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
11 Pacific Rim nations form the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2018. The Obama administration supported the trade pact alienating supporters in its union base particularly in the midwestern states. Mr. Trump opposed the TPP in his election campaign and made it a significant issue for swing voters in midwestern states after job losses in the auto industry. With the opposition of president Trump the U.S. decided to withdraw from TPP.  The 11 nations agreeing to join a revised agreement are Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. So far six countries have formally approved the deal, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, New Zealand and Japan, setting the stage for two rounds of tariff reductions starting December 30, 2018. Agricultural products duties will be duty free within 3 to 7 years including for Japan and Mexico. Australia, New Zealand, Canada are major agricultural exporters. Japan supported the deal as a way to counter China's influence in the region. In the U.S. the gains would be in intellectual property rights but losses for workers in the auto and manufacturing industries, a point Mr. Trump recognized in his election campaign as he campaigned in the midwestern states. Mr. Obama pursued TPP over objections of workers organizations and unions including auto workers union, with his advisors suggesting this as a way to counter China's influence in the region. By 2018 the Democratic party support base fractured on this as one of the major issues.   ...
The Economic Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi's visit to the US comes at a time when US president Biden is eager to show the US is fully engaged in the Indo-Pacific region with its allies in the Quad 4 countries- Australia, Japan and India. The recently announced Aukus defense agreement brought together 2 members of the Quad 4 the US and Australia, plus the UK. Aukus is designed to strengthen US presence as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific region in the Indian and Pacific oceans around India, Southeast Asia, China, and across the Pacific. After a futile engagement in Afghanistan the US is reorganizing its presence where it is strongest- in the oceans. In a way that Britain once did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the US is dominant in the high seas. US naval power far exceeds that of all navies in the world combined. This is meant to reassure India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia and Japan, which together have close to twice the population of China, that the US has not diminished its presence in any way from that it had in the 1950's following the Second World War. With this new framework India enters discussions that will focus on health to deal with the pandemic and its after effects, with security and rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, with trade, technology, new supply chain manufacturing structure in which India plays a key role. With this new focus and clearing past engagements made by other US  presidents, including some mistaken policies, the US emerges as a new force in the Indian ocean, China seas and Pacific ocean region.  On September 23 Modi meets Tim Cook for what could be new supply chain arrangements that Apple could be preparing as it and other US corporations build new supply chain structures to rebuild US manufacturing technologies capabilities that were lost to China over the period 2000-2020. During that period manufacturing technology knowhow was shifted out of the US in a mistaken policy that assumed design and invention were sufficient for the US to keep. The first step in this direction was a change of CEO's at Intel Corp with US president Biden pushing for new US technology reclaiming policy. Following that the new CEO at Intel Corp, Patrick Gelsinger, completely reassessed Intel's mistaken policies of ceding its entire semiconductor manufacturing technologies capabilities to Taiwan and China. Intel made a U turn and is now investing all or most of $50 billion in the US instead of in China or Taiwan.  On September 24 Modi meets Mr Biden to discuss trade, investment, defense, and security. On the same day the leaders of Japan, Australia, Mr. Suga and Mr. Morrison join Modi and Biden for the Quad 4 talks. Indian infrastructure capabilities and Indian economic growth would be key goals to strengthen India along its land borders along Tibet occupied region and Himalayas as part of the overall effort to build a new US and allied presence in Asia.  On September 21 Modi attends a Covid Summit that will look at the way forward in the aftermath of the pandemic and ways to vaccinate the remaining unvaccinated population in the world, as well as vaccination passports.  ...
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. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Navarro's thinking is genuinely felt and genuinely thought out after 20 years  at Harvard, UC Irvine and other universities, as an economist who abhors sitting in the office with textbook theory that has no relevance to life of working families in the heartland of America. He says of these textbook theory economists and the American companies that have recklessly shifted America's industrial base to China year after year and decade after decade- “The same damn fools who supported NAFTA, China’s entry into the W.T.O., and every other trade deal that was supposed to benefit America but only benefited Wall Street and the foreign nations screwing us. Those mainstream economists need to get out more often — maybe to Ohio or North Carolina or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Michigan.”  He says the 70 nations including the big ones Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Britain and the European Union are already neogtiating with the Trump administration. What more proof does one want. The Nation will get a better deal as it is about fairness in world trade, and an even playing field. Navarro calls it "a beautiful thing." The three dimensional unique approach taken by Navarro, Bessent and Lutnick and by Trump is working, says Navarro. Fifteen decades ago A. Lincoln stated- "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion.As our case is new we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country."   ...
FRANCE 24 Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear trade deal with India and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If passed by Congresas in September the deal goes into effect. At the NSG, New Zealand, Austria and China were the holdouts and had to be persuaded by the United States. Under the deal India cannot conduct nuclear weapons tests and if it does its upto the USA to decide if it will continue to supply India with nuclear materials and technologies. India is running short of uranium and other nuclear materials it needs for its civilian andnuclear weapons programs since it was refused access by the NSG after earlier tests decades before. It also depends on how the US sees China and Pakistan in relation to India and its nuclear programs. One thing is certain India will push forward aggressively with new nuclear energy programs and setup its own nuclear energy reactors to provide its growing energy needs and to reduce existing shortages and also lower its oil bill. So in the next couple of years or the next decade the world will certainly see the peaceful development of nuclear energy and development of new technologies in the nuclear energy field as India becomes a key user and developer of nuclear energy technologies. At that point India may become a part of the fabric of peaceful nuclear energy development in the world as it meets asignificant part of its energy needs through nuclear reactors. It will be a welcome development as it will ease the burden on oil supplies that in the case of China became a key part of the upward pressure on oil prices as China relied mostly on oil and gas for energy needs. This is probably the thinking in the current Republican administration as it pushed hard for this nuclear deal to supply India....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Trade economists from Ivy League universities, are still peddling the old theories on trade from textbooks that make no sense and have got America in this huge mess that it is in where other countries are ripping America off with unfair trade practices. These economists have turned a blind eye, turned their backs to the great damage done to industrial towns and communities across America for two decades with the loss of manufacturing. Take Irwin's point that the US would have to monitor rates on 13000 tariff line items. This is ridiculous because the US simply needs to monitor the key products such as semiconductors, oil and gas, LNG. In just one negotiation with India the US having a trade deficit DJT states of $100 billion with India- terrible trade. By opening up supply of LNG and oil US can fill India's needs for Oil and LNG and cut the deficit to zero. Who came up with this idea. Indian PM Modi and his trade team. Once it was known that the status quo was unacceptable India came up with its own ideas lets import what we get from Russia from the US. Yes we had discounts from Russia but that was when oil prices were high. DJT's effort to get oil prices down by increasing US production will make it possible for India to get this oil at similar prices. India is a much bigger economy now than during Covid 5 years back India can do this. US and India win-win by doing joint aviation production deals and US gains with sale of F-35 stealth fighters. It is just common sense. Sadly, much of this is common sense that is beyond Ivy League Economics departments at American universities.  Reciprocal Tariffs make a lot of sense because this is how fairness is done- for China, for India. In the case of Mexico, Canada, China, on stopping flow of fentanyl- this reciprocal tariff is not a tariff it is as Commerce Secretarty Luttnick pointed out domestic policy of the United States. Which country would tolerate 490,000 deaths from fentanyl over 12 years and not take domesti policy action. It is not that the policy actions are taken it is that these action should have been taken a long time back. ...
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Indian PM Modi will take part in the swearing in of a new government in Maharashtra on December 5, 2024. Maharashtra and Gujarat with cities Mumbai and Ahmedabad were part of Bombay state in 1947 after independence. It was also the largest trade and industrial region of India. Today it is poised under the Modi government to deliver industrialization on a scale that matches that of China for a modern Vikshit Bharat over the next decade and to 2040. This is the real significance of this event which in some ways surpasses the US election in significance and the scale of transformation of the largest nation in the world.

Obama's Corporate Makeover

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the views expressed in the blogs following the appointment of Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness shows considerable skepticism. Questions were raised about the deal signed by GE with China that involves sharing jet technology with China, shutting US plants to move work to China, the need for $16 billion in bailout funds for its finance unit, in one blog. Another blog points to the negligible amount paid by GE in corporate income taxes, paying no taxes in 2009 and paying 3.6% in 2010. And another blog pointed to the lack of a position by Immelt on the trade distortions created by America's trading partners, such as China's currency and other policies. One blog refers to the Obama election campaign's need to raise something near the record $700 million raised for the 2008 campaign, and the need to get business lined up for that effort.
SPIEGEL ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the US, and China a significant $439 billion in additional exports to US, which makes it incredible that for so long it did not take effective action to stop fentanyl flows, and Mexico allowed migrant trafficking across it's borders through 2016-2024. Even in the face of this becoming an explosive issue in the US with DJT elected in 2016 and the Border Wall being built. A silent but still existing in plain sight idea that the US would tolerate such flows became part of the culture in media outlets in the US and Europe and China and other parts of the world, even when there was a storm of discontent building about manufacturing shipped overseas hurting communities in the US since 2010, with added burden of safety endangered in these neighborhoods from fentanyl, drugs and illegal migrants. What worsened this situation and pain in the US was the idea that somehow it was the US's fault, an incomprehensible disdain for the US, US that enabled the modernization of China, Mexico, and Canada's economies. China sends $439 billion in exports more than the US does to China (US exports $143 billion China $582 billion in 2024). It is only surface presentation of indignation of face saving that these trading partners are showing when the real facts point to an extraordinary and incomprehensible disdain for the US as a nation in decline. There is a feeling in parts of Europe of American disdain for  Europe, without mention of the disdain for the US in Europe, China, Mexico and Canada and other parts of the world. Particularly disdain for neglected communities in the US that have suffered for far too long under previous administrations of Clinton-Bush-Obama with shipping of manufacturing and jobs overseas and inaction on drugs and illegal migrant flows. The EU Canada retaliatory approach has not worked. When DJT proposed doubling the tariffs imposed by US in the face of Canada EU retaliatory steps, the EU and Canada pulled back. Part of the reason is that in the case of Canada it is an economy one tenth the size of the US. The other is that there are real concerns on the US side that Canada EU are not playing fairly in trade. And Canada, Mexico, China, have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the US.  ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Matt O'Brien points out that the Chinese currency may be overvalued as other currencies including the euro and the Japanese yen weakened. Since 2005 China let the yuan appreciate very gradually. As China's economic growth slowed in 2014 investor outflows have increased with an estimated $800 billion leaving the country. China has spent some of its reserves to keep it stable. Before the move the yuan was managed by letting it trade up or down 2% each day around a midpoint set by the government. The new setup keeps this but lets the market set the midpoint based on where it closed the prior day. This move was recommended by the IMF to help in the transition of the yuan to becoming a reserve currency. O'Brien points out that the soft peg to the U.S. dollar means the yuan appreciated 9.2% against the euro and 57.8% against the Japanese yen in the years 2013-2015, and this is happening as the U.S. Federal Reserve is planning to raise interest rates- the real trade weighted exchange rate being up 14% for the yuan in the last 12 months. The 8.3% decline in the exports for July 2015 over the prior year led the government to this action. The increase in investor outflows as a result will lead to further declines, with some estimates of the eventual decline in the yuan at about 10%....
Le Monde.fr Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Harold Thibault of Le Monde France says, the rise of China in the past 50 years means the US is wondering whether engaging China turned out be something different than what Clinton anticipated when letting China join WTO without strict rules for a level playing field, and the Bush- Obama years when nothing was done to protect American manufacturing in small towns across America from the ravages of so called "free trade" that was not free, and the effort of American business to integrate its operations with China as single supplier without any guidance from government, behaviour that started with "American triumphalism" of the 1970's and 1990's, that left America with a destroyed industrial base. The Reagan wars that went on with Bush in the Middle East and South Asia and were continued through the Obama years allowed not just the waste of American resources and energy, it also provided a distraction from vital issues of the industrial base in manufacturing and technologies. Only DJT and Biden had the courage to end these wars and focus on the real issues facing the Nation and provide a continuity across three administrations from 2016-2029 to restore America to its past. ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Guardian's Greenhouse says the UAW sees the tariff action with 25% tariff on cars imported into the US starting April 2 2025, as a positive step.  Shawn Fain of the UAW who had the support of president Biden during his term 2020-2024 says DJT's actions match those taken by Biden to help working class Americans and the middle class. Supporting the president “for stepping up to end the free trade disaster that has devastated working-class communities for decades”. “Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today’s actions.” Greenhouse is concerned that the way it is being implemented can create problems with tariffs on one day and off the next. The reason for the on again off again action was to give Mexico, Canada, and China time to respond with action they have not taken on fentanyl flows into the US, and Mexico time to address migrant trafficking across its borders. The US International Trade Commission study in 2024 on the 25% tariff on US auto imports cited by BBC shows it would reduce imports by 75%, increase prices by a modest 5%, and increase revenues of auto makers in the US by 5%. Figures such as prices going up by $6000 may apply to BMW's that are imported from Germany and carry high price tags for a very small very affluent customer group unrepresentative of the US automobile market. ...
US Supreme Court website Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An excerpt from the hearings on the major questions doctrine and separation of powers with Congress. JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sometime ago you dismissed the applicability of the major questions doctrine, and I -- I want -- want you to explain that a little bit more. I mean, it seems that it might be directly applicable. You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this -- this particular case. Congress uses tariffs in other provisions but -- but not here. And yet -- and correct me on this if I'm not right about it -- the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for -- in any amount for any length of time. That seems like -- I'm not suggesting it's not there, but it does seem like that's major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit. So why doesn't it apply again? GENERAL SAUER: Well, we agree that it's a major power, but it's in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers, that the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions, which are emergencies. So it would be unusual... And another excerpt from the hearings on fentanyl- JUSTICE KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we've had cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world. GENERAL SAUER: Well, this particular emergency is particularly existential, as Executive Order 14257 says, and, of course, no one disputes the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, which, you know, we had an agreement last week to create progress on, which illustrates the effectiveness of the tariffs tool (this refers to the agrement with China last week by Nov 1 that cuts the 20% tariff from 20% to 10% if China completely cuts off flow of fentanyl from inside its borders.)  Clearly some in the US have not grasped the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, a crisis of proportions so great that it would be an existential crisis for any nation. A concentration of the world's manufacturing in one nation with a trade surplus of $1 trillion with the world is also an emergency that extends into the existential sphere. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist looks at China's relationship with Russia. It says the Ukraine conflict and western sanctions have resulted in Russia moving closer to China. Yet the two countries have competing interests in central Asia, and different relations with India and Vietnam, in the Asian region. Russia is also wary of China copying designs of Sukhoi aircraft in sales to China of advanced military technology. The major oil and gas deal signed in 2014 provides Russia with a new outlet for oil and gas with the cooling of the relationship with Europe. Yet Russia has strong ties built with Germany over the entire post war period, and differences have emerged in U.S.- German relations. Germany's relationship with Russia- cooled by sanctions and German wariness over Russian intervention in Ukraine and Russian wariness over NATO close to its borders- spans 7 decades and is likely to remain strong in the long term. This comes from the shared sense of awareness of the terrible conflicts of an earlier period, just as it has for French-German relations, and from the strong efforts made by Germany to preserve the relationship and peace in Europe. Chinese president Xi's visit to Moscow on May 9, for celebrations of victory over Nazi Germany, will be followed by a visit May 10 by Chancellor Merkel of Germany. A factor in German-Russian relations is the close trade links, cultural exchanges, and history going back to the GDR where Chancellor Merkel is from, built up over many years, that are likely to set the long term future of relations. China's dominant partner relationship in the China- Russia relations does not bode well for the future of relations, compared to the equal partner relations with its European neighbor, Germany. In this different light Ukraine is a temporary pause, in German-Russian relations and peace in Europe, a situation which is in China's long term interest as it focusses on its economy and the next phase of development for a modernized economy. Especially as China continues to build on its own vital trade relations with Germany and the European Union, the latest example being Germany, other EU nations, and India, joining the China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
COFCO is the abbreviation for China National Cereals, Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation, which was the state company importing grain and other staple foods into China during the period before China opened up its economy. It is now a dominant company in China's grain and other staple products from edible oil, dairy products to bacon and beer. Under CEO Ning Gaoning, Cofco has transformed itself since 2004 from primarily being a grain importer to value added products, food processing, and technologies in the food business. Cofco is expanding rapidly overseas with deals and acqusitions, and has about $10 billion in state funds for acquisitions. Recent acquisitions include $2.7 billion for Dutch grain trader Nidera BV, and 51% ownership of Noble agricultural unit. Earlier acquisitions include vineyards in Chile and France in 2010, and Australia's Tully Sugar in 2011. Current plans are for acquisitions in the U.S. and Latin America. Revenues in 2014 were an estimated $63.3 billion. Interviews with cane farmers that are part of Tully Sugar in Australia show Cofco has managed the company well and won the support of farmers....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Entergy is one of the largest energy companies. Its CEO for nine years, Wayne Leonard, talks to Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal. Its the No.2 generator of nuclear power in the USA, and uses coal for only 7% of its energy. He has made his name in nuclear energy, and here he talks about the government's cap and trade program and nuclear energy. He points to today's technology as far superior to the technology that was used in the Failed Three Mile plant, that put back nuclear energy plants in the USA for decades. He believes that price signals are needed for CO2, and the cap and trade program helps to do this, so he supports the cap and trade program. He admits that self interest colors perception of Entergy, compared to coal using utility producers like Duke Energy and American Electric Power. With coal only 7% in its portfolio of plants, and big in nuclear energy, it stands to gains from a cap and trade program, whereby Congress will set a ceiling on emissions, then allows businesses to sell any of its extra allowances that stand for the right to make emissions. And in doing so creating the largest commodity market, in carbon backed securiites. He and the government agree on the point that the allowances should be auctioned off, rather than given away as the companies with many coal plants believe. And the billions in new revenue from these allowances would be returned to the public. He understands that the view of companies like Duke and AEP, that use coal and would have to increase rates, and face the anger of ratepayers as they pay more for the allowances. He also thinks the bill should be written with a fine pen, so that if Congress mandates 20% of energy come from renewables. That it should specify replacing coal not natural gas as what this replaces, to get rid of the most polluting sources. He points to the real need for looking at things globally, as doing things locally, even to show responsible leadership in the world community, can lead to no progress in the global picture. The reason is that China is going ahead with the rapid construction of conventional coal plants. It has surpassed USA coal capacity, and is on track to double it sometime in the next decade. If the USA closed down every single coal plant, and all the time new coal plants are going up in China and India, then we would have ruined our economy, and it was'nt making much difference globally. And he says, if we just say lets lead and people will follow us, "its silly", because China isn't going to follow us, especially when they have $2 trillion invested in their coal plants, and they still aren't feeding feeding all their people. So how to deal with this? Develop the new technology for carbon capture for existing conventional coal plants, and help the Chinese with retrofit technology to curb emissions in a realistic manner. At this time most current funding is devoted to technology for second generation systems, that are still 10-20 years away....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ report shows that on the morning of the 90 Day Pause in Tariffs announcement discussions took place with the Swiss prime minister, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and watching Fox News interview of JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon. Seeing the turmoil in financial markets and bond markets, US president DJT made the decision to give time to make the agreements with about 50 countries, and time for financial markets to understand the president's  policy and goals to reformulate the world trading system into one that offers a level playing field. The chart showing the Tariffs of 67% by China and US 34% imposed tariff in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, was say reports the result of the influence on the president of the advice of Peter Navarro.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's expertise is in financial markets as a protege of Soros, Navarro's is world trade. Bessent stepped in when financial markets appeared to reflect the uncertainty and convinced the president that the 90 day pause would be the best way to implement the policy on trade. There is a vigorous debate in the administration about how to get a level playing field for trade, and get the job done without disruptions in financial markets or a recession induced by uncertainty. On April 10 as part of the effort to talk to the American people US president DJT opened up his Cabinet meeting to the media and had Bessent, Borghum, RFK Jr and Marco Rubio talk about their plans and policies. Proper implementation, gaining confidence of the people of America and financial markets, is now as important as the goals and policies in the next 90 days. Getting the trade deals with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Britain and India would go a long way to reassure financial markets and set the right tone for the future.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The influence of business executives who helped shape president Trump's views on Mexico, China, Export Import Bank, and other issues is covered by Stokols and Bender of WSJ. On Mexico the departure of Mike Flynn helped moderate views, Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary also provided a moderating influence. The plans are now to change NAFTA but not entirely redo the agreement. On the Export Import Bank the views of Boeing CEO Muilenburg, who explained to Trump why the Bank supported U.S. exports and how other countries had similar banks, led to the president filling the bank vacancies. On China the influence of NEC head, Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, and other business executives, led to a less confrontational position. The president once called NATO obsolete during the campaign but he met this week with NATO secretary general Stoltenberg this week and expressed strong support for NATO after rising tensions with Russia.

ZEIT ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Zeit Online takes a look at German chancellor Angela Merkel's statement made in a beer tent in the Muich suburb of Trudering- "The times in which we can completely rely on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days." Zeit Online says the words "ein Stuck" in German were meant to say a bit or somewhat, but the essence of the statement that the depending on the trans-Atlantic alliance was now over comes right through.

Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The G-20 summit in April had as its achievement the $1 trillion that would go to aid for emerging countries and other countries in need. But this number may not be what it appears to be and should be seen with care. Prof. Eswar Prasad, former division chief for China at the IMF, and now Professor at Cornell University, says there is double counting in the numbers, and a lot of the money has not yet been committed. With trade financing only a quarter of the $250 billion is fresh cash, the rest is trade financing that is rolled over every 6 months. For the Special Drawing Rights issuance of $250 billion, a kind of virutal currency that is set by a basket of real currencies like the dollar and the euro, the IMF will issue SDR's to all 185 of its members. This is not cash but a form of credit, against which a country can borrow. The Obama administration that came up with this idea thinks it will create $15 to $20 billion in additional credit for the poorest countries. For this to happen the US has to lend out its special drawing rights to poor countries, and this requires congressional approval. Of the $500 billion in direct commitments, Dr Prasad says less than half has been commited by Japan, the EU, Canada and Norway. China says it will put in $40 billion probably by buying bonds issued by the IMF. The US contribution of $100 billion has to be authorized by Congress. Even with the US contribution Prasad sees a shortfall of $145 billion of the $500 billion in donations. And the Saudis, the Indians will require a bigger say in the IMF to contribute some of this. ...

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