LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says the fairly obvious that Democrats in the US and Social Democrats in Europe readily grasp. That unrestricted immigration on the southern border in the US or in the southern border of Europe actually does little to improve the situation for people in the US and Europe or the people in the countries migrants are leaving because of unsettled conditions. Germany has shifted to a policy of becoming involved in development in Africa. Japan's International Cooperation Agency has worked for many years in African countries. The US has its own efforts to assist Mexico through trade and manufacturing. It is working with Central American countries that are a major source of migrants on the southern border at different times. Mette Frederiksen, head of the Danish Social Democrats government, has put it very well when she said that the only people who are getting hurt by open border policies are the working class families in Denmark. This is true also of other parts of the EU and the US. Simply by letting in migrants, a policy that is harmful to workers and families. Conservatives are looking to make political gains and further their own interests, indifferent to social divisions and increasing lack of upward mobility in society. Immigration has become the tool for many of the conservative parties that have used it in ways harmful to interests of workers and families, in Britain, in the US, and in the EU. One has only to see the large delegation that Mette Frederiksen led to India for discussions with prime minister Modi, the economic ministries, and business, to see how she did the right thing on a huge scale. Denmark is the world leader in logistics with Maersk, and in renewable energy. Denmark and the Nordic countries are working closely with a country of 1.4 billion people to improve the logistics to make India comparable to China in manufacturing for export. And similarly in renewable energy technologies. The Nordic countries and the EU have simply by these actions done more to uplift hundreds of millions of people in Asia than anything that ever happened in the history of the world. And the US is also working with India in the same way. India acts as a stable source of growth and model for a whole stretch of Asia from Indonesia to Vietnam. The population lifted out of poverty - 2 billion people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jeanne Whalen on the Two Speed Economy in the US September 2025- diverging paths of low and high income Americans. With the new administration in 2025 priorities shift to immigration and what to do about 14 million illegal migrants from Latin America and other places, war on fentanyl and drug trafficking gangs with hundreds of thousands of lives lost to fentanyl and drugs in the US, crime and safety which includes the unprecedented illegal movement of drug trafficking in the Nation, and to a bold posture on using US advantages of its huge market to get European Union, Japan, South Korea, and China to level the playing field on trade bring jobs home.The Biden administration had already conceded to DJT's approach in its one term presidency by shifting on uncontrolled illegal migration but not fast enough, by not removing DJT's tariffs, and failing to take an aggressive posture on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Of the DJT plan US has tariff based revenues of 10--15% for all countries imports into US can that it redirect to groups to soften any effects of tariffs. DJT administration oil transition policy of stretching out the transition to give middle class and lower classes cost of living relief was also accepted by the Biden administration and is now the policy of Democrat run California state government.  The US economy was slowing in 2024 under the Biden administration. What has changed in 2025 is that the US stock markets are responding to steps taken by the DJT Republican administration to lower the cost of doing business by softening regulations, and giving US business the upper hand in different industries, and rebuilding the manufacturing sector with calls for EU and Japan/South Korea to invest more in the US as a quid pro quo for market access. This has led to increase in the value of market portfolios of the income earners above 250,000, or 10% of American households. As this happens the process of trade renegotiation has introduced some uncertainty in 2025 and businesses are looking for more clarity before increasing investment and slowing job hiring which hurts younger people entering the job market and lower income Americans. Were things better under Biden? Government Covid assistance and payouts in the early years 2020-2021 helped lower income workers, as this faded and the cost of living autos, housing increased sharply under Biden in 2022-2024 the situation deteriorated. The situation today is similar to the situation in 2024 with the difference in 2025 that inflation is coming down just as government help is receding. And added factor is the DJT administration plan to tackle head on the increasing cost of Medicaid to about $1 trillion by adding new requirements and reducing subsidies. The federal workforce had a disproportionate share of black workers and the policy changes to reduce the federal workforce have increased black unemployment from 6.1% under Biden in August 2024 to 7.5 % a year later. Hispanics have seen slight improvement in unemployment to 5.3% in 2025, and the middle class incomes also have held up and are holding steady. Meantime Bloomberg points out that one third of people in the top 10% are living paycheck by paycheck because of high cost of housing, university education for children, and inflation.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's manufacturing sector contracts in June with the PMI index dropping below 50 - to 49.0.  Exports were also coming in lower. Experts say the increase in interest rates by the US is reducing imports of Chinese goods into the US. This comes as local governments are strained in their finances by $900 billion, and a budding revolt is taking place from property buyers with developers in financial trouble, as reported in the WSJ. Psychological hurdles now loom in the loss of confidence in the public in the property sector, loss of confidence of foreign investors with many constraints in operating, mental health issues for the population in many cities with the covid lockdowns.   The growth has slowed to 0.4% and there is now a realization dawning that there was overdependence both on property sector and foreign investment that set up new factories offshored from the US and Europe that alienated the public in these countries. Unlike wih the situation of Japan in the sixties and seventies for modernizing its economy growth of the scale China was pushed into by misguided and self interested  business interests in the US including its investment banks and local government officials in China without restraint by the central government in Beijing, ultimately led to trade friction and permanent damage to US China friendly relations. Communities in the US and the EU simply could not cope with the hyper growth from hyper shift of factories from the home countries to China that pushed this hyper growth. The property sector played the same role in the domestic front with too big a burden carried by it resulting in hyper growth. This did not have to happen. It happened because of a lack of understanding that this would have consequences in the longer run which is now showing up. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WTO Trade talks and the negotiations between EU, US, Brazil, India, China, Japan, and Canada continue with difficulties in getting India's agreement. Mr Nath of India has come to speak for all the world's poorest countries in Africa and Asia and also the growing emerging economies like S. Korea and India. THe EU and the USA are keen on access to India's growing market. And India and Brazil want to see concessions from the EU and the USA that will help the poorer countries especially promises made at the Doha round that were to ease global poverty that have not been fulfilled. With the difficult economic situation in the EU and the USA there is less give on their side and the Indians and the Brazilians are insistent.

LyrArc Article Gist
In this look at China's One Belt One Road Inititative, DW.com analyst Siegfried Wolf is critical of the way it was put together. It has no institutional structure, and is mostly based on bilateral not multilateral arrangement, and lacks transparency. He says its will complicate geopolitics in the region. This is already evident with Japanese foreign minister Kono calling for Japan, Australia, India and the U.S. to come up with an alternative to OBOR. Wolf says the EU has concerns about corruption, exclusion of regions inside countries such as Pakistan in economic arrangements, and seeks free trade guarantees. His biggest criticism of the Silk Road Initiative is that being based on Chinese loans it will pose a severe challenge in terms of debt buildup for weaker economies. This was already evident with the effort to convert part of about $6 billion in loans to Sri Lanka, through a $1.12 billion lease to China of the port of Hambantota. Wolf says many of the projects inside OBOR were already planned before it was setup, and now put under OBOR as part of president Jinping's initiative.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China decides to go ahead with a reception honoring the 40th anniversary of the setting up of diplomatic ties with Japan in 1972. Hu Shuli, editor in chief of Caixin Media, economic journalist, says job losses for Chinese working in Japaneses owned companies will hurt China. China received $12.6 billion of Japanese investment in 2011, in comparison the U.S. received $14.7 billion, according to Japan's External Trade Organization.

LyrArc Article Gist
Europe responds with platitudes and vague references to "benefits for everyone" and "detrimental" without facing up to the facts. How many American cars do you see on the streets of Germany? in Berlin or Frankfurt?- or Japan? in Tokyo or Osaka?-or South Korea? in Seoul? And how long has this been going on - since the 1980's. Europe's answer to the Marshall Plan and Japan's and China's to post war American help for recovery, was to exclude American cars and other products. GM and Ford have pulled out of China and so has VW. China's plan is to flood the world with electric cars, and Japan's to flood the world with hybrids. For far too long America has relied on capitalism that has no state involvement. In this kind of competition with hidden subsidies and national planning at the core of industrial growth in Asia. The US government has to have state involvement in it's auto, steel, aluminium, and chip industries, not to create trade disturbances but to create an even playing field for all, and rebuild a middle class destroyed by unfair trading practices of Asian nations and the EU, including Canada and Mexico which are simply used as bases to ship to the US. Ford makes 80% of its cars in the USA and GM can make the investments in new plants to raise its production from 60% in the USA to 80%. South Korea's Hyundai and Kia are investing $21 billion to make in the USA. Toyota and Nissan, VW, BMW and Mercedes can do the same.   ...

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
What this Editorial board opinion in the Indian Express is saying is that India should concentrate its efforts on modernizing its economy on a scale that is similar or surpasses that of China because of its access to the latest technologies. Just as China capitalized on the opportunity presented by its entry in the World Trade Organization in 2001, through an economy wide effort to build a manufacturing and export logistics base. India is presented with the opportunity of building its own manufacturing and export logistics base as supply chains are being redesigned in 2023. This requires a longer term plan with clear thinking and concentrated effort with the entire resources of the nation. What looks like a small or gradual shift in supply chain with the US and EU adding India and Vietnam to their Chinese manufacturing base is going to change with every change in world events, as the US concentration of manufacturing in China becomes a situation that is impossible to to maintain. The only logical way for the US and following the US the EU to create a proper balance in its political relationship with China is to change fully its lopsided concentration of manufacturing in China. Biden is only making the initial moves, the EU is only waking up to the need to make its own changes to reduce this concentration. How much distance does the US need to cover to reduce its concentration in China? By a large amount because the shift of manufacturing was excessive and ill advised done as companies in the US raced in a competition to shift outside over 2 decades and simply outdid themselves and performed a disservice to the workers and families of America whom they served. Just for the US to get workers and families to benefit from return of good manufacturing jobs to the US and restore its manufacturing base that has shriveled, it will have to be a massive enterprise, where day by day it becomes more evident that more and more needs to be and accomplished in an accelerated way. What this also means where appropriate to leave a progressively year after a year larger base in India, and also Vietnam, much larger than is envisaged today. This situation is even more acutely felt in Japan which to bring a proper balance in its political relationship with China needs to even more urgently reduce its concentration of manufacturing in China. It must be the task of the Modi government to have a clear view of the road ahead- build the needed logistical base for exports using the latest technologies and set higher and higher targets for manufacturing.  If you look at the map of Asia this is the Global South- India is 60-70% of the Global South with its population of 1.4 billion people mostly young with aspirations for a modern economy like that of the US and Germany. Add to that Indonesia and Vietnam, and other nations already in the redesigned supply chain in 2023 and you have 2 billion people in Asia. Concentrate on this for the next 2 decades for a complete transformation of India, that is what the younger generation demands of its government. ...

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."   ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT explains why the loss of jobs particularly in the auto industry to Mexico, with the experience of NAFTA passed by president Bill Clinton, has caused widespread opposition to the TPP trade agreement proposed by president Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 oppose the TPP.

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.

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.  ...

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Two weeks after his election Donald Trump says the U.S. will not join the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement during his term in office. Barack Obama took seven years to negotiate the trade agreement which was opposed by trade unions, the auto industry and was unpopular in the midwestern U.S. because of the impact of trade in hollowing out the manufacturing sector. Here Frank Sieren of the DW.com points out that the agreement was not really about trade, as most of the gains of trade had already been realized according to experts. It was part of the "pivot to Asia" to maintain American dominance in the region, says Sieren. After China pulled together some Asian and European countries into its trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the U.S. pushed for TPP as a counterweight to the China sponsored trade zone. China says it will try to integrate the countries in TPP into the trade zone it has sponsored. President Trump has said that the U.S. is better off negotiating agreements with each country and not getting into multilateral trade agreements. He fought the election campaign on the basis of the opposition to TPP and trade agreements that unfairly hurt American workers. This could have provided the 110,000 margin of victory in the states suffering from the hollowing out in manufacturing such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. A similar hollowing out in Ontario favored Justin Trudeau's Liberals against the Conservatives in Canada's election. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's new prime minister Li Keqiang makes his first foreign trip with a trade delegation for talks with Indian representatives and business leaders, showing the importance he places on India. India offers China's companies access to large opportunties in infrastructure development, and China can benefit from India in the area of information technology and pharmaceuticals. Trade is envisioned as expanding from $70 billion in 2012 to $100 billion by 2015, and expanding rapidly as the two economies grow. Economic contacts also would provide an anchor for future relations as China faces difficulties in its relations with Japan, and S. E. Asian countries, and a U.S. wary of China's capabilities. This was pointed out in the joint statement. Li Keqiang also emphasized this in an editorial page article in India's daily newspaper, the Hindu, saying India and China have "to work hand in hand," to promote Asia as "an anchor for world peace." A peaceful India-China trade and economic relationship opens the way for investment and participation in development by China alongside Japan, Germany, France, UK and the U.S. in India, as the next major source for global economic growth. This also serves to defuse Asian tensions as both economies grow, and increased contacts between cities in India and China with the twining of cities program launched in the meetings. India can use China's capabilities in infrastructure development, the two countries share the need for information sharing on lowcost solutions in healthcare, in managing urbanization, and solutions for clean water in rural areas, and use of IT solutions in development, where much remains to be accomplished through cooperation. Some of these themes are the focus of Li Keqiang in his efforts for urbanization in China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton attacks Trump's policies in an address in Warren, Michigan, saying this was another version of failed trickle down economics. She called Trump's idea of taxing pass through entities such as small business reporting business income on individual tax returns at 15%, as a "Trump loophole." On trade policy Hillary Clinton said she would oppose the TPP or Trans- Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement that president Obama has supported. She put it flatly- " I oppose it now. I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president." And pointed out that too many companies have moved jobs overseas and "moved operations overseas and sold back into the U.S." after pushing for trade deals. The answer she said 'is not to rant and rave- or to cut us off from the world," in reference to protectionist policies Trump has supported. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Anton Harder in this Wilson Center publication of research uses correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and his sister Vijaylakshmi Pandit ambassador to the US in 1950, to show that the US made an offer for India to take a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. India had supported two resolutions on June 25, and June 27, first condemning the invasion by North Korea and second the organizing of a UN force of 29 countries to push back the North Korean invasion. Even though the US is not seen as actively engaging with India during that period and seeing through British eyes the colonial policies of encouraging  different powers in South Asia, that may not be true.  Who was India's foreign minister in 1950? Jawaharlal Nehru was both prime minister and foreign minister till 1964, which means there was less discussion of foreign policy than happens today during the Ukraine invasion with Jaishankar a career diplomat with 30 years experience, Rajnath Singh, and Mr. Modi, in talks with president Biden recently, and in further discussions Modi had with EU's Von der Leyen and UK's Boris Johnson, Kishida of Japan. Who was India's defense minister in 1950? Baldev Singh, a Sikh independence struggle leader was Minister of Defense for 1947-52 and tackled partition of Punjab and Kashmir issues. The rest of the years to 1957 when India faced the Chinese invasion of Tibet India's defense minister was also for most of the period Mr. Nehru, except Ayynagar in 1953, and Kailash Katju in 1955 and 1956. The controversial V.K. Krishna Menon was Defense Minister from 1957 to 1962, when Indian defenses were further neglected leading to the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, and his replacement by Yashwantrao Chavan. The purpose of this is to look back at what happened in earlier periods to understand where India stands today- and what choices it makes today. Clearly the US was looking for allies then and now. Nehru saw things from his own reading of history seeing China and India as both suffering from western invasion, not realizing that China's experience under Mao was different- that of Japanese invasion and bombing of China's major cities not just colonization of Hong Kong and other ports for trade under British trade based policies in 1850-1900. Thus a Communist Chinese version of China's defense involved taking over border regions such as Tibet putting China in direct and open opposition to India. Nehru never really grasped what was happening in Tibet and the war China fought against the Nationalists. American general Stilwell loved China deeply and had an understanding of its people as shown in Tuchman's account in her book Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-1945. Stilwell during that war had a better understanding of China, the strengths and weaknesses of Mao's China and of the Nationalists under Chiang, than Nehru. Some of these errors post 1950's and a concentration of foreign, defense and embassy positions in the person of Mr. Nehru and of Nehru family member such as Mrs. Pandit led to the Indian failure to act on Tibet and see it as see it for what it was -facing a Communist Mao led China that had fought the Japanese invasion as different from Bodhidharma's China of the history books. Bodhidharma's China will outlast Mao's China, yet it is Mao's China that India faces today. This also tells us that India has to think in new ways- as Lincoln said during a period when America was also making its own progress as an industrial nation in the 1860's. "The dogmas of the quiet past are not adequate 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, we must act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country." India's values are values of democracy heightened not just by Mohandas Gandhi's ideas with Hind Swaraj written in 1910 just as powerful in 2022, but also by the heights of Ladakh where elections are held in remote regions of the Himalayas. India's values are values that are also shared in the best that America has in its values and culture and in the defense of freedom.    ...