LyrArc Article Gist
President Xi Jinping of China faces domestic criticism about his handling of the critical trading relationship with the U.S. that has given China access to technology and the U.S. market in its development drive. The trade truce with the U.S. reached following a meeting of Xi and Trump at the G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires, was presented in Chinese media as a positive step withut mention that Mr. Trump has set a 90 deadline for the talks and appointed a experienced trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations. Also agreed is an effort to focus the talks on the 142 contentious issues the U.S. has put forward.

Experts at the Chinese University of Hong Kong say Mr. Jinping will need to show results to stay on beyond the customary two terms as president because for China the  trading relationship with the U.S. is essential to grow its economy with access to the U.S. market.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under Mette Frederiksen immigration which reached 21,000 in 2015 was down to a little over 1000 a year. She is a strong fighter for workers and families and labor rights and yet tough on illegal immigration. She has been proven right about this as Britain and the US under Biden are seeing illegal immigration as a threat to workers and labour, are seeing the risks of distraction from illegal immigration doing a serious disservice to workers and families by making it hard to fight for workers and families on wages, cost of living and other issues.  Even with a strong record of fighting for workers and families, Frederiksen was one of the first European leaders to see the dangers of illegal immigration to society. It gave parts of the political spectrum that had no interest all along in workers and families doing well, an issue to run on that would come to cause grave harm to workers and families. This turned out to be the error of Angela Merkel a CDU leader brought up in Communist East Germany, who had no idea of the risks of her approach for open immigration. As Merkel let this chapter unfold it created fissures in Europe, with Tories and Nigel Farage taking Britain out of the EU and laying waste to its economy for 5 years till Labour's Starmer adopted a tough immigration policy and became prime minister in 2024. That danger then spread to the US in 2016 which also suffered as Republicans and Trump did the same in the US around rhetoric but without serious action on immigration till the Lankford- Biden legislation.  That bill would have closed the border with Mexico and ended immigration as an issue forever if passed into law in December 2023, as Senator Lankford says would have happened. Ending immigration as an issue forever alongside foreign wars as an issue, so that a concentrated effort could be made on improving badly damaged lives of workers and families. And on rebuilding badly damaged manufacturing in the US, rebuilding collapsing infrastructure, and competing with better education and healthcare with the large Asian countries China, Japan/ South Korea, India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Senators in the US Congress, Rubio and Schumer, have asked the US government to look into Apple's plans to work with Chinese semiconductor company YMTC. As a result the Commerce Department has placed export restrictions on YMTC. This NYT report looks at the two decade long rise of China and of Apple after Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and shifted manufacturing to China. When Jobs returned to Apple he found major quality issues at Apple's manufacturing facilities, a demoralized workforce, and financial losses, with CEO Michael Spindler running the company into the ground. Jobs had to start with afresh model for Apple and decided to shift manufacturing to China under the engineering leadership of Tim Cook. Alabama native Cook went to Auburn University for his engineering degree and Duke for his business degree. Cook joined Jobs in 1998 at Apple and for ten years till 2007 the two cut costs, shifted to contract manufacturers and rebuilt Apple with new products, iPod, iPad and the iphone. By not manufacturing Apple avoided quality control issues, and the costs of maintaining inventory. It was Tim Cook who ran operations worldwide, and he gradually built up the manufacturing relationships in China with Foxconn, which makes most of Apple's products in sprawling Chinese factories that employ 20 years later about 3 million Chinese workers. Foxconn was chosen by Apple in 2000 to manufacture the Apple Mac laptop. Before that it was a parts supplier to Apple. Increasingly Apple relied on Foxconn to make its new products including the iPhone. Both companies growth relied on the manufacturing of Foxconn to the point where Apple was dependent on Foxconn and had intertwined its operations with Foxconn in China. Today the whole relationship is being called into question after two decades in which American workers suffered the effects of the outshoring of manufacturing jobs. It should be noted that though Mr. Trump raised the issue of manufacturing exclusively in China with Apple, the Trump administration did little to change the practices of the company that pioneered this type of massive manufacturing role for China. That surrendered the entire supply chain to foreign suppliers in the interest of cutting costs and maintaining huge profit margins, with which it financed an array of new products and reached $1 trillion in sales from $10 billion, hundredfold increase over 2 decades. American workers and families for the first time in American history got very little from this Cook-Jobs project. American infrastructure in communities that would have been supported by American factories including the services and infrastructure in communities financed through local taxes, a practice throughout the Industrial Revolution in the US, was sharply disrupted over 2 decades. It caused a rupture in social relations and increased inequality in the US, and defunded infrastructure that comes with manufacturing.  It is the task of the Biden administration to now correct what Mr. Trump simply talked about but never induced or required Apple to do- lead the resurgence of American manufacturing, and make its major investments in the US, invest in its workers and families, invest in America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For years economists and finance people left this hidden and obscured, the common sense understanding that higher interest rates in an economy based on better education with investments in infrastructure and manufacturing as Biden has put in place today would actually stimulate the economy. Why? David Uberti rightly points out this is household wealth growing larger with investment in CD's and savings accounts, dividend paying stocks at higher interest rates. Consider this important fact -Americans have earned $3.7 trillion in the first quarter alone in interest and dividends. This is $770 billion larger than in 2019, according to Commerce Department. In the last quarter of 2023 Americans had the largest wealth ever held in stocks, real estate, and other assets such as pensions, according to the Federal Reserve. Charles Schwab of the brokerage company he founded in 1971 stated this as a major loss for the American people and the economy when zero interest rates were used to tackle the problems created by greed and poor behaviors of banks in the 2009 crisis, Schwab was talking about something real. Hit the country with war burdens for Middle East wars of Reagan, Bush, Obama and Trump by taking away funds from infrastructure and education, healthcare and you have two burdens -2009 financial crisis created by banks and wars that reduce the household wealth and the capacity of the American economy to grow and create needed jobs to reduce standard of life/quality of life in the US. A third burden fell heavily on pensioners and elderly depriving them of interest and dividends with zero interest rates that no economist wanted to talk about for 30 years including  the previous administrations since 1990.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
10% tariff on Canada's exports to the US after Ontario Reagan ad misrepresenting trade facts is aired on television. The ad seeks to show US tariffs in the light of the Smoot Hawley tariffs of the 1930's, when the tariffs today date back to Reagan's use of tariffs when Asian partners (at that time Japan in the 1980's) followed unfair trade practices to the detriment of American workers and industry. The US Trade Representative who acted for Reagan was Lighthizer, the same USTR who worked for DJT in the first term to fight the unfair trading practices of China, and whose deputy USTR Jamieson is now the USTR in DJT second term negotiating with Asian partners. Tariffs ae being used as an additional tookl in the toolbox by DJT and Lighthizer/Jamieson to counter the unfair trading practices of other nations, which includes partners of the US such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and EU. It also includes nations such as Switzerland who ignored US interests in trade whie having open access to the US market. Most of these nations know that these practices harmful to world trade exist, only Canada, China and some other countries have pretended they do not exist and they are the so called "champions of free trade." These nations attempt to make DJT appear to be doing this on whim when this is an issue in trade relations between the US and Asian partners, the EU, and Canada/Mexico for the last 50 years. DJT pointed this out- “The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their “rescue” on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States,” Mr. Trump said in a social media post Saturday afternoon. “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ makes the America centric thinking mistake of forgetting where China started from in assessing progress and China's new priorities. In 1960 the World Bank shows China per capita at $90 which does not change much till 1990 when it was $300, the Deng opening to western technology and capital pushed it up to $3000 the year 2000 (US $36,000) and $4500 in 2010 (US $50,000) when the global financial crisis hit. Since 2010 the Chinese economy was burdened by high local government debt and struggled to get to $10,000 in 2020 under Xi Jinping's first two terms as president. Yet it paid a huge price for this -the chance of Bo Xilai (2014) upsetting the twin banners of Science and Modernization of the May 4th 1919 movement that set the course of China for 100 years uninterrupted through the Nationalists, the Japanese occupation, the Maoist CCP, the Deng CCP opening and Jinping CCP pullback. The huge inequality was seen as an opportunity for Bo Xi Lai or some other leader to capitalize on moving China in an unknown direction that posed risks for the future of China. Even then the first preference of Xi would be to carry on with what had worked after Deng. Yet it was clear that working class votes were shifting the dynamics of elections after the Trump election and closing the doors to open access to western capital, technology, and investment. With Trump in erratic and uncertain ways, with Biden after the elections of 2020 consistent and with single minded determination to limit flows. Not just Xi, any other Chinese leader would have had to have the internal discussions about the need to shift back to a model China was familiar with and one that worked before- that of state intervention in the economy, that of reducing the inequalities that posed risks for the CCP's survival as forging a path for stability to carry out the twin banners of the May 4, 1919 Movement - Science and Modernization as China's salvation. Unlike the hysteria about China posing a challenge to the US these internal debates of Xi and the party may have concluded that the US with about half the population of China's as it grows with immigration in the future and multiple times the per capita GDP was a country that no other country was going to come close to. In this sense the supply chains are deceptive as these are likely to be completely redone under the Biden administration to bring most important manufacturing back to China. It is in this context that Xi had limited room to manoeuvre and decided to focus on stability for the long term to fulfill China's dream of the May 4, 1919 Movement of the last 100 years for Science and Modernization casting aside the risks associated for instability of the inequality that comes with more of the western type of growth, and with the climate change risks also associated with it. Lower growth gives China a chance to correct some of the flaws of the hyper growth that was partly of its own making and partly thrust upon it by investors from the outside, so that the new climate would best serve the goals of the May 4, 1919 Movement of keeping high the banners of Science and Modernization. This kind of rethinking is also going on in the US in the same manner about inequalities and hardships for workers and families, with some of the anger directed at China as internal political sentiment- hence the trillions of dollars moved by the Biden administration to address the flaws of growth under free markets and intervene in the economy where needed as in climate change to give firm sense of direction. In a sense the direction taken in different contexts the American and the Chinese are the same - address the problems of workers and families, of the people, as Lincoln had pointed out and striven so hard for, so that Labor is the more important than Capital, and workers and families vital to the nation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks of the NYT says the Republican party is failing when it embraces Trump's version of populism with its racial division, tax plan that favors Republican donors and ignores fiscal conservative concern over deficits that affect future generations, supporting the election of Moore in Alabama, the constant Twitter comments that show prejudice. He says this will have destructive effects that could last an entire generation. This isn't the Republican party he has known for so long, says Brooks. The time is passed says Brooks when sensible republicans could go along in the middle by not agreeing with Trump, yet avoiding the task of opposing the elements of Trump policies that conflict with America's long held ideals shared by both parties. He calls its a corrupt deal that Republican party leaders in the Senate and Congress have agreed to make with Trump thinking that somehow this will all work out for them even if it doesn't for the party. Selling one's soul is somehow not an option that people would take in their right mid, so he wonders aloud what is happening in the party- and calls it a rot besetting the party of Lincoln, TR and Eisenhower that won't get it to any good place.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
With China's automobile market declining for the fifth month in a row, and trade tensions rising, it now appears that carmakers such as Ford expanded too quickly in the Chinese market. Ford, Peugeot, and Hyundai appear to have poorly times their expansion in China, expanding at the tail end of the Chinese boom just ahead of the new Trump administration's efforts to challenge China's lopsided trade balance.  It has become so bad that this report shows workers at a Peugeot factory in China spending their days washing floors and attending Communist political study sessions at work. At a Ford plant workers shifts are reduced to a couple of days a month. Sales grew 3% in 2017 and declined 2% in the first 11 months of 2018, after increases of 14% in previous years taking the market to 28 million in a dizzying ride as it surpassed the U.S. sales of 17.5 million. Overcapacity is a problem in China with the aggressive expansion. There is capacity to make 43 million cars, but will produce 29 million in 2018, according to PwC, consulting firm. Ford meanwhile put in a new plant in Harbin in 2017, expanding its capacity to 1.6 million a year, but sales peaked at 1.27 million in 2016, and are down 6% in 2017, and 34% in 2018 to about 700,000. While there are no layoffs some workers are making only $220 monthly, forcing them to take second jobs as cab drivers or couriers. Suzuki decided to quit in 2018 exiting China entirely just so it would not pile up losses in what is now a market that is way overblown from the boom years. Electric vehicle production in the pipeline of about 7.5 million vehicles will compound this problem further with 32 new plants planned by 26 firms.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The parliamentary elections in Britain have changed the environment in which the first day of Brexit talks took place on June 19, 2017. There is a great deal of uncertainty as the government of Theresa May has only a thin majority in parliament. A debate is now taking place on how much support Brexit has after the parliamentary election, and what kind of Brexit should take place, what are the risks and uncertainties for Britain. As expected the European Union negotiator Michael Barnier emphasized that some issues have to be resolved first- that Britain owes the European Union between 40 to 60 billion euros over 5 years, the rights of EU citizens in Britain, for the beneficiaries of EU policies and for the impact on borders particularly in Ireland.  Only then would the EU discuss access to the EU market for Britain. Mr Barnier handed British negotiator David Davis a hiking stick, a way of saying this will be a long hike up the mountain. In Britain there is a growing sense that the talks cannot be completed by the current deadline in 2019, that it might take 5 years. Another hurdle- Britain cannot have access to the single market if it seeks to control immigration. For the European Union there is the additional problem of how to negotiate with a government that may not be there in a few months, say experts. For the European Union Brexit is now more of a distraction, as there are other issues that rank higher such as relations with the Trump administration, NATO and Russia, refugees and borders.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time in decades Mexico has a president who travels on regular commercial flights, flying in tourist class. There is no presidential plane, no presidential mansion. He starts his day at 6 am with a crime report and a Cabinet meeting By 7 am he is at the presidential palace giving a free wheeling press conference. He has in 3 months talked to the media and the public more than was done in 6 years under the previous presidents. By noon he is on his way to catch a commercial flight to a provincial city such as Guadalajara.  There he meets local leaders, eats at a local cafeteria, and attends an open rally. He is most comfortable brushing against people, pressing the flesh, and making some comments in one liners, something he has done for twenty years since becoming the Mayor of Mexico City.  He is a bit evangelical, more like Bernie Sanders, but with the power. Mexicans listen to him attentively. Mexicans were so fed up with corruption, neglect of public opinion, and lack of rule of law, that Obrador after contesting with difficulty in previous two elections won decisively in the recent presidential election with large majorities in parliament. He has in the first 100 days moved to scrap a new $12 billion airport with costly cost overrruns using a referendum to make the decision. He has also cooperated with the Trump administration to slow the flow of migrants from central America, working with the U.S. on a $11 billion investment in Mexico and Central America to create the jobs and secure environment so that people can stay in their homes.   ...

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
Venezuelan illegal immigrant lawsuit reaches US Supreme Court for birthright citizenship. What did the US Supreme Court rule? Alongside we provide the summary of the US Supreme Court landmark decision which is coming in two parts, this being just the first. Simply stated the US SC ruled that district courts can give the plaintiffs relief in their individual circumstances but do not have the authority to extend this to into a "universal injunction." Three states and a Venezuelan illegal immigrant allowed into the US under the asylum policy make the case. And each case may have individual merits but does it apply to a whole geopolitical event? Yet the sheer numbers, the scale running into millions of people, amounting to it being an invasion, a geopolitical event resulting from Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden failures to assert the Monroe Doctrine and prevent intervention by foreign, specifically European powers in the affairs of the American continent. Yet at no point in the administration of the last 9 years has this situation been anticipated or this situation been singled out as one that no asylum policy of any nation is designed to tackle. The efforts to fix things as far away as the mountains of the Hindu Kush have frittered away the important resources of the US military to maintain the Monroe Doctrine. It can be said that the basic error was not to see president Monroe's policy for what it was - an effort to prevent the French, the Spanish or some other European power to bring back colonial rule or in some ways unsettle the affairs on this continent. The US Supreme Court is aware of the surroundings of this event as it takes up the issues of immigration and efforts by foreign powers to unsettle the fabric of the Nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions may relate more to how these situations affected the role of Gates and similar individuals in protecting the interests of the US, Europe, India, Latin America and Africa in health organizations such as the World Health Organization. As globalization spread governments in the West surrendered some of the essential role they played in world health organizations to individuals and NGO's, and countries lacking experience needed for such an important task. The mishandling of the pandemic is partly a result of this retreat by western governments from the role that they have played during the nineteenth and twentieth century. In the US letter to the WHO by president Trump the role of Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway was shown in handling an earlier virus epidemic that originated in Asia so that it would not spread and could be controlled. This is the H1N1 crisis in 2003 cited in Mr. Trump's letter to the World Health Organization. Brundtland took strong action that was missing during this pandemic after the US and western nations surrendered the essential role they have played for centuries based on role in medical science discovery for maintaining public health. Surrendering this role or seeing it erode is one of the biggest mistakes of our time and a mistaken form of globalized behaviour. It is only now being corrected as the realization dawns on major nations such as US, UK, France, Japan, Russia, India and other countries about the essential stability provided by western nations knowledge, experience and resources to this task of maintaining global health. Even a nation like India has to base its role on hundred or more years of work in medical science and commitment to public health that transcends political preferences or national interest to take on and be a worthy participant with the advanced nations that have played so great and beneficial role for the world in public health. What to speak of transient interest of nations in the developing world or countries where national interest or political preferences play a part in public health of the peoples of the world. This responsibility for world's public health can never be delegated to individuals, foundations or any one country, or small countries, or a combination of these, only to the collective experience of the last 300 years in medical science discovery and the role of Europe including Russia, and the US in leading the way.  The Biden administration has the same underlying concerns as the Trump administration about this mishandling of the pandemic and the disasters that followed bringing so much death and suffering This excerpt on Brundtland of Norway is from the letter the US sent to the World Health Organization- "In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Autor at MIT authored some of the first detailed studies about the severe disruption in U.S. communities from the trade with China following China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. The sheer size of the impact now appears to have been underestimated by economists and other experts. It was believed says Hilsenrath and Davis, that the U.S. having absorbed the impact of trade with Japan in the seventies and eighties, and with Mexico following NAFTA, could do the same with China. That turns out to be false. Much of 2016 election season has been spent seeing the rise of anti-trade movements led by Trump and Sanders, and reveals a deep discontent with job shifting overseas, and disruption of communities across America by trade patterns. What happened? In 2015 China's exports to the U.S. reached 2.7% of U.S. GDP. Hilsenrath and Davis say it was about 1% less with Japan and Mexico when their exports surged. The rapidity of the impact is another problem. It took 12 years following Japan's emergence as a major supplier, to reach the same level of impact that China had only 4 years after China's entry into the WTO in 2001. A similiar situation of 12 years happened with Mexico after NAFTA. Another problem is that Japan's exports impacted mostly steel and autos, China's exports impacted a whole range of industries. The speed with which China's planners sought to change and modernize their manufacturing  base is unprecedented in history, and has an impact not only on the U.S. as a recipient of low cost exports, but also on China as it struggles with bad debts and job losses today, that are a legacy of that too rapid move. This was part of the drive to urbanize China rapidly by shifting agricultural workers to factories in the cities, at a pace unprecedented in history. Another factor not mentioned is the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 that hurt U.S. manufacturing in the auto and other industries, and the wide impact this had in loss of jobs and decline in wages. By 2010 the tide of public opinion had shifted. The WSJ/NBC poll of September 2010, cited in detail in WSJ 10/2/2010 under "Americans Sour on Foreign Trade" shows over 80% consistently for all levels of income, over $75,000 and under $75,000, Republicans and Democrats, working class Americans or well educated Americans, saying that Americans were struggling and there was less hiring, because of how trade had impacted their communities. Lyrarc covered this in considerable detail since 2006. All political parties, business leaders, ignored the implications of this huge change, the media covered it but assumed it would take care of itself as trade with Japan had done previously, and it was left to Trump and Sanders as outsiders to call it like they saw it 5 years later.  Economic inequality has widened in China to the point of it becoming unrecognizable as a former socialist economy. Now both countries are faced with the job of picking up, chastened by the experience, and hoping to limit the political fallout to achieve economic recovery. The very open trading system that had generated prosperity since World War II was being put at risk by a lack of awareness that trade brings with it changes, winners and losers, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas on a scale and speed unprecedented in history, was something that no one could cope with. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's car exports have grown in the last six years to double what they were before, growing to $40 billion. This includes a jump in export of SUV's vehicles. Just in the first quarter of 2018 the export of automobiles from Japan to U.S. is up by 10%. Japan is not keen on talking about this issue. President Trump is looking at negotiating a one on one trade deal with Japan instead of through the TPP agreement. as this is seen as a better way to address a $60 billion trade deficit. TPP is not a solution for the U.S. imbalance in trade with Japan as Japan already has no tariffs on imported cars. Yet other barriers exist that make it difficult for U.S. automakers. Ford exited Japan in 2016 and the U.S. has only 1% of the Japanese market. Japanese buyers stay away from American cars and prefer the smaller highly fuel efficient cars made in Japan by Japanese automakers. Perception of buying home made also exist. Other barriers also exist such as zoning and for setting up dealerships, unique safety standards. Japanese automakers make most of the sedans in the U.S. but export the SUV's from Japan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Compared to chancellor Scholz Merz sets his goals and is clear about his goals. His active style is different from previous chancellors. His first meeting with Trump showed this personal style which is proving to be more effective than Merkel or Scholz. Merz had to wait for a long time in the private sector till Merkel retired to come back to politics. During Merkel's early years Merz challenged Merkel for leadership of the Christian Democrats party. Merkel's policy on migrants has proved to be a failure, and Merz is now in a position to take the CSU in a new direction closing the border and working closely with the US and Britain, Italy, on border enforcement. Merz is also unique and very different from the disinvestment period under Merkel which let German infrastructure deteriorate and fall apart, another failure of Merkel's years as chancellor. Merz's first action was to get close to a trillion dollars of new funding to rebuild defense and infrastructure over the next decade. Merz is head of a coalition with the SPD with SPD's leader Lars Klingbeil as finance minister. Scholz headed a coalition that was dysfunctional as the Free Democrats Lindner was opposed to investment in German economy from the outset. Under Merkel the Christian Democrats took no action to rebuild Germany, and were preoccupied with eurozone finances. ...

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
The bottom half of all U.S. households have only recently recovered the wealth lost in the 2009 financial crisis. They still have 32% less wealth than in 2003 when inflation is taken into account. The top 1% of households have more than twice as much as they did in 2003. Wealth is defined as net worth that includes houses , savings and stocks minus any debt. The wealthy have 85% of their wealth in stocks and bonds. For the bottom 50% half of the assets are in the house or family home. Economic and regulatory trends have happened in ways that favored the people investing in stocks, and rescued people investing in stocks with policies designed with this purpose by central banks and the U.S. government. By contrast for the bottom 50% buying a home is more difficult today. The problem this WSJ report points out is that the next recession would most hurt the bottom 50%, even before they have recovered from the last one which was a result of shaky practices of banks in financial lending and not some cyclical swing in the economy. Policy was then geared to provide a recovery first for stock markets as a way to economic recovery. The bottom 50% have little stake in the stock market, the top 1% have most of their gains from the stock market. Much of the popular anger comes from the way policies by both Democrats and Republicans differed little in past administrations in the way they approached this in shaping economic policy. As a result infrastructure building and investments in public services took less priority in this period of 30 years with trade imbalances with China building up on the external front, in another side to this development. The shift to Trump and to right wing populists in Europe is only the first phase in the corrective action that has to take place to return to a fairer distribution of wealth that existed before the last 3 decades. Eventually it is not right wing or left wing factions or parties, but healthy policies, that matter to create a better balance for society.  ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Having an adequate supply of N95 masks is critical for each hospital tackling the coronavirus pandemic. The lack of enough masks leaves health care personnel without the basic protection and is a grave emergency. Hospitals are resorting to reuse of the masks in this crisis and this is not a good practice as it increases the chances of infection. President Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act on April 2 against 3M. This gives the federal government more control over 3M's operations to ensure that it goes all out to make the healthcare N95 masks that the hospitals need in this grave emergency. This report in the WSJ covers the situation as of April 3 on the supply of M95 masks for health workers and others. N95 masks block 95% of very small particles. Supply in the U.S. is for 50 million N95 masks. Demand in the U.S. is for 300 million N95 masks as estimated by the Department of Health and Human Services. in March- this is how many are needed by health care workers to fight this pandemic in the U.S. The principal manufacturer is 3M. 3M company has doubled its production since January 2020. The trend before this pandemic was to send production over to China and other countries. This is changing now with the pandemic and the U.S. policy shifting to be self sufficient in medical supplies in the event of an emergency. A policy Peter Navarro, who heads the agency in charge of getting medical supplies, says President Trump is insisting be implemented. Hospital buyers supported the earlier trend to keep costs down, but this appears to be a costly mistake, putting health care workers in hospitals across the U.S. without the basic protection they need. Minnesota based 3M invented the first modern disposable masks in the 1960's. Interestingly 3M continued to make millions of masks in the U.S. even though competitors moved manufacturing overseas. The 50 million disposable masks 3M made globally went to workers in industries where it provided extra safety from metal shavings or other substances, and medical workers. Now 90% of masks go to medical workers. 3M ramped up production globally since January 11 when the pandemic first hit to 100 million masks a month globally, and 35 million a month in the U.S. at plants in South Dakota and Nebraska. 3M says that it will import 10 million masks from its factory in China, which earlier this year was restricted from shipping it outside China as China needed masks for the pandemic. About 10 million more masks are made by two other manufacturers Alpha Pro and Louis Gerson Co.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ordered 600 million N95 masks from 5 companies to distribute to hospitals and build up the national medical supply stockpile. 190 million each of this is from 3M and Honeywell and 130 million Owens & Minor Inc.  3M says it will make 50 million a month in the U.S. by June. Honeywell which had moved production overseas, plans to bring back production to the U.S. by making 10 million masks by May at its Rhode Island and Phoenix plants. There is a company in Singapore that makes one million masks a day in China and other Asian countries, Pasture Pharma Pte, but most of it is committed to government agencies in China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Shear of the NYT says president Trump is taking risks of losing support from low income people who supported him in the presidential election by making aggressive cuts in programs that help low income people. In his first budget plan deep cuts to social programs and increase of 10% in defense spending of $54 billion is planned. The new health care plan of the Republicans House and Speaker Ryan is seen by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing uninsured people by 14 million. Trump has left Social Security intact, but he sees other cuts as cuts to the "administrative state' and overreach on entitlements. The budget plan is titled "America First," and shrinks foreign aid, cuts state department budget by about a third, and cuts funding to PBS, other agencies, and cuts social program spending.