the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are subject to cuts. Deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, including introducing work requirements. The philosophy behind it is that compassion will now be measured not by how large these programs are but by how much the government can get people "off these programs and back in charge of their lives,"  according to Budget Director Mulvaney.  The cuts are $616 billion to Medicaid and Children's Health programs, $193 billion in cuts to Food Stamps, $143 billion in student loans, $72 billion in disability programs. The overhaul of the Affordable Health Care Act is part of this change. The reallocation would put more money into infrastructure for $200 billion, and in tax cuts, $19 billion in a parental leave program and $29 billion for veterans programs, plus added spending on the military. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Republican who worked on budget issues says it will be politically difficult as the cuts to lower income groups come with tax cuts for small businesses and higher income individuals.  Beyond the policy priorities there is an area where both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical of the budget. This is how it impacts the U.S. debt. Under Congressional Budget Office estimates the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP which rose to about 75% after the Great Recession starting in 2008, is projected to grow to about 85%. In sharp contrast the Trump administration estimates of the Office of Management and Budget are for it to drop to 65% based on rosier estimates of 2% inflation, 3% growth for the decade ahead. Experts say this is unlikely once the Fed raises interest rates and the unemployment rate currently at 4.4% leads to rising inflation, undercutting growth which has remained below 2% for a long period. These concerns are also voiced by Hilsenrath in the WSJ based on the experience of other countries such a Britain that cut corporate taxes without seeing an uptick in economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Damian Paletta of the Washington Post says that credit goes to Gary Cohn a former Goldman Sachs president, and head of the president's National Economic Council for the way he has quietly built up a group of leading experts on major initiatives of the Trump administration such as tax reform, infrastructure plans. Compared to the infighting and other problems in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, Cohn is credited with building a core of ideas and experts that bring Trump more to the centre and with the prospect of winning Democratic party support. He has helped shift the president to set up a more balanced approach, less confrontational with China and not calling China a currency manipulator, getting support for the Export Import Bank, and more receptive to the Federal Reserve led by Janet Yellen. This report says an alliance of moderates is centering around Adviser Jared Kushner, Cohn, and in other reports Tillerson in foreign affairs is seen as being part of this group. On NAFTA the president has moved to a less confrontational approach with Mexico, which has helped the Mexican peso recover and improved prospects for the Mexican economy.  On infrastructure new ideas to find financing are needed and a plan to tax carbon emissions is intended to draw Democratic support as well as provide some of the funding. About $200 billion in taxpayer money and $800 billion from private investors is being discussed at the National Economic Council. This report says Cohn suffered from dyslexia in childhood, graduated from American University, and joined Goldman Sachs in an unconventional way. He shares a passion for deal making with president Trump, yet at the same time values the views of experts he has brought to formulate concrete plans for the way ahead. About 25 experts with extensive experience in government helped put together new tax changes, infrastructure plans, and international trade deal plans. His predecessor at the NEC, Gene Sperling, gives him credit for quietly pulling together the experts and doing the planning that the Trump administration now depends on. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ analysis of NatCen data from whatukthinks.org show much has changed since the last general election in Britain. Boris Johnson's popularity is at a negative 20% and Theresa May's at negative 35% in July 2019. By the time of the general election May's popularity was at negative 1%.  Another major change is that the popularity of Leave has dropped.  By July 2019 the situation is reversed Remain now has 52% support and Leave is at 48% support. During the referendum it was just the reverse.  Also significant is that some of the claims of Leave's Mr. Cummings that were used in the campaign such as $436 million going to the EU in Brussels that would be diverted to National Health Service are now not credible. The migration issue has also become less important as migration into the EU is now down to a trickle and Germany has reversed its policies to trying to keep migrants at home in Africa through aid and other means. The migration issue was played up in the campaign. Germany was seen as pursuing the austerity policies that hurt the working class as these policies made headlines daily for Greece and other countries during the period of Britain's referendum. In 2019 Germany is taking a less active role in the European Union and the leader of the CDU Kamprauer has openly called for Britain to remain in the EU alongside other Germans from all walks of life. In short the mood is now different in Europe as there is disillusionment with leaders from the far right or the far left and the centrists on the right (Merkel)and the left (Blair) who had used politics to stay in power instead of tackling the tough problems of wages, middle class decline, infrastructure and family friendly policies. The Irish backstop is now in the picture when Brexit comes up as Mr. Johnson wants to drop it. The Irish backstop is the term for the agreement reached with the EU so that Ireland's return to peace with open borders ending Catholic vs Protestant conflict would not be disturbed by Britain's leaving the EU. This could also swing voters who are undecided to maintain what has been achieved so far. The Labour party leaders who were fed up with the austerity policies of the European Union driven by Ms. Merkel and the CDU now have a situation where the issue of Brexit can be seen not in terms of the past- austerity, dependence on Brussels for Britain's economic future and working class decline. Other issues such as unity of the UK, the end to austerity policies in the EU and in the U,S. with the Trump economic policy of dropping deficit targets in budgetary outlays, also signal a different climate for the Labour party in which to campaign for remaining within the EU and continue Britain's policy of working to improve conditions for the working class and middle class after the Blair/Clinton/Merkel years.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points out that president Trump's much hyped infrastructure plan is not the $1.5 trillion federal spending plan as reported, but more in the range of $200 billion over a decade. This means fixing the crumbling infrastructure in transport, energy and water systems remains uncertain under the Trump administration, and will leave this problem to a future administration to tackle. Jakab cites the basket of 10 infrastructure stocks that lag behind the broader market in Feb. 2018. Further evidence cited is the ratio of four to one of nonfederal money to federal money under the Trump infrastructure plan, and that much of the nonfederal  money has to come from state and local governments than private entities.  Additional problem is that with the tax cut leading to a growing federal budget deficit, rising bond yields would make borrowing more costly for state and local governments.  About $100 billion will be needed for the Highway Trust Fund over the next decade to keep it solvent. Jakab of the WSJ sees overall spending stagnant, with the $100 billion Trump Incentives program for infrastructure offset by cuts elsewhere. Bottom line the revenue side is absent making this more hype than substance for much needed infrastructure spending, that is once again being postponed in America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has balanced the rhetoric of president Trump on trade in the NAFTA debate by saying the U.S. is looking for win-win solutions in trade relations with Mexico. At the WSJ CFO network Ross says the trade regime from the post war years is now an anachronism and does not work well especially for the U.S. Many experts agree that the trade framework from that period is problematic. It does not take into account, for instance say experts, the situation where a command economy such as China could help manufacturing industries with state policies, including currency policies. The rapid growth in China was different from the rapid growth in an earlier period of Japan, in terms of its impact say experts. The U.S was the dominant economy during the sixties, and the growth in Japan was not at the accelerated pace and of the magnitude that happened in China. As a result the impact on  some communities in the U.S. was much more intense in the last two decades, as documented by prominent trade studies, leading to the sense that trade did not work for these communities. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is not a story that most people grasp or understand- the long term effects of the US immigration surge of 2023 and its source mostly from Venezuela. The  US Congressional Budget Office says labor force in 2033 ten years from now will be larger by 5.2 million people and younger as a result of the immigration surge in 2023 from about 1 million immigrants each year in the 2010's to 3.3 million. About 2.5 million crossed the southwestern border in 2023. Much of it the result of the collapse of the Venezuelan economy and its middle and upper classes leaving the country. This was worsened by the US sanctions on the Maduro government including under president Trump, say experts in an adjoining NYT article on the 7 million people who left Venezuela to go to Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile since 2012, then making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Something that could have happened under a Republican president if the US Congress could not reach bipartisan agreement on correcting asylum and parole policy. As a result of this surge US Gross Domestic Product  in 2033 will be 3% larger. When the large Asian economies are seeing a aging workforce, Japan for the last decade and China now following Japan, the US labor force will be younger than it would be without this unusual surge in immigration of the last 2 years. The federal deficit will be smaller at 6.4% instead of 7.3% in 2033 as immigrants will pay taxes on income. Another aspect of this larger infusion of immigrants is that after the pandemic shut down immigration entirely there were severe shortages in the hospitality and restaurant, construction, healthcare industries. And with the trillions of dollars in investment that the Biden administration is making with more factories - this will absorb most of the immigrant surge by 2033. With some positive effects in the competition with rising Asian economies China and India. Particularly consider with the younger demographic India of 1.4 billion people. It will mean more factories can be built in the US and there will be workers for these factories in the US at wages that keep the US economy competitive years from now in 2033. This is a sobering aspect of the current situation viewed from what will be seen by America's younger generation. And under the bipartisan compromise in Congress correcting asylum and parole policy that was shut down by the former president, Republican senators understood very well that the immigration surge of 2023 would have some constructive effects for the long term, while its effects on the short term would be mitigated by Biden's commitment to close the border in 2024. This did not happen, yet the future for America's younger generation is bright under the Biden plan for massive investment in manufacturing and jobs in the US, and with the millions of immigrants needed to fill the jobs that investment will create by 2033. It will make America with a younger work force than Europe or China, only India having a younger workforce in 2033. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Merkel meets President Trump in a key summit in March 2017. The two leaders have different styles, one flamboyant the other reserved. Chancellor Merkel tells the German media "it is better to talk with each other than about each other." Trump called Merkel's refugee policy "catastrophic," Merkel has said that the Geneva convention requires countries to do this on humanitarian grounds. On trade German's Economy minister Brigitte Zypries says Germany would file a suit on any hike in import duties at the World Trade Organization, that WTO rules restrict import taxes to 2.5% on autos. Germany's BMW plant in the U.S. exports more autos than GM and Ford put together, and Merkel is likely to emphasize large German investment in the U.S.. The heads of BMW and Siemens and other industry executives are accompanying Merkel to the U.S. as trade will be a key topic.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an interview with Columbia University economic historian Adam Tooze about the international trade and economic issues brought about by globalization. The rapid emergence of China in manufacturing and overcapacity in steel has led to action on steel tariffs by president Trump. Tooze is typical of opinion that sees action by Trump not as limited action to level the playing field  as proposed by Trade Representative for the U.S., Robert Lighthizer, but as reckless move on trade.  Lyrarc.com shows articles from the WSJ and NYT showing how opinion got to this point in the U.S., on Robert Lighthizer's views that the U.S. was not facing a level playing field, and  on how trade has hurt communities across the U.S. a long distance away from Silicon Valley. President Trump's views reflect a different perspective that says the U.S. has to balance the favorable situation obtained by China and the European Union through moves of its own to protect U.S. interests. Political commentary that the U.S. was starting a trade war is not supported by the facts showing China's response as muted and a willingness by China to negotiate a balanced trading relationship as its trade surplus with the U.S. continues to grow. The trade surplus is so large that the Trump moves do not tell the real story. They are likely to be overshadowed by the increasing value of the U.S. dollar leading to a continued favorable situation for Chinese exports and a larger trade surplus in 2018, regardless of Mr. Trump's action.  Trump's moves are more significant in other areas- limiting China's access to advanced technologies, with the European Union also taking the same action. This is now the new field of competition for the major world economies. ...