LyrArc Article Gist
Experts say CEO's have constituencies in the form of employees, shareholders and customers. This has affected CEO's as they responded to president Trump's comments on the Charlottesville attack.  Even the cautious optimism that CEO's maintained during the early months of the Trump administration- as they sought not to miss out on representation on advisory councils- has now faded. Most CEO's have decided that it is not worth having this voice in advisory councils when they have to be seen as supporting positions on racism and culture they cannot support. One by one the actions by Trump on the travel ban, climate change agreement withdrawal, Charlottesville attack,  has led to a shrinking of support. From non-involvement in Trump's campaign but cautious optimism, to a sense that it is not possible to work with the president without violating deeply held beliefs. Gini Rometty of IBM told employees that dialogue was critical to progress, but that " this group can no longer serve the purpose for which it was formed."  A sense that not much would be accomplished, and the reputational cost for business was too high to make it worth the effort. In the span of 3 days three advisory councils to the president were disbanded. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The reckless behaviour of German elites in pursuing increased dependence on Russian oil and gas and ignoring American warnings is shown in this report in The Guardian. The first links to Russian oil and gas were started under chancellor Brandt in 1970. At that time the dependency on oil and gas supplies was much less than 10%. Dependence increased during the Schroeder and Merkel years to the extremes that exist today. Not much more even in the year of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It was the misconception of chancellor Schmidt of the SPD in his differences of opinion with presidents Carter and Reagan on the risks of increasing dependence on Russian energy that marked this period. Schmidt believed Germany was right in its conviction that increased trade would bring peaceful cooperation without realizing that economic dependency is never a good thing. Poland had a skeptical view- German elites including business elites were being corrupted. Cheap Russian energy was being used in the Schroeder and Merkel years as a competitive business advantage without considering the risks involved and the admonitions of American presidents of the dangers. With Steinmeier of the SPD there was the immense guilt of the millions of war dead from the German invasion of Russia in 1941 that acted as a brake on evaluating the increasing dependency for energy that reached over 35% by the time he was foreign minister. The fall of the Berlin Wall was seen not as a result of multiple factors including the positions taken by Carter and Reagan, the losses to the Russian economy from the war in Afghanistan, and the general decline of the Russian economy. German leaders saw this as coming from the new relationship being built with Russia. German business and Schroeder- Merkel even allowed not just new Nordstream pipelines under the Baltic Sea but also transferred ownership of reserves, the gas and oil storage inside Germany to Russia's Gazprom. German Economy minister Habeck says the storage tanks were emptied so that there would be added surge for oil and gas prices after the attacks on Ukraine. This Guardian report ends by saying that Mr. Steinmeier still needs to show why he pursued policy of cooperation with Russia with increasing dependency to the point that a cut off of Russian oil and gas supplies would lead to gas rationing in Germany in the event of a sudden cutoff. Was it a form of sensible cooperation taking dependency to such extremes. Similar questions remain for chancellor Merkel. With the added question for Merkel about the increase in trading ties with China even after the Trump administration had warned of the serious risks to US and European competitive advantage in technology and manufacturing, and the increased dependence on a supply chain that was fundamentally weak as shown clearly by the pandemic.     ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
A unanimous vote of the Chinese Communist Party Congress now puts "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era" into the Chinese Constitution. As the 19th Party Congress ends Xi Jinping joins two other leaders of the Communist Party Mao  Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, who were so honored. It also appears that unlike previous leaders Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping is concentrating authority and direction for China. This Congress marks the end of Xi's second five year term as party general secretary.  Under Hu Jintao there were efforts by some Communist leaders to create new power bases. This period ended with Xi Jinping bringing a clear direction and authority under the Communist Party. This has led to China taking on a leadership role in the world economy and global political affairs after the election of Trump in the U.S. in 2017. The management of the economy also has provided a soft landing after threats of disruptions in trade relations with the U.S. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sabotage of two tankers in the Persian Gulf and reports of activity of Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria have led to an American response with the dispatch of a aircraft carrier and other forces to the region.  This report in the NYT says Defense Secretary Shanahan has prepared plans for deployment of American forces in the region with one plan calling for 120,000 troops to be dispatched to the region. As president Trump is against American involvement in land wars in distant places, the force is designed as a precaution in case of an Iranian attack through proxy forces in Syria or Iraq and not for a land operation. National Security Adviser Bolton has taken a strong position on Iran since the days of the Bush administration. The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the sanctions on Iranian oil, are part of a new policy of the Trump administration. The European Union countries have followed a policy of preserving the nuclear deal of 2015, even though the U.S. is pressuring EU countries. The oil sanction have led to a sharp drop in oil exports and is hurting the Iranian economy. President Rouhani of Iran says Iran may withdraw from parts of the Iran nuclear deal and the Iranian response is leading to heightened tensions in the region.  It was only recently that the Democratic party Obama administration pursued the Iranian nuclear deal with opposition from Republicans in Congress and skepticism of Israel. The election of president Trump who says the deal was a bad one has reversed U.S. policy leading to a complete change in policy and a possible confrontation with Iran. U.S. policy can veer back and forth depending on the party or president in power who completely different perceptions of the region. Obama had sharp difference with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a different perception of Iran. Trump and Bolton see Iran as a threat to the U.S. After Iran shipped most of its nuclear fuel out of the country in 2016 in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions under president Obama's nuclear deal it would take over a year for new uranium enrichment facilities to produce the materials for a nuclear bomb, according to this report in the NYT. When the Obama administration negotiated with Iran the window had shrunk to a few months.   ...

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
Mexican president Nieto's poll numbers are at all time low of 24%, according to Reforma newspaper. He took office in late 2012 and has been hurt by human rights scandal of the murder of 43 students in the state of Guerrero, corruption issues, and failure to improve the economy. The invitation to Trump to visit Mexico left even people close to the president surprised, and was criticized widely inside Mexico. It is not clear what Trump or Nieto gained from the trip. As Trump continued his talk about building a wall on the Mexican border and having Mexico pay for the estimated $23 billion it would cost. He did this in a speech to supporters in Pheonix on the same day he met Nieto, showing the use of teleprompters and prepared script was not his way of campaigning. Just as the message to black people that Democrats take them for granted cannot resonate without the basic message delivered with compassion and understanding- such as done by the presidents Bush and Reagan- so also the message to Hispanic people is suffering from the same lack of empathy. Recent polls show only 3% of blacks support Trump. McCain and Romney gained only 4-6% in the U.S. presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. The message of the wall is also baffling as an election strategy. A Gallup poll in July 2016 shows only 15% of Americans opposing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and only 24% of Republicans. There is another problem in the strategy. The rhetoric about walls and mass deportations, and the Trump temperament combined with handling of nuclear weapons is not winning college educated women in the suburbs with polls showing Trump lagging behind Clinton by about 20 points or 4 million voters with this group. It is hard to undo the damage done by this kind of rhetoric used in the primary elections as it gains distrust of voters. It would require a bad economy with illegal immigrants taking local jobs, and handling of immigration seen as weak, for such a message to gain some national traction. Both are absent for the most part with a steadily improving economy since 2012, lower unemployment, a tough enforcement policy on deportatons under Obama that exceeded that under Geoge W. Bush, and the talk of a wall comes with illegal immigration having declined steeply since the 2008 financial crisis. The real culprit appears to be elsewhere, the triple hit taken from hollowing out of the manufacturing economy that hurt the Conservatives in Canada, the insecurity created for older whites from the job losses and hits to net worth from the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and the increasing loss of access to health care and educational opportunities with high  costs. About 62 million households or the bottom half of the distribution in the U.S. have a net worth of about $10,000, a quarter of this group having zero net worth, according to the Federal Reserve's Janet Yellen at an Inequality Conference in Oct 2014. Problems no wall is going to solve, problems that built up over 2 decades, problems that will take a generation to fix.  It shows the tech miracle of the last 2 decades as a mirage for quality of life of the middle and working class. Tech as a tool to a goal, not a goal in itself, is the better way forward. ...

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.

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A survey of 414 National Association of Business Economics (NABE) economists shows Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson with 15%, overtaking Trump at 14% on who would best manage the economy. On protectionist views only 9% support this. 15% said they have no opinion and 55% said Hillary Clinton would do the best job of managing the economy. About 62% say the election uncertainty is holding back growth. Some aspects of Hillary Clinton's economic plan are the $275 billion infrastructure investment over 10 years, taking action against companies that ship jobs overseas, a capital gains tax paln that encourages long term investments, supporting $15 minimum wage, making upward mobility a top priority, providing government financed access to public colleges for working class and lower income groups. Donald Trump's plan has suffered form lack of specifics, shifting comments, lack of careful study, and excessive use of slogans. Both candidates oppose trade agreements that shift jobs overseas. Trump's plan also suffers from lack of credibility overseas as this is important in a global business structure, with fears of protectionism increasing. and reminding people of the protectionism under Smoot-Hawley that increased the damage from the depression of the thirties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in DW.com cites experts who point out that the Republican Party always had tensions within it because of the diverging interests of three groups that have allied together to form the party- Wealthy businessmen and corporate interests, evangelicals, and white working class people who have seen their incomes decline for several decades. The interests of each group have some overlap, are sometimes masked but frequently they diverge. Nigel Bowles, former director of the Rothermere Institute at Oxford University, says there is no particular reason that this coalition would hold together, that it was unstable to begin with, a wonder that it did not split up earlier. Scott Lucas, an expert on American Studies at the University of Birmingham, says that Reagan showed great skill in holding this coalition together, and Donald Trump has taken it apart by mobilizing only one constituency of white working class voters and leaving out others. The break between Republican party leaders Ryan, McCain, and state party leaders, with Trump is unprecedented in post war American politics, and putting it back together now looks like a lost cause in the medium term.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out in the NYT that Hillary Clinton actually won in the popular vote by a substantial margin, by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. He says that Democrats need to pay more attention to the working class in midwestern states- the job losses, crumbling infrastructure, and the plight of communities such as Detroit, Michigan which suffered through the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, and again with the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis of the City of Detroit. With a similar situation in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Ohio, in places like Toledo and other parts of communities facing industrial decline. While the Silicon Valley centred region powered the economy in California, and the financial industry and real estate powered New York, older midwestern communities never really recovered from a long decline stretching over 2 decades. The result was the loss of faith in Democrats among union workers and young people, leading to the loss of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. For most of its history the Democratic Party was based on its union and working class base including a large number of white voters. Only under Obama because of his unique candidacy was the coalition so dependent on the minorities vote. Before minorities were part of the Democratic coalition, but not in the way under the Obama candidacy. A return to its historic and normal base among whites in unions and working class communities, liberals, minorities, is a way to go back to the historic and natural base of Democratic support. In a sense dependence on tech communities for election funding and the tech booms, globalization, may have distorted Democrats sense of their historic role as champions of the working class and middle class communities throughout the country. There is now an opportunity to restore this lost mission of protecting the interests of the middle and working class who have seen huge drop in net worth as reported by Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve at the Inequality Conference on October 17, 2014-"62 million households with a net worth of $11,000 for the year 2013." Poorly covered in the media and not made the utmost priority by Democrats (or Republicans). In the words of Janet Yellen, this was in the past several decades "the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality since the Great Depression." She added the shocking words "by some estimates, income and wealth inequality near their highest levels in the past hundred years, and probably much higher than much of American history before then." Even discussion in the media goes back to the Obama coalition and treats it as a way forward for Democrats, when history shows it was different and the situation described by Yellen calls for a serious response. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Donald Trump's economic advisory team includes in addition to Harold Hamm, shale energy billionaire, Steven Mnuchin, CEO of hedge fund Dune Capital Management, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor, bankers Stephen Calk, and Andy Beal, tax expert Stephen Moore, and David Malpass, a columnist for the WSJ. The team is headed by Stephen Miller, an aide to Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. The Washington Post points out that the selection of the team with many hedge fund businessmen including John Paulson, who bet against faulty mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis, is at odds with his criticism of Hillary Clinton for her contacts with Wall Street and his message of not having any connections with Wall Street so that he could better represent the interests of ordinary Americans- people hurt by the 2008 financial crisis with the high jobless rate for older white men. In the 2008 election both candidates John McCain and Barrack Obama were shown in media articles to have connections to lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the 2012 election Mitt Romney as a private equity executive at Bain, was a part of the financial industry. This time in 2016- after all the noise and tumult about who represents Main Street- is no different for Trump and Clinton's connections to the financial industry. Only Clinton has to respond to the movement within her party from Bernie Sanders for providing a genuine example, and breaking with the past. The team of economic advisors put together by Jeb Bush led by Glenn Hubbard may be little different in substance than the one put together by Trump in its connections to the financial and real estate industry. The only person who took on the financial industry to fight for homeowners interests shown in Lyrarc since 2008 is Sheila Bair of the FDIC, a Kansas Republican. She could truly represent the interests of working class and ordinary Americans simply from a notion of fairness that  is so much a part of the American experience. Yet she has said running for office and fund raising in the way it is practiced today makes the thought too difficult to accept. Recent developments do not offer encouragement. Yet ordinary Americans ought not to forget, and ought not to let anger affect a discerning view of things. ...