LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points out that president Trump's much hyped infrastructure plan is not the $1.5 trillion federal spending plan as reported, but more in the range of $200 billion over a decade. This means fixing the crumbling infrastructure in transport, energy and water systems remains uncertain under the Trump administration, and will leave this problem to a future administration to tackle. Jakab cites the basket of 10 infrastructure stocks that lag behind the broader market in Feb. 2018. Further evidence cited is the ratio of four to one of nonfederal money to federal money under the Trump infrastructure plan, and that much of the nonfederal  money has to come from state and local governments than private entities.  Additional problem is that with the tax cut leading to a growing federal budget deficit, rising bond yields would make borrowing more costly for state and local governments.  About $100 billion will be needed for the Highway Trust Fund over the next decade to keep it solvent. Jakab of the WSJ sees overall spending stagnant, with the $100 billion Trump Incentives program for infrastructure offset by cuts elsewhere. Bottom line the revenue side is absent making this more hype than substance for much needed infrastructure spending, that is once again being postponed in America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As in the US with Harris investment in America vs Trump cuts there is a distinct difference between the Tory spending plans that allowed capital spending investment in the economic future of Britain to decline from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP over 5 years to 2030. Rachel Reeves, Britain's finance minister, says the government will adopt a new rule that changes the way it measures debt- public sector net liabilities as a percentage of GDP is the new fiscal rule. What it does is free up 50 billion pounds Britain badly needs to invest in things like climate change action, education, and other needs of the economy that will brighten Britain's prospects in the future.  “If we continued on that path, we would be embracing a path of decline. The real debate now in British politics is whether you are on the side of investment or on the side of decline. I don’t want to see public sector net investment as a share of our economy decline in a way that is currently set out. Under our current fiscal rules, we would not be able to reverse that path.” The stability rule goes with this that says strictly this money will not be used for tax giveaways, and not for public sector pay deals or the day to day functioning of government. In addition th government will borrow 25 billion pounds to  keep 30 billion pounds of headroom so that debt will keep falling over the first term of this Labour government.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
To get a right grasp of the situation as a whole from the bigger picture than the headlines, is to know that even in the current chaotic immigration handling of both parties, the US comes out a winner in long term by 2034. That it gives for the younger generation a better future. Congress's Budget Office economic report shows GDP higher by 2% from the higher immigration of 5.2 million added to the US workforce by 2034. US productivity higher by 0.2% and residential investment including construction up by a whopping 10%. The younger profile of immigrants will help the US compete with India's younger population, and as China ages to have what it and Europe is aspiring to have- a younger population. The best way to look at the immigration issue is for the short term- manage it better by organized method of immigration without chaotic border crossings by allowing potential immigrants to apply from their home country, a step taken by the Biden administration. What it or any Republican administration could not control is the immigration that happens from countries the US is at war with or in conflict with. It is important to recognize that this is what happened with Venezuela the largest component of the immigration border crossings in 2023. It was made worse by actions of both parties Democrats and Republicans and made worse in 2017 by more severe sanctions on Venezuela under the Trump administration.  Also part of the problem is Venezuelan mismanagement- providing oil at pennies a gallon, hurting imports and spiralling inflation that only worsened under US sanctions after 2017. Long term- To reflect that US sanctions on top of mismanagement by Venezuela is a warning for all developing countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and for the US. It meant 7 million refugees a staggering quarter of Venezuela's population fleeing the country, that burdened neighbors Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile. By 2022-2023 many of these refugees were making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Yet within this tragic situation for Venezuelan people how could the US best respond is to close the border as president Biden has proposed with McConnell and the Lankford effort in the Senate, which was blocked by the House under Mike Johnson. This gives time to assess the situation, correct US laws on asylum and parole that allowed this chaotic way to proceed under actions of both parties.And not let this destabilize the US by understanding that while Venezuela has suffered for its role in the crisis the US will ultimately have come out a winner, as pointed out by the Congressional Budget Office projections. CBO projections of this immigration impact by 2034 of increasing the workforce population by 5.2 million will provide higher GDP, more tax revenues, and higher productivity than without this group of Venezuelan and other immigrants in this special situation of 2022-2023. For the Immigration projections discussion given by Phillip Swagel, Director of the Congressional Budget Office see page 51 of the Budget and Economic Outlook 2024 to 2034. For this search for term Congressional Budget Office or CBO which brings up the report on PDF and turn to page 51 or just click on Original Article on Lyrarc.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A open conversation with the NYT's Baker, Schmidt and Haberman by president Trump in mid July 2017. This conversation of the president with the NYT is remarkable for its frankness about people close to the president during the election campaign, particularly Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions was the only leading Senator in Congress who supported Mr. Trump from the beginning. Southern states came out heavily for Mr. Trump as part of the traditional Republican base. Trump says of Sessions that had he known Sessions was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation he would not have appointed Sessions as the new Attorney General. About Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein Trump says he should never have appointed Mueller as Special Counsel. The president also says Mueller should stay only with information related to Russia and not stray from that to delve into Trump's finances. During the election efforts were made to get Mr. Trump to disclose more about his finances as a real estate businessman- most of these efforts failed and not much is known about president Trump's finances. The president says he never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, yet he left open this possiblility, according to the NYT, as the president feels it has affected the first 6 months of the Trump presidency. This interview with president Trump was published on July 20, 2017, the day after an editorial in the WSJ by the Editorial Board of the Journal on July 19, 2017, calling for transparency from president Trump on the Russia investigation. This was an exceptional and powerful editorial by its editorial board telling president Trump that he must tell everything he knows now or face the risk of losing public confidence, and risk his presidency. It said that president Trump was wrong to think that his larger than life personality and social media role could insulate him from the effects of this lack of transparency. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Margo Oge, headed the Office of Transportation and AIr Quality at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1994-2012. Here she points out the contradiction in what automakers supported when the current fuel emission standards were set and today's effort by the Trump administration to loosen the standards. She also points to the contradiction between the trends in Europe, China, India, which are moving towards stricter standards and the U.S. reversing direction.  About one dozen states in addition to California have the power under the Clean Air Act to set their own standards. These states make up about one third of the U.S. market. What would result is a fracturing of the U.S. market. This would create problems for automakers as one expert recently pointed out in the NYT, that automakers should be careful what they wish for.  Automakers such as Ford say they support the current fuel emissions standards, yet call for flexibility. GM's CEO, Mary Barra, says she supports current standards. Toyota also says it supports the current emission standards. And diesel engines are now declining in Europe as a result of fuel emissions standards to preserve good air quality. History has shown the automakers have suffered badly from competition when emissions and fuel efficiency standards were lax. During the last decade the auto industry in Michigan faced decline as a result of poor management decisions and lack of foresight in pushing forward with new technologies in this field. The current recovery in the auto industry is a result of a reversal of the poor decisions made between 2000-2008, including fuel emissions and fuel efficiency, air quality decisions.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ looks at the unanimous vote in the House of Representatives delisting hundreds of Chinese companies trading on U.S. stock exchanges. The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act passed by unanimous voice vote in the House of Representatives after a similar vote in the Senate in May, and will be signed into law by president Trump. The law says foreign companies should be delisted if they fail to comply with U.S. Public Accounting Oversight Board regulatory agency's financial audits for 3 years in a row. The basis of the law is that all companies should be equally treated and required to meet U.S. regulatory standards to be listed. It also ensures safety for investors who may be defrauded of their money investing in companies that have not met such audit requirements. Wirecard in Germany and some Chinese companies have failed in the past because of lax overseas standards. This gives three years for the Chinese companies to prepare. This report also points out that the MSCI Index has 43% Chinese companies even more than before. American investors can still buy these stocks on the Hong Kong exchanges so that if fairness and investor protection should prevail American investors have to think and act along the same lines. China is also decoupling from the U.S. to some extent and pushing to have its companies listed on the Hong Kong Shanghai and  Shenzen stock exchanges. For these reasons the access to global capital is not likely to be affected by this law particularly with the behaviour of major American institutional investors. China is providing incentives to these investors even though it did not do so in the past creating another hurdle to the goal of creating a level playing field in regulatory requirements stock for all companies listed on American exchanges and safety for investors.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Byrd rule says Congress cannot pass changes to retirement rules in a reconciliation bill which do not require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Using this method to get Trump's mega bill for tax cuts passed means that of DJT's promises to eliminate taxes on tips and social security only the tips one will be made into law. Congress will still give retirees a break by adding $4000 to the standard deduction for those 65 years and over. 

Social Security benefits were never taxed before 1984. In that year Reagan began taxing Social Security benefits.

LyrArc Article Gist
This may be the most important work of the DJT administration by 2027 into 2028 elections.  WSJ calls it the soda wars, when it is the slow destruction of America. As JFK and RFK well knew when they made fitness a goal for America in 1960- health is not built on sodas. Today with such high obesity, sodas and its likes, it is about the slow destruction of America.  MALA make America Live Again starts here. “When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children, who perhaps need something more nutritious?” Right now it is the biggest item for schools in most states for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan. Passed by Congress in 1964 the original bill for SNAP excluded sodas and luxury drinks, but had Sodas added back in by the Senate. By lobbyists even in 1964? SNAP schools program falls under the Agriculture Department. Democrats as well as Republicans appointed Agriculture Secretaries and not one took the action to get sodas excluded, to let states request sodas be excluded and approve it, not the Democrat a Carter, a Clinton, or an Obama, or a Republican a Reagan, a Bush, or a Trump (first term) took the necessary action. In 2025 Brooke Rollins is Agriculture Department Secretary. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee has seen the damage sodas can cause in her family. Rollins on her first day in office has finally acted- after 61 years when the original intentions of the SNAP bill's creators were confounded in the Senate.  On her first full day in office, urging them to propose pilot programs testing changes to food aid. Rollins sent governors a letter to ask for the removal of sodas from schools food aid program.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A NYT report on Donald Trump's long standing relationship with his lawyer Roy Cohn,  who was also an advisor to Senator Joseph McCarthy. The report says Roy Cohn used aggressive legal tactics in lawsuits and influenced Trump's style of doing business in his real estate dealings. It is a detailed report of Roy Cohn's influence on Trump, which the reporters say has influenced the way  Trump ran his 2016 election campaign. It shows Cohn as protecting Trump in lawsuits, and Cohn's sense that Trump would someday play a big role in New York's real estate business, as Cohn's first meeting with Trump started when Trump was beginning his career in the early 70's. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip tells India's story, piped water for hundreds of millions of Indians, massive increases in road and rail, rapid development of infrastructure, aviation, ports logistics. WSJ graph shows country growth of economies for Japan, China, India, Germany in 2000 and 2020. By 2000 Japan had grown its economy to become about half the size of the US economy with two decades of rapid growth since 1980. China repeated this process with two decades of hyper growth since 2000 to become about 75% of the US economy by 2020. The graphs also show Japanese growth tailing off so rapidly after 2000 in relation to the US economy that it is now only about 25% of the US economy. China is likely to follow the same path as growth slows and with an aging population to become about 35-40% of the US economy by 2040 from 75%. India following the process that happened in Japan and in China is likely to become close to 35-40% of the US economy by 2040 from about 18% today, with the fastest growth over the next two decades for the most populous country in the world. Greg Ip points out what has been achieved since 2014 with the Modi government. Good governance without leakages of public funds dedicated to infrastructure, ease of living, GST one India one tax so that growing pool of funds from taxes fund rapid development with no leakages to corrupt officials,  Swacch Bharat or Clean India, clean water from taps, electricity and cooking gas for the whole population of India with dates for completion. All this Ip calls removal of the shackles that existed for far too long even past 2000 and 2010 when China had vastly surpassed India from its low point in 1980 after Mao and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. India today is in as much a pace of development as China in the 1990's and Japan in the 1960's, except that it now has the benefit of grasping how development can be done in a way that does not affect climate and health in adverse ways as happened with China's hyper growth -which also led to the tragic loss of manufacturing for workers and communities in the US and Europe due to the economic theories of laissez faire of the Reagan era. Reagan theory for governments not working with industry that were applied indiscriminately during the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump presidencies for three decades led to shipping manufacturing overseas with no regard for the risks and dangers. What Greg Ip fails to mention is the uniqueness of India that is united by Vedanta, Hinduism and Buddhism for thousands of years, and which keeps the fabric of society together when it is divided by 13 language groups. These 13 language groups are: Hindi 43% of the population, Bengali 8%, Marathi 7%, Telugu 7%, Tamil 6%, Gujarati 5%, Urdu 4%, Kannada 4%, Odia 3%, Malayalam 3%, Punjabi 3%, Assamese 1%, English 1%. It was the vision of the early leaders Vivekananda, Gokhale, Mohandas Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel, that united a diverse country with many languages and cultural variation. And it is this vision of Vivekananda that is creating the Good Governance under Sab ka Vikas, Sab ka Viswas, Sab ke Saath, Sab ka Prayas of today- development for all, with the confidence of all, with the support of all, the efforts of all. Without a disciplined direction based on hard work India could not make it this far or fulfill the aspirations of its youthful population by 2040. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the crude rhetoric at Donald Trump rallies, and use of coarse language, according to the NYT. Working class and older Americans show their anger at a system that appears to have left them behind with slogans, stickers, T-Shirts. The idea of the wall figures in much of this and shows that the wall has become not jut about Mexico but a metaphor that captures this anger, that reflects this anger. Another aspect of the 2016 campaign is that those most vulnerable and most in need of help have not sought the comfort of knowing about programs to improve middle class and working class wages, incomes, to build infrastructure, create jobs, stop companies from shifting jobs overseas, plans for improving accesss to health care and education, to ask for specifics and delivery. This is the supreme irony of the 2016 election campaign that not enough attention is going to what will be done for the middle and working class, and what specifics will be delivered, in what time frame- which is essential for restoring the condition of the American middle and working class to where it was in the 2 decades after the Second World War. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Oil prices in the U.S. drop to $55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and $65 a barrel for Brent crude price. Earlier expectation of the impact of reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil shrinking global oil supplies have been reversed with increased production from Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S.

Another new development that caused this reversal in sentiment is that the Trump administration granted waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude oil. The U.S. trade dispute with China has also added to this with lower growth forecasts. Unlike in previous years OPEC or Saudi Arabia cannot by itself shrink global supplies with production cuts. The U.S. and Russian output also plays a significant part.

LyrArc Article Gist
Amy Chozick of the NYT describes the puzzling idea of a Methodist do-gooder, with serious concern for injustices in the South, making an effort to accumulate money. Especially considering that Hillary Clinton must have known that speechmaking fees would come up in a presidential election campaign. Chozick describes in some detail the two years Hillary tried to shore up the family's finances after Bill Clinton's defeat in the 1980 election for Governor. Following the defeat Bill Clinton went back all over the state to voters to hear their complaints, sometimes for hours at a time. It was upto Hillary to shore up the family's finances. Hillary had to stretch to buy a $112,000 home in a better residential neighborhood. Family friends say Bill was never that interested in money, and never worried about the family's finances. Things were so bleak according to this account that Hillary worried about how they would pay for daughter Chelsea's college tution, as her own mother's experience has always remained with her of being denied a college education because of lack of money. During the Democratic Convention this comes up in the video introduction, something that most people are unaware of, which must have been difficult for an intensely private person like Hillary. Her mother is described in that video as having to go to the corner grocery store as a child with coupons for food. The income of the Clintons as professors in the years around 1975 was $18,000 each. As governor Mr. Clinton earned $33,519 in 1978 with combined income at $51,173 adding Hillary's work at the Rose law firm. A one time deal in the commodities market made 100,000, and an investment in land in the Ozarks led to losses- all at a time when other highly educated people in Arkansas were doing extremely well, including the Walton family. It wasn't until 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for president did the couple make higher income of $297,177 reported in 1992 tax returns. At this time entering the White House, of recent presidents only Harry Truman had lower net worth. Hillary donated her book proceeds for "It Takes a Village," to charity, and turned down an advance. By the time they left office the couple were faced with legal debts, owing $5 million in legal fees- Hillary Clinton saying they were "Dead broke." The former president now sought help to buy a Dutch Colonial in Chappaqua, New York, for $1.7 million. President Jimmy Carter was also facing large losses in his peanut business in Georgia when he left office, only to turn to writing books to salvage his finances. Hoover, FDR, Kennedy, George Bush, George W. Bush, were from families with great wealth or built their fortunes, including candidate Trump, sometimes using influence or connections or in the case of Kennedy's family gaining from the end of Prohibition. Eisenhower, Reagan, Carter were of more modest wealth. Only Harry Truman remains the awesome exception of dignity with extremely modest wealth, a small house in Independence, Missouri, no presidential pension, only an army pension of $112.56 a month in 1953. Truman's story also offers another aspect of public service of an exceptional kind and its value to the country for people to reflect on. A presidential pension of $25,000 was set up one year after Truman left office.  Experts say Truman's Senate Committee over 8 years 1941-1948, helped save billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and in faulty airplane as well as munitions development during the war effort, including saving thousands of lives.  In his farewell address in January 1953, Truman said he had spent 17 hours a day for eight years with no payment for overtime. In the address he correctly predicts that the Cold War would be won and he set the course. It also happened as predicted in that address with changes in the Kremlin and failure in the satellite states. Hillary Clinton put in these 17 hours and gained unmatched experience as Secretary of State, and is in a positon to set the course ahead in a manner that Truman once did in a complex world where careful policy, good judgement and in some situations strong action is needed. Such invaluable public service has never really been rewarded in the way business leaders are, not by a small fraction - too long simply taken for granted.  Considering her life story Hillary Clinton appears to have struggled with this all her life, to create a safety net that too often cracked, sometimes suddenly and unexpectedly. Has this concern sometimes gone too far, could better judgement be exercized. Perhaps or probably. Should it be seen in the context that Truman's situation reminds us. Probably.         ...