LyrArc Article Gist
  As policies moderate, and policy action delivers results such as stopping the war on Ukraine, rebuilding the US Navy, and trade that brings back jobs, fentanyl deaths near zero with CMC (Canada, Mexico and China) forced to stop fentanyl flows, the small slippage in DJT support from federal workers in Republican districts and losses to business from wide deportation could reverse. DJT's first 100 days with strong action from the start, given the 2 year window before a possible Democrat takeover of the House and letting out the frustration on border policies of the Biden administration, are taking the Nation by surprise. Immigration policy on illegal migration is supported generally in the US except where it reduces customers to small businesses for fear of deportation such as occupational therapy.  Government employees who voted for DJT are uncertain about their jobs and are a group that is taken aback by the speed and action on cutting the government federal bureaucracy of 2 million workers. Many federal workers are spread out in the 51 states and many are in Republican or Republican leaning districts. With some slippage DJT approval is now at 47%, and slightly higher disapproval at 51%. As a result these two groups are moving away from supporting DJT in the first 100 days. Some who still support him outside these two groups are expressing disapproval of action coming this early and forcefully, yet support the overall policy agenda on immigration and cutting spending. There is also a small yet vocal group that supported RFK Jr. and this group remains energized by his promise to take action on health. Others who wanted strong action on immigration to reverse errors of Biden policies for illegal migrant entry and dispersal across America remain committed to DJT policy.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Janet Yellen is nominee to be Treasury secretary in the new administration of Joe Biden. The economic rebound from the pandemic that started in the summer is faltering without additional stimulus and help to businesses and people affected by the pandemic. She is the former chairman of the U.S. central bank the Federal Reserve.  Yellen faces a divided country and likely a divided Congress on many issues facing the country. She says of these divisions and the challenging task she faces of forging compromises- "Right now we live in a country where people look at the same set of facts and come to diametrically opposite conclusions, so that is a big challenge to anyone who takes that job, to build support for your policy outcomes." Yellen believes that the slow recovery after the 2009 financial crisis was because of a lack of a big enough stimulus and policy consensus across parties and with public opinion backing this up. During the pandemic in March 2020 the first stimulus was passed for $3.3 trillion  with support from the Congress and the Trump administration. Today Congress is split on the second stimulus with Democrats pushing for about $2.2 trillion for aid to state and local governments, jobless workers virus testing strategy. Republicans calling for about one third of this or $650 billion to help small businesses and industries such as tourism, retail and airlines. Because  interest rates are near zero much depends on getting an effective stimulus for speedy economic recovery. Conversations between the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve, America's central bank, are critical to getting things done. A lot also depends on how Democrats and Republicans can put aside differences for the sake of getting the recovery back in place where it was during the summer. The media has a role to play in not stoking differences in public opinion which was the case close to the election to an unprecedented degree. One critical aspect of American process in getting things done is to bring Congress and the public with an elected president. Without a conciliatory approach and humility few presidents have succeeded as Congress and public opinion is also critical to getting things done. The House changes every 2 years so that even with  majorities- made transient by the founders of the constitution- nothing is certain without getting the other political party on your side. For the sake of the country and the people devastated by the pandemic, the professional class, media and politicians, Congress and the president need to bring a clear and transparent willingness to look at the national interest going forward.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US sees no contradiction to India looking for bargain priced oil from Russia to meet the growing needs of its economy and is actually furthering the goals of the G-7 by lowering the price Russia gets for its oil. It helps the economy of 1.2 billion people that like the rest of the world has struggled to fight the pandemic and has incurred the kind of heath costs that even China is now struggling to pay for. President Biden clearly understands and supports this. Democracies an only succeed if they fulfill the aspirations of their people. On this point Biden made clear in his State of the Union that he will generate what it takes from large corporations that paid no tax, to invest in America. Rather than fuel the profits of large oil companies India has increasingly chosen to use Russian discounted oil to invest in India. The Biden and Modi policies are identical generate savings and invest big time in trillions of dollars over the next few years to put democracies ahead in meeting rising aspirations that have been unfulfilled for far too long, which is where the real battles are being fought and will be won, and rightly so. US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources, Geoffrey Pyatt,  said during a visit to New Delhi on Feb. 16-17- "Our experts now assess that India right now is enjoying a discount of about USD 15 a barrel in the price that it is paying for its imports of Russian crude. So by acting in its own interest, by driving a hard bargain to get the lowest price possible, India is furthering the policy of our G7 coalition, our G7 plus partners in seeking to reduce Russian revenues."  Looking at the bigger picture the problem was created by Germany under Merkel who built Germany's over dependency on Russian oil to power a cheap fuel economy it thought was in Germany's interest. This is now being reversed by the hard work of Mr. Habeck of the Green party in the coalition government of Scholz in securing alternative supplies in record time for the EU to avoid a recession. In this sense the perception created early of India which has suffered itself from invasions in 1962 and incursions in the Himalayas more recently, it is not a problem India can solve by becoming energy short at a time when it has invested so much in fighting the pandemic. A similar problem was created by Republican and Democratic administrations of the past that concentrated the supply chain in one country. India lost much investment in the last 8 years as a result of the policies of Merkel's Germany and past Republican Democratic administrations in concentrating the supply chain in one country. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in DW.com discusses the quick rise of Annalena Baerbock, 40 years, to the co-leader role with better known Robert Habeck, 51 years, at a party conference in 2018. In the winter of 2019 she was supported by a huge 97% of delegates at the party conference, with Habeck getting 90%. She has an advantage in foreign policy issues with her education in England at the London School of Economics, where she studied for her Masters degree in International Law. She speaks fluent English, rare in German politics. Baerbock spent 1 year in the US when she was only 16 years old. Very useful now with changes in Europe, the US and India. Boris Johnson in Britain, Biden in the US, and Modi in India, all speaking English.  She has spoken up against xenophobia, and being from Potsdam in the east is able to understand issues facing East Germany. A big change Baerbock says happened in 2019. Then she and Habeck decided to open up the Greens to become a big tent party that welcomes people from all sides. This was a smart choice at the time as Germans moved away from the two main parties- the SPD and the CDU. Dismay from the Schroder years when working class issues were ignored, and dissatisfaction with the Merkel years when investments in infrastructure, social care, health, education were neglected.  AfD support has stalled with the end of the migrant crisis and immigration no longer an issue. Baerbock says today of that 2019 party conference- "What we knew then was that we wanted to open our party up, that we wanted to make policies for a broad society: inviting and with clear objectives. Here today I want to make an offer, for the whole of society, as an invitation to lead our diverse, strong, rich country into a good future." Key changes that could happen in Germany in 2022- Phase out of coal powered energy by earlier date than 2038. No support for increased defense spending. Yet this is not likely to be an issue with the new American Biden administration. Infrastructure and vital investments in health and education would become a top priority similar to the US, UK and India. Careful policy coordination by Germany with the US, UK, France, India and Japan, and other EU nations, as the world shifts into a period in which lessons learned from the pandemic and the last three decades lead to renewal of supply channels and renewal of societies.   ...

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
This opinion by Mr. Swain, editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal says it is regrettable that the expert class in America has failed to acknowledge its errors or conduct self-criticism. A new generation of journalists, think tank authors, and experts, will soon replace the old. They, he says, will make a fair assessment of the Trump years and look at their forerunners as acting in crucial moments, as idiots. He offers an alternative view of lockdowns as hurting the economy and causing a sharp recession in which people had to go without income, and some even hungry. To support this he says many parts of the country did not lock down and managed to keep hospitals running fine. California and New York with Democratic governors and large numbers of Democratic voters have borne the brunt of the pandemic in America. He points out the changes in the Middle East with policy that has brought Israel and the Arab world closer. The wars in foreign lands that are no longer being fought wasting precious resources. Democrats and the news media acted to consider Mr. Trump's election as illegitimate and the result of collusion with a Russian president, says Swain, till the Mueller investigation proved this to be not true. The real reason for Trump's election being that the Clinton-Obama Democrats had neglected working class interests and sent jobs overseas, and the Democratic party had shifted far from its working class base. That there is much for reflection in both political parties is stated in this view as the Democrats rush to a second impeachment Feb. 9, after president Biden has setup his new administration, and in the middle of a national emergency pandemic.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden makes three nominations to the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. Lisa Cook's nomination to the central bank is confirmed in the Senate 51-50. Following the appointment of Lael Brainard to the central bank as vice chairwoman, president Biden has nominated Cook, the first Black woman on the Federal Reserve board from Michigan State University. He has also nominated Mr. Jefferson of Davidson College to the Federal Reserve board. A fourth nomination is of Michael Barr, a law professor, as the Federal Reserve's vice chair of supervision. Lael Brainard served under president Clinton and is on the board of the Fed since 2014. She was Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs from 2010 to 2013, coordinating economic policy at G-7 meetings during that time. Jerome Powell, the current chairman of the US central bank is being renominated as chairman by president Biden after Powell's term expired in February. Lisa Cook's research focus was on policies that promote broad economic opportunities for women and racial minorities. She served on the Council of Economic Advisors under the Obama administration, and has worked at the Treasury Department. With Janet Yellen at Treasury and Jerome Powell and Brainard at the US central bank there is a shift to policies that will promote president Biden's agenda for his first term to invest in infrastructure, supply chain renewal and working class families in America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernie Sanders who won in 23 states running for president says the American system is broken and this is why DJT won in 2026. He says Biden genuinely wanted to bring the changes to help workers. Other Democrats simply wanted to patch the system, a little here a little there. This he tells Reid Epstein of the NYT is not working and Bernie Sanders says DJT is right that the system is broken. Sanders excoriated billionaires in his speeches. Yet the tech billionaires at Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have over the last two decades supported Democrats and yet paid a lower tax rate than firemen, police, teachers. Apple paid less than 15%, Google less than 16%, Microsoft less than 18% and Amazon less than 9%. This also constitutes an oligarchy similar to the oil companies and pharmaceutical companies. This makes it difficult to have a fair system of taxes that can fund the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, its manufacturing, its chips and advanced technologies, health and education of children. Sanders is focusing his efforts or 2025 to 15 Congressional districts where Republicans won by very thin margins. And he is on his way to Iowa City and Omaha, Nebraska, where the margins were so thin to get his message to workers.  This interview also provides a hint of how DJT has approached the issues with a willingness to try unconventional approaches and people who did not fit the mold. RFK Jr. at Health, Tulsi Gabbard at Intelligence, Lori Chavez at Labor. Something that Democrats have failed to do to look at different ideas and find solutions to intractable problems in unconventional ways. Epstein asks why Tulsi Gabbard who supported Sanders bid for president is now in the DJT cabinet.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This picture essay in The Guardian shows the 700,000 additional people displaced inside Afghanistan in 2021 in addition to the 2.9 million displaced people by 2020. The British stayed out of Afghanistan except for brief forays from concern about Russia entering close to British India. Not much happened till Zahir Shah, the King of Afghanistan was seen as not doing much for a famine that struck the country in 1972. Drought struck much of the country in 1972 leading to the deaths of over 100,000 people from starvation. The King had ruled since 1933. And for a brief period his cousin and brother-in-law Daud Khan had actually run the administration between 1953 to 1963, before being dismissed with a new constitution adopted not allowing the royal family to rule the country without consulting parliament. The poor handling of famine relief led to the fall of the government appointed by King Zahir Shah in 1972. In 1973 Daud Khan violates this constitution and assumes control of the country. British India was in 1972 the India of the Nehru period, with his daughter Indira Gandhi the democratically elected prime minister. India fought a brief war with Pakistan in 1971 that set up the new nation of Bangladesh from territory of East Bengal. India preoccupied with Bangladesh refugees did not do what the British had done to keep outside powers out of Afghanistan and maintain a stable monarchy. Daoud Khan's repression of Communist party leaders led to Communist party military factions in the army taking over the country in 1978. The Afghan military led by officers in the army's Communist factions had little support in the traditional Islamic nature of the countryside for their land reforms. Leading to a rebellion and entry of Soviet troops under a friendship treaty signed in 1978 with Soviets under Leonid Brezhnev. It is this disrupting of the stability of the Afghan monarchy or the entry of Soviets or Americans or any other foreign influence that was carefully prevented in British India by Britain's India policy, which resulted in a period of peace and stability in that region. The events of 1974 with the fall of the monarchy, and the entry of Russia in 1978 broke two of the main rules the British had observed from 1750- a stable monarchy and no outside influence in Afghanistan. A policy the British also followed for Tibet. When China entered Tibet in 1950 Nehru was too preoccupied with the millions of refugees from Pakistan and failed to prepare in the years 1947-50 for following British policy on Tibet by preparing or anticipating the entry of foreign powers. The entry of China into Tibet in October 1950 led to the Sino India border war of 1962, and led to the current situation of India facing a Chinese army all along the border of Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Nepal and all the way in the Himalayas to Kashmir. The result has been billions of dollars spent by the US every week starving domestic priorities, as president Biden observed this week, and a burial place for empires. Ten years for Russia, and twenty for the US with the same result. It has left the whole region poorer and in humanitarian crisis for 50 years, and created crises for Russia, Pakistan, India, and the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Medvedev set up athink tank last year with Igor Yurgens as head , which was to come with new ideas for Rusian economy and foreign relations. He called for Russia to change course and work with the US and Europe t o work its way out of the crisis. T do this he told a seminar organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Moscow, that Russia should create dialogue with the people, and experts should be brought into the discussions, and the government guys need to dialogue with both the people and these experts inside Russia and abroad. The suggestion is that policy should come out of vigorous discussion, and the government guys should consult, listen and they should win honestly in the discussions in this policy debate or change course as necessary. On Georgia and Ukrainian gas supplies cutoff, these wounds he says should be healed by making symbolic gestures to Europe and the USA, like the one that Vice President Biden made, in saying in Munich that the US needed to press the reset button in its relations with Russia. The Russian government says that the economy will contract by 2.2% in 2009....

LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Lighthizer in the Report on China's Entry into WTO sees this as a mistake in the policy of president Clinton. Clinton has said that was a mistake. David Sacks raised this issue in a podcast with Larry Summers, an economist who was deputy to Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary, then Treasury Secretary succeeding Rubin in 1999. Clinton on the advice of Rubin and Summers set up the framework for China to join the World Trade Organization without the safeguards and the setup that would prevent it using state capitalism and subisidies to build its own economy with exports, to ally with American corporations to support the outshoring of almost the entire industrial base of the US. Shocking as it sounds this has happened, had happened by 2016, when Donald Trump with the advice of USTR Lighthizer took the first steps to reverse this with Tariff policy, which was supported by president Biden, and continues in its new phase under DJT in 2025. Rubin and Summers had supported deregulation of financial markets and removal of the Glass Steagall Act by 1999. This was to led to the financial crisis of 2009 that was to be one of three body blows to the American working and middle class. The others China entering WTO without safeguards that led to deindustrializing US and loss of its manufacturing base, loss of 5 million jobs, tens of thousands of factories. And the third was the pandemic. “ . . .it seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime” 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Healthcare, climate change, pensions and social benefits, are three issues uppermost in the minds of German voters. Three million new young voters most of them only about 2 years old when Merkel started 16 years in office, look for change. They are well informed and for these young voters climate change is the most important issue. DW.com shows three voters and how they plan to vote. One voter has cast a mail in ballot for The Greens party. The second voter will vote for the Greens. Both because of climate change concerns. The third voter Thurid says her mother is a geriatric nurse and is not vaccinated. She is vaccinated but had talks with her mother and understands her worries about vaccination. She will vote for the Free Democrats because they oppose compulsory vaccination. The three leading parties for young voters are the Greens party, the Free Democrats, followed by the Social Democrats all in the range of 16-18% of support. The Greens have sent out 2 million brochures to voters. Out of 60 million voters in a German population of 80  million, 3 million is only 5% of the vote. What makes a difference is that it is consistent with the general direction of voters young and old, all looking for change in Germany as the CDU party attracts only about 20% or one fifth of German voters. Social Democrats Scholz is way ahead of Christian Democrats Laschet in how voters view each candidate. Will German voters be well informed enough to make a decision based on their desire for change after 16 years of Merkel or will the CDU bringing back in the last days of the campaign the old fears that the communist Left party would somehow find its way into the government using the Greens as a way in- this is a question for German voters. In1994 during the Cold War with Soviets Kohl used this to keep the Social Democrats out and Greens out and formed a coalition with the FDP. Yet today Merkel has grown close to both Russia and China and away from the Western alliance in a way that was unimaginable under Adenauer who helped build the new Federal Republic of Germany after the war. Merkel refuses to even immediately accept a call from a new US president Biden, American president who is closest in style and temperament to Harry Truman who faced off the Soviets in Berlin in 1948.  The FDP opposes a wealth tax or any form of taxes in which the wealthier pay a fair share of what is needed to build crumbling infrastructure in Germany neglected in the Merkel years. In Germany social and economic disparities have grown during the pandemic with poverty increasing during the pandemic as has happened throughout Europe and the world. The US is already committing to increase taxes for the upper incomes. This is where voters have a choice- do nothing with infrastructure, health or climate change or do something by increasing taxes. The choice is now before the German people.  With this question comes a choice for western civilization, with the recent election in the US, and two elections in Germany and then France. Will it look with optimism to the future or will it huddle up in a deeply cautious and slightly pessimistic view of the world that is embedded in Angela Merkel's cautious vision that ended up only responding to crises- some self inflicted as in migration policy, and even self inflicted in tackling euro problems created in the euro currency's faulty design. In fiscal policy as in migration policy Merkel has reversed her position- by supporting European solidarity. Will Germans vote for optimism or never ending caution? Are lessons learned?     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Any Asian conflict involving China would in a few months destroy Apple's value, CEO's would change quickly, and Apple policies change to shift entire production to India and the US in a rapid shift. Tim Cook would be seen as having gambled against America's interests, unresponsive and failing after repeated warnings.  Apple's goal of sourcing from India by 2027 a mere 26% of its iphones, means that a decade after USTR Lighthizer and DJT started the task of reshoring manufacturing to US and allies in 2016, the No. 1 outshoring company would still be making 75% of its dollar value iphones in China. A degree of overconcentration that would make no sense considering that Apple's 75% of manufacturing would be entirely at risk in 2027 after repeated warnings and inaction. The only option for Tim Cook in 2025 is to come up with new goals of shifting a minimum of 50-60% of its dollar value product manufacturing for iphones to India by 2027. . Tim Cook as Apple CEO has done little to prevent the overconcentration of manufacturing in China since 2016. About 10 years after DJT was elected to bring manufacturing back to India or close allies the simple idea of diversification was not implemented. Why? Having set up this system starting in 1998, a system that did not exist before that tiem when Steve Jobs hired Tim Cook with a winning formula to Make in China, a country just emerging from its Communist phase of failed state economy. By 2008 in 10 years the infrastructure was built in a backward largely agricultural economy that was rapidly modernizing under a market economy with state run capitalism under the Communist Party experiment. The Bush Obama 16 years were ones with America not responding to the challenge posed by this new system which could create huge surges in production capacity with focus on key technologies and flood markets. The next decade after 1998-2008 was one of rapid growth of this experiment which combined with design and engineering in the US generated few jobs in manufacturng in the US, but huge profits with huge margins fro a low cost base with a high image and technology innovation product. Lighthizer, Navarro, Jamieson had already sounded the alarm for American manufacturing and loss of jobs in 2016.  America's deindustrialization was becoming a bigger challenge by 2020 so that president Biden continued the policy of reindustrializing. In 2025 China 2025 Plan that was a warning in 2016 is already a reality with China flooding the world in solar panels, and ready to flood the markets overseas with electric cars. Apple may only get a reprieve, this exemption is not the same as the last one. National security is an issue, key technologies need to be protected. There is only one more opportunity to rebuild American manufacturing and keep promises.     ...

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.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Who is Nandalal Weerasinghe? This report in The Daily News gives some idea about the man chosen to help Sri Lanka negotiate a deal with the IMF.  Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe was an alternate executive director at the International Monetary Fund before being appointed deputy governor of the Ceylon Central Bank in 2012. Before this he managed several macroeconomic departments at the central bank and was assistant governor of the central bank from 2007 to 2009, He has spent the large part of his career in economic positions at the Central Bank of Ceylon after getting his PhD in economics from the Australian National University. Weerasinghe is the leading expert in macroeconomics from Sri Lanka who has IMF experience. He says "things will get worse before they get better." He retired early from the central bank with a change in government in 2019. He was reappointed as Sri Lanka faced a debt crisis in March 2022 following the two year long pandemic, and the Ukraine war in 2022 that was bad for emerging market economies. Weerasinghe says about the crisis facing Sri Lanka- Recent decisons followed Modern Monetary Theory. This has dire consequences. In recent times the savings brought about by the low tax and interest rate regime passed savings on to the corporate sector and took away spending power from savers and pensioners. Surging inflation made things even worse for the lower income middle class and older parts of society. Years of accumulated debt have brought Ceylon to this point. In Ceylon one is seeing the effects of savings being passed on to the corporate sector in an economy dependent on tourism and remittances from overseas workers, both hit by the two year long pandemic. This is part of  a trend that has hurt emerging market economies from Argentina and Pakistan which also turned to the IMF to Turkey.  In other countries in the European Union savings also passed on to the corporate sector with low tax and low interest rate regime. With high inflation resulting in the cost of living crisis seen today in France and Germany. This type of policy that Weerasinghe calls 'Modern Monetary Theory' is not healthy for the European Union and the US, as these policies led to the neglect of much needed and vital investments in infrastructure, health and education. Only now are these effects being corrected by new administrations of Biden in the US and Scholz in Germany, with Biden's 2 trillion plan for workers and families, and a similar plan from chancellor Scholz. With this come needed investments to tackle climate change, all of which was neglected before. India has taken a different approach. By following good governance, managing vaccination effectively during the pandemic, social emphasis for food, water, electricity, cooking gas, medicine for the vast population of 1.2 billion, and a Master plan for building Made in India manufacturing,  India has avoided such crises and maintained strong economic growth. In this sense it is a model for South Asian, South East Asian, African, and Latin American emerging market economies that face a difficult situation today. Good governance is critical.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Huge transfers of wealth and income were taking place in the US in the last 10 years leading to some of the glaring wealth gaps and unequal distribution of wealth and income in the US. This has threatened the social fabric of American society when combined with other factors such as unjustifiably high healthcare costs, and the shipping of American manufacturing overseas. This WSJ report looks at the transfer of wealth to the financial industry of at least $600 billion but much more than this since 2014 from interest rates of near zero. As over half of the population in the US concentrated at the lower end of the income and wealth spectrum does not invest in stock markets the policy at central banks designed by economists and the financial industry has engineered outcomes that have damaged the social fabric of American society. Distributed throughout the lower income groups, along with Made in America manufacturing, and other policies that takes working families and quality of living into account would have prevented the hugely unequal distribution of wealth and income in society. The pandemic marks a watershed period that has revealed this glaring weakness from long supply chains, to policies that were not good for working families, the impact on climate change, leading to the kinds of changes and investments in working families that are being made by the Biden administration today. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Two US carrier strike groups and 17 naval ships prepare for joint exercizes with Japan's Self-Defense Forces off Okinawa in the first week of October 2021. In late September a British aircraft carrier group goes through the Taiwan Straits. China has flown aircraft near Taiwan's airspace before. On October 1-5 over a period of 4 days China sends 150 fighter, bombers and other aircraft near Taiwanese airspace. This situation is reminiscent of the situation in 1950-53 during the period of the Korean War when US president Harry Truman sent the Seventh Fleet to the Straits of Taiwan. In 1954 Chinese artillery started the shelling of offshore islands Quemoy and Matsu. This happened again in 1958 under president Eisenhower. At that point the US sent a naval contingent to the Taiwan Straits. The crisis was resolved through talks with China. Eisenhower then setup a joint defense agreement with Taiwan.  Here the Taiwan Defense Minister says China is capable of an invasion of Taiwan in 2021 but "it has to calculate what it would cost and what kind of outcome it would achieve." He also says that after 2025 "it would have lowered the costs and losses to a minimum." As US companies seek expansion in China the situation is changing rapidly in 2021 in the other areas.The US under president Biden sees the wars under previous presidents and the economic policies of not investing in American industrial strength have created risks for America in its role in the world. Biden seeks to restore American industrial strength through massive investments. It has been reported that Taiwan even considers the concentration of world semiconductor industry in Taiwan a way to assure the US dependence on Taiwan for semiconductors would lead to allied economic commitment to Taiwan in addition to defense commitments already given. In a sign of awareness of the distorted situation in semiconductor manufacturing that American companies such as Intel have allowed to happen, including ceding essential technologies in manufacturing semiconductors to other nations, the Biden administration has pushed to reverse these policies giving $52 billion in state aid. President Biden talked to president Xi of China in early September in a 90 minute call. This was aimed at easing hostility between the two countries. During that call the two leaders had agreed to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act, that states Taiwan's status should be resolved through peaceful means. It was passed in the US Congress in 1979 during the period when the US restored diplomatic relations with China. The situation today resembles that in the period after the Korean War into the late 1950's when China under Mao continued shelling of islands under Taiwan from the mainland. This makes the existing supply chains that make the US, Europe and India overly dependent on China,Taiwan, Singapore, for manufactured goods look antiquated and out of place. American companies such as Apple, GM, Black Rock and American financial companies are caught in a bind as they operate as if nothing is happening, when a lot has changed during the coronavirus pandemic. The Biden administration is pursuing its own long term policy for restructuring the supply chain for American industry. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Contrast the slow US vaccine export response with that of India, Russia, EU and China. Only in May 2021 after India's daily Covid cases were close to 400,000 a day did the US make a serious offer of vaccines to other countries in need of assistance. U.S. president Biden says that 80 million vaccine doses would be exported by the end of June 2021. The WSJ says citing Airfinity, a London research firm, as of May 10 more than 333 million doses of vaccine were produced by the US and only 3 million vaccine doses were exported. Contrast that with the European Union which has shipped 111 million doses overseas one third of its total production, Russia which has exported 27 million doses.  India has exported 66 million doses according to the Ministry of External Affairs website as of May 17, 2021. This includes 4 million doses to Brazil, 4 million to Nigeria. Within its own region Bangladesh received 10 million and Sri Lanka 1.2 million doses, Afghanistan 1 million. Mexico received about 1 million doses. In Africa the Democratic Republic of the Congo which has suffered from many epidemics including Ebola virus received 1.7 million doses, Nigeria 4 million doses, Kenya 1 million, Uganda 1 million. Of the 66 million about half of it is a direct grant assistance and Brazil, Mexico, Morocco received all vaccine as grant assistance, 70% of Bangladesh's is grant assistance. The list on the Ministry of External Affairs site of the Government of India shows 95 countries including many of the most struggling nations of Latin America and Africa, bringing hope to countries which are struggling to hold onto hope for a better life beyond the pandemic. Sending help overseas through vaccine supplies is suspended for the moment but will resume in July after India has pulled in all of its pharmaceutical manufacturing industry under a government guided effort to go all out. Never has so much help bringing much needed hope gone to so many countries of the world in the twentieth or twenty first century from a nation that is struggling to meet its own needs. The US in pursuing a US first policy of vaccinating all its citizens has not taken into account the need to bring this evolving vaccine technology into the hands of as many qualified pharmaceutical manufacturers as possible. This in a rapid response to expand manufacturing capabilities to meet world wide demand. The risks of not doing so were not taken on early- the very same way the virus spread in January to March of 2020 can be repeated as people travel around the world particularly for tourism, business family reasons. This risk takes on anew dimension of contagious mutations of the virus which are 50% more- the Indian variant being 50% more contagious by some estimates than the UK variant, which itself was estimated to be 50% more contagious than the original one.  The result a pandemic that stretches out indefinitely unless billions of doses are made in a short timetable to beat the timetable of Nature through the coronavirus. India is doing this for the first time with plans to produce billions of doses by engaging the whole of the Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in the effort in a rapid response so that July to December would see 1.2 billion people vaccinated. The US effort, the European effort is left to the individual effort of pharmaceutical makers in the US and Europe, not a government guided effort to engage the entire pharmaceutical industry of the US and Europe in a rapid response timetable of 2-6 months.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reminds readers that it has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928. That it is not about to do it with the two candidates Biden and Trump. It sees many liabilities in the Republican candidate and does not see the future of America in what it calls four long years of political trench warfare. WSJ does not see a reinvestment in the economy, rebuilding of its infrastructure and preparing the transition to clean energy as two overriding priorities as do Democrats under leadership of Biden and policy being shaped by Sullivan after much study and reflection shown in speeches at Brookings and CFR. As a result it punts at the very time it should be looking to the future with confidence in the principles that built this nation as JFK has shown in his Profiles of Courage (1952) of senators and Congressmen who looked into their souls for the courage needed to face the future. It says Trump has been the greatest Democratic turnout machine since FDR, and Obama, with underperformances since then. It also refers to the court cases and says one third of Republican voters in Super Tuesday polls this week in March 2024 find that a conviction would be disqualifying. WSJ Editorial Board also says the Trump Presidency was a stress test for US institutions, that the checks and balances held. It sees no hope of political realignment in a Trump restoration, it sees only "four long years of political trench warfare. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Obama adminstration officials say Mr Obama did not call for the resignation of Mubarak because it feared creating a power vacuum at the top. The administration's fears include one about Egypt under a new government not honoring the 1979 treaty Egypt signed with Israel. In doing so- as Elliott Abrams, deputy national security advisor under President George Bush, points out in the Washington Post, the administration's attempt at denying liberty in the Arab world is "nothing short of a tragedy." Abrams points out that the protestors span all classes of society, from businessmen to housewives in Cairo and Tunis,, including moderates and human rights activists. It is a supreme irony of the times that the law school analytical processes of Obama have shunted out the very voices of the dispossessed and the oppressed that Obama claimed to hear in his first book, and of his sometimes poignant personal encounters in Africa. In doing so Obama has missed an historic opportunity to put America in a right standing with the people of the Arab world, and as Abrams points out made "engagement" ring hollow, as "engagement" not with the peoples of the Arab world and Africa, but engagement with dictators who have outlived their time and place. In a separate editorial the Wall Street Journal called into question the credibility of the US foreign policy establishment that was caught by surprise with the protests in Tunis and Cairo....