World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


Obama's Corporate Makeover

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the views expressed in the blogs following the appointment of Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness shows considerable skepticism. Questions were raised about the deal signed by GE with China that involves sharing jet technology with China, shutting US plants to move work to China, the need for $16 billion in bailout funds for its finance unit, in one blog. Another blog points to the negligible amount paid by GE in corporate income taxes, paying no taxes in 2009 and paying 3.6% in 2010. And another blog pointed to the lack of a position by Immelt on the trade distortions created by America's trading partners, such as China's currency and other policies. One blog refers to the Obama election campaign's need to raise something near the record $700 million raised for the 2008 campaign, and the need to get business lined up for that effort.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. trade agreement with Mexico is for 16 years, to provide business with a stable rules environment to operate in. It includes a clause for review after 6 years. The content made in the U.S. is increased to 70% from 62.5%. This has to be made by workers earning at least $16  an hour. Aluminium and steel going into the cars has to come from the U.S. helping push U.S. steel plant capacity utilization to 80%. Labor collective bargaining is strengthened in Mexico through new provisions, a provision supported by new Mexican socialist president Obrador. Free trade in agricultural products is maintained. $4.7 billion was added in help to U.S. farmers as aid for the effects of China's tariff retaliation. New rules are set for textiles, chemicals, and steel intensive products that set requirements to qualify for tariff free import into the U.S. This is intended to help bring more jobs and investment in these industries in the U.S.     ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Matt O'Brien points out that the Chinese currency may be overvalued as other currencies including the euro and the Japanese yen weakened. Since 2005 China let the yuan appreciate very gradually. As China's economic growth slowed in 2014 investor outflows have increased with an estimated $800 billion leaving the country. China has spent some of its reserves to keep it stable. Before the move the yuan was managed by letting it trade up or down 2% each day around a midpoint set by the government. The new setup keeps this but lets the market set the midpoint based on where it closed the prior day. This move was recommended by the IMF to help in the transition of the yuan to becoming a reserve currency. O'Brien points out that the soft peg to the U.S. dollar means the yuan appreciated 9.2% against the euro and 57.8% against the Japanese yen in the years 2013-2015, and this is happening as the U.S. Federal Reserve is planning to raise interest rates- the real trade weighted exchange rate being up 14% for the yuan in the last 12 months. The 8.3% decline in the exports for July 2015 over the prior year led the government to this action. The increase in investor outflows as a result will lead to further declines, with some estimates of the eventual decline in the yuan at about 10%....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear trade deal with India and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If passed by Congresas in September the deal goes into effect. At the NSG, New Zealand, Austria and China were the holdouts and had to be persuaded by the United States. Under the deal India cannot conduct nuclear weapons tests and if it does its upto the USA to decide if it will continue to supply India with nuclear materials and technologies. India is running short of uranium and other nuclear materials it needs for its civilian andnuclear weapons programs since it was refused access by the NSG after earlier tests decades before. It also depends on how the US sees China and Pakistan in relation to India and its nuclear programs. One thing is certain India will push forward aggressively with new nuclear energy programs and setup its own nuclear energy reactors to provide its growing energy needs and to reduce existing shortages and also lower its oil bill. So in the next couple of years or the next decade the world will certainly see the peaceful development of nuclear energy and development of new technologies in the nuclear energy field as India becomes a key user and developer of nuclear energy technologies. At that point India may become a part of the fabric of peaceful nuclear energy development in the world as it meets asignificant part of its energy needs through nuclear reactors. It will be a welcome development as it will ease the burden on oil supplies that in the case of China became a key part of the upward pressure on oil prices as China relied mostly on oil and gas for energy needs. This is probably the thinking in the current Republican administration as it pushed hard for this nuclear deal to supply India....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's regulatory structure for the nuclear power industry is weak because of the dual role played by the regulator- Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. It regulates the nuclear power industry, and also promotes Japanese nuclear technology in Japan and overseas. The tasks are separated in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission supervises nuclear plants in the U.S. It is independent of the Department of Energy which does research and promotes nuclear power. An earlier effort to correct this dual role arrangement in Japan failed, when an independent Nuclear Safety Commission was created under the cabinet. This body was never given the authority to inspect companies and mandate changes. A body that supports the commission has 4000 scientists and staff. It does research in nuclear technologies, but it has ended up becoming nothing more than a think tank, in the words of a former commission deputy chairman. What makes this situation worse, is the practice of amakudari, or "descent from heaven," a practice in Japan where senior Ministry officials retire young and take up positions in the private sector at companies like Tokyo Electric Power Company. In recent years most of the retired officials have taken positions in the energy sector. In fact Japan's Bar association investigated problems after a 2007 earthquake that shutdown a TEPCO nuclear plant. It recommended an independent regulator. The Democratic Party of Japan supported this idea before taking power in 2009. ...
FRANCE 24 Original article ›
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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the US, and China a significant $439 billion in additional exports to US, which makes it incredible that for so long it did not take effective action to stop fentanyl flows, and Mexico allowed migrant trafficking across it's borders through 2016-2024. Even in the face of this becoming an explosive issue in the US with DJT elected in 2016 and the Border Wall being built. A silent but still existing in plain sight idea that the US would tolerate such flows became part of the culture in media outlets in the US and Europe and China and other parts of the world, even when there was a storm of discontent building about manufacturing shipped overseas hurting communities in the US since 2010, with added burden of safety endangered in these neighborhoods from fentanyl, drugs and illegal migrants. What worsened this situation and pain in the US was the idea that somehow it was the US's fault, an incomprehensible disdain for the US, US that enabled the modernization of China, Mexico, and Canada's economies. China sends $439 billion in exports more than the US does to China (US exports $143 billion China $582 billion in 2024). It is only surface presentation of indignation of face saving that these trading partners are showing when the real facts point to an extraordinary and incomprehensible disdain for the US as a nation in decline. There is a feeling in parts of Europe of American disdain for  Europe, without mention of the disdain for the US in Europe, China, Mexico and Canada and other parts of the world. Particularly disdain for neglected communities in the US that have suffered for far too long under previous administrations of Clinton-Bush-Obama with shipping of manufacturing and jobs overseas and inaction on drugs and illegal migrant flows. The EU Canada retaliatory approach has not worked. When DJT proposed doubling the tariffs imposed by US in the face of Canada EU retaliatory steps, the EU and Canada pulled back. Part of the reason is that in the case of Canada it is an economy one tenth the size of the US. The other is that there are real concerns on the US side that Canada EU are not playing fairly in trade. And Canada, Mexico, China, have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the US.  ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Entergy is one of the largest energy companies. Its CEO for nine years, Wayne Leonard, talks to Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal. Its the No.2 generator of nuclear power in the USA, and uses coal for only 7% of its energy. He has made his name in nuclear energy, and here he talks about the government's cap and trade program and nuclear energy. He points to today's technology as far superior to the technology that was used in the Failed Three Mile plant, that put back nuclear energy plants in the USA for decades. He believes that price signals are needed for CO2, and the cap and trade program helps to do this, so he supports the cap and trade program. He admits that self interest colors perception of Entergy, compared to coal using utility producers like Duke Energy and American Electric Power. With coal only 7% in its portfolio of plants, and big in nuclear energy, it stands to gains from a cap and trade program, whereby Congress will set a ceiling on emissions, then allows businesses to sell any of its extra allowances that stand for the right to make emissions. And in doing so creating the largest commodity market, in carbon backed securiites. He and the government agree on the point that the allowances should be auctioned off, rather than given away as the companies with many coal plants believe. And the billions in new revenue from these allowances would be returned to the public. He understands that the view of companies like Duke and AEP, that use coal and would have to increase rates, and face the anger of ratepayers as they pay more for the allowances. He also thinks the bill should be written with a fine pen, so that if Congress mandates 20% of energy come from renewables. That it should specify replacing coal not natural gas as what this replaces, to get rid of the most polluting sources. He points to the real need for looking at things globally, as doing things locally, even to show responsible leadership in the world community, can lead to no progress in the global picture. The reason is that China is going ahead with the rapid construction of conventional coal plants. It has surpassed USA coal capacity, and is on track to double it sometime in the next decade. If the USA closed down every single coal plant, and all the time new coal plants are going up in China and India, then we would have ruined our economy, and it was'nt making much difference globally. And he says, if we just say lets lead and people will follow us, "its silly", because China isn't going to follow us, especially when they have $2 trillion invested in their coal plants, and they still aren't feeding feeding all their people. So how to deal with this? Develop the new technology for carbon capture for existing conventional coal plants, and help the Chinese with retrofit technology to curb emissions in a realistic manner. At this time most current funding is devoted to technology for second generation systems, that are still 10-20 years away....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Automakers will have to ensure that 40 to 45% of a car's content is made by workers in the U.S. earning at least $16 per hour. If this is not met automakers pay a 2.5% tariff for cars brought in from Mexico. Mexico makes 2.3 million cars and Canada 1.8 million. Automakers invested tens of billions of dollars in Mexico turning it into a lower cost export hub. This has led to job loss in the U.S. Mr. Trump's efforts in the new trade deal with Mexico are designed to increase investment in the U.S. auto industry.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fisher and Taub of the NYT look at the populist politics in Europe and the U.S. following the French election first round. Trump won in the U.S. with the deep polarization of politics in the U.S.- leading to the Republican Party to decide to support him to avoid the result of four more years of an administration led by Democrats, and with the support of discontented voters in midwestern states with falling living standards. The situation in Europe is different as the mainstream parties have united in the past to block populist politicians with negative messages on immigration and an open economy. This happened in the Dutch election, by the co-opting of the nationalist message of populist politicians by mainstream parties and mainstream politicians, and is likely to continue in the French and German elections in 2017. Fisher and Taub point to another development that is happening- shifting the debate to ethnonationalism vs. open economies, which has happened with Brexit and the UK Independence Party. They cite the 2015 British elections in which UKIP won 13 percent of the vote, as having influenced prime minister Cameron to call for a referendum on Brexit, in a effort to revive the fortunes of the Conservative Party. In the end this resulted in the 52 percent vote supporting Brexit.  Another way of looking at the populist movement is that with Trump it called attention to trade and the way working class Americans were being marginalized especially in the industrial midwest. With this problem being addressed in a Trump administration and a reviving economy, the mainstream parties have an opportunity to reassert themselves. In Europe the AfD called attention to immigration issues, and the Merkel coalition government of CDU and SPD by making changes such as the deal with Turkey, and returning economic refugees, is able to assert the role of mainstream parties. In Britain the situation could be a result of a brash decision by a Conservative prime minister Cameron, in making a bad miscalculation, that has put Britain on a course that is likely not in its best interest. The Brexit referendum yes vote galvanized opinion by showing an endless stream of refugees in their advertising- a development following the opening of borders by Germany and Austria to address the plight of Syrian war refugees. That situation has passed and is unlikely to happen again as both the SPD and CDU parties in Germany have pointed out that this was a one time situation that they responded to following the exodus from Keleti rail station in Hungary under special circumstances. With this kind of perspective populist politics can be seen as reflecting other voices in a democracy, that are heard and responded to, yet keeping the sense of balance and openness necessary in today's global economy and societies. This is also the perception of Germany's outgoing popular president Gauck in his final address, pointing to the need to listen to other voices in a democracy, and the need for openness in a democracy, as well as democracies always in the process of Becoming and evolving to adapt to new situations in economy, society, and politics.     ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The G-20 summit in April had as its achievement the $1 trillion that would go to aid for emerging countries and other countries in need. But this number may not be what it appears to be and should be seen with care. Prof. Eswar Prasad, former division chief for China at the IMF, and now Professor at Cornell University, says there is double counting in the numbers, and a lot of the money has not yet been committed. With trade financing only a quarter of the $250 billion is fresh cash, the rest is trade financing that is rolled over every 6 months. For the Special Drawing Rights issuance of $250 billion, a kind of virutal currency that is set by a basket of real currencies like the dollar and the euro, the IMF will issue SDR's to all 185 of its members. This is not cash but a form of credit, against which a country can borrow. The Obama administration that came up with this idea thinks it will create $15 to $20 billion in additional credit for the poorest countries. For this to happen the US has to lend out its special drawing rights to poor countries, and this requires congressional approval. Of the $500 billion in direct commitments, Dr Prasad says less than half has been commited by Japan, the EU, Canada and Norway. China says it will put in $40 billion probably by buying bonds issued by the IMF. The US contribution of $100 billion has to be authorized by Congress. Even with the US contribution Prasad sees a shortfall of $145 billion of the $500 billion in donations. And the Saudis, the Indians will require a bigger say in the IMF to contribute some of this. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Car sales in Germany are up 40% from ayear ago. This is not about to happen in the USA. The cash for clunkers program in Germany is broad and less complicated.In Germany eligible cars have to 9 years old and the subsidy covered the purchase of any new car, regardless of size and fuel efficiency. In the US the program just signed by President Obama covers a narrow profile of customers. In the US customers who benefitare economically challenged and in the midst of adeep recession. Cars can't be over 25 years old, and can't have a combined highway and city fuel economy rating of more than 18 miles per gallon as calculated by EPA. To get the full $4500 credit customers must buy either a new truck or sport utility rated 5mpg higher than the clunker or scrapped vehicle, or a passenger car rated at least 10 mpg higher.And the credit is given instead of the trade in value, so if the trade in value is higher it doesn't help. The German government is giving away upto $4500 but it started out with 1.5 billion euros to get 600,000 clunkers off the road, but because of the popularity of the program has expanded it to 5 billion euros for 2 million cars and extended it to end of 2009. The US program only has $1 billion for 250,000 cars or one eight of what the Germans are doing for amuch larger car market. Because of the dire shape Detroit and much of the midwest is in, because of the slump in the auto industry, this may be a mistake and a missed opportunity to do what the Europeans are doing, and get an even bigger impact. The American car market and industry is taking a severe blow from the deep recession. Because of the depressed region the impact of a real clunkers for cash program that targets a broader profile, with bigger financing and designed to give a boost to the market, could make a real difference. At this point it is more of a program designed to help people turn in their gas guzzling trucks for passenger cars, and those driving a $200 car are not likely to be the kind of customer who goes out and buys a new car say dealers. See the link to Alan Blinder's stimulus proposal in July 29, 2008, that suggested a $20 billion program even before the current crisis. The present program has only $1 billion....
US Supreme Court website Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An excerpt from the hearings on the major questions doctrine and separation of powers with Congress. JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sometime ago you dismissed the applicability of the major questions doctrine, and I -- I want -- want you to explain that a little bit more. I mean, it seems that it might be directly applicable. You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this -- this particular case. Congress uses tariffs in other provisions but -- but not here. And yet -- and correct me on this if I'm not right about it -- the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for -- in any amount for any length of time. That seems like -- I'm not suggesting it's not there, but it does seem like that's major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit. So why doesn't it apply again? GENERAL SAUER: Well, we agree that it's a major power, but it's in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers, that the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions, which are emergencies. So it would be unusual... And another excerpt from the hearings on fentanyl- JUSTICE KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we've had cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world. GENERAL SAUER: Well, this particular emergency is particularly existential, as Executive Order 14257 says, and, of course, no one disputes the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, which, you know, we had an agreement last week to create progress on, which illustrates the effectiveness of the tariffs tool (this refers to the agrement with China last week by Nov 1 that cuts the 20% tariff from 20% to 10% if China completely cuts off flow of fentanyl from inside its borders.)  Clearly some in the US have not grasped the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, a crisis of proportions so great that it would be an existential crisis for any nation. A concentration of the world's manufacturing in one nation with a trade surplus of $1 trillion with the world is also an emergency that extends into the existential sphere. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein points to the need for the structural changes in the U.S., Europe and China to address the serious imbalances that are at the root of the problem. This process will be painful and mean a short term drag on the economy even if the right actions are taken. The process of unwinding the imbalances will take time. Lower growth in China will be good for the bubble in real estate markets and the reduction in the trade surplus, even though this will reduce imports of European and U.S. machinery. Higher savings in the U.S. and reduction of consumer debt will slow retail sales but this is healthy for longer term growth. The same is true for savings in deficit reduction that will result in more layoffs at the local level. The government needs to have similiar action take place at the banks to end their "extend and pretend" practices and finally write off bad loans in residential and commercial real estate. There is no easy way out, no solutions that can be made without a sharing of the pain. Policy makers around the world have tried to look for painless solutions for years and this may be the end of the road. There is some action that the governments and central banks can take. Pearlstein suggests that the European Central Bank buy up some of the sovereign bonds being dumped on the market even if it means printing money. The Fed, the Bank of Japan and the central bank of China can also swap some of the Treasuries they own for European sovereign bonds. This would give time for the EU leaders to give the European Financial Stability Facility the resources and powers to replace the sovereign bonds with more reliable European bonds. The Fed can take this opportunity to sell some of its huge pile of Treasury bills into the market so that it has more room for action in future years. The U.S. government can move up the spending for infrastructure in years 8, 9, and 10 to the next 2-3 years to give some support to the economy as these changes take place. The spending decisions should be left to an independent Infrastructure Bank. See the related article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post, August 5, 2011, which provides a companion policy prescription for U.S. deficit reduction based on the work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission and by preserving efficiency and fairness....
Le Monde.fr Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Harold Thibault of Le Monde France says, the rise of China in the past 50 years means the US is wondering whether engaging China turned out be something different than what Clinton anticipated when letting China join WTO without strict rules for a level playing field, and the Bush- Obama years when nothing was done to protect American manufacturing in small towns across America from the ravages of so called "free trade" that was not free, and the effort of American business to integrate its operations with China as single supplier without any guidance from government, behaviour that started with "American triumphalism" of the 1970's and 1990's, that left America with a destroyed industrial base. The Reagan wars that went on with Bush in the Middle East and South Asia and were continued through the Obama years allowed not just the waste of American resources and energy, it also provided a distraction from vital issues of the industrial base in manufacturing and technologies. Only DJT and Biden had the courage to end these wars and focus on the real issues facing the Nation and provide a continuity across three administrations from 2016-2029 to restore America to its past. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSj points out that Britain is in a weaker position to tackle Brexit than it was when Boris Johnson called for supporting the Yes vote to Leave the EU three years ago in the referendum. Business investment is lower than France, Germany and even Italy. And today protectionism, nationalism, hostility to globalization mean that its not so easy to increase exports by signing free trade agreements with other nations. Even a treaty with a friendly Trump administration  is not certain as Mr. Trump favors looking at how he can get the best deal and reverse any advantages of other trading nations, Britain being no exception. A trade agreement with the U.S. could mean the U.S. barring Britain from signing one with China as a condition of Mr. Trump. Greg Ip also points out that it was precisely joining the EU that helped Britain catch up with German and French standards of living after a period of low growth, inflation, and balance of payments crises in the 1970's. Joining the European Economic Community was as prime minister Heath stated would " enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world."   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
COFCO is the abbreviation for China National Cereals, Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation, which was the state company importing grain and other staple foods into China during the period before China opened up its economy. It is now a dominant company in China's grain and other staple products from edible oil, dairy products to bacon and beer. Under CEO Ning Gaoning, Cofco has transformed itself since 2004 from primarily being a grain importer to value added products, food processing, and technologies in the food business. Cofco is expanding rapidly overseas with deals and acqusitions, and has about $10 billion in state funds for acquisitions. Recent acquisitions include $2.7 billion for Dutch grain trader Nidera BV, and 51% ownership of Noble agricultural unit. Earlier acquisitions include vineyards in Chile and France in 2010, and Australia's Tully Sugar in 2011. Current plans are for acquisitions in the U.S. and Latin America. Revenues in 2014 were an estimated $63.3 billion. Interviews with cane farmers that are part of Tully Sugar in Australia show Cofco has managed the company well and won the support of farmers....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The influence of business executives who helped shape president Trump's views on Mexico, China, Export Import Bank, and other issues is covered by Stokols and Bender of WSJ. On Mexico the departure of Mike Flynn helped moderate views, Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary also provided a moderating influence. The plans are now to change NAFTA but not entirely redo the agreement. On the Export Import Bank the views of Boeing CEO Muilenburg, who explained to Trump why the Bank supported U.S. exports and how other countries had similar banks, led to the president filling the bank vacancies. On China the influence of NEC head, Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, and other business executives, led to a less confrontational position. The president once called NATO obsolete during the campaign but he met this week with NATO secretary general Stoltenberg this week and expressed strong support for NATO after rising tensions with Russia.

ZEIT ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...
Washington Post Original article ›

The way ahead

The Economist Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With the theme of championing the interests of the people left out in the last 2 decades under both Bush and Obama, left out my technolgical changes and world trade trends, left out by the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath of deep unemployment for older people especially white men, struggling economically, Hillary Clinton tells the Democratic convention, "I will carry all your voices and stories with me to the White House." She tells millions of Bernie supporters  that she has heard them loud and clear-  "your cause, is our cause." In this way Hillary Clinton sought to dispel any doubts about her in people's minds for not being forthright on questions related to a private email server and from earlier periods, and from overzealous fundraising. Telling people that on the things that really count and matter in people's lives, just as Bill Clinton did in his campaign at a similiar juncture- she will be there for them always, and always working to put their hearts up and centre, with her Methodist upbringing and her unmatched ability to work relentlessly in pursuit of worthy public goals. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist looks at China's relationship with Russia. It says the Ukraine conflict and western sanctions have resulted in Russia moving closer to China. Yet the two countries have competing interests in central Asia, and different relations with India and Vietnam, in the Asian region. Russia is also wary of China copying designs of Sukhoi aircraft in sales to China of advanced military technology. The major oil and gas deal signed in 2014 provides Russia with a new outlet for oil and gas with the cooling of the relationship with Europe. Yet Russia has strong ties built with Germany over the entire post war period, and differences have emerged in U.S.- German relations. Germany's relationship with Russia- cooled by sanctions and German wariness over Russian intervention in Ukraine and Russian wariness over NATO close to its borders- spans 7 decades and is likely to remain strong in the long term. This comes from the shared sense of awareness of the terrible conflicts of an earlier period, just as it has for French-German relations, and from the strong efforts made by Germany to preserve the relationship and peace in Europe. Chinese president Xi's visit to Moscow on May 9, for celebrations of victory over Nazi Germany, will be followed by a visit May 10 by Chancellor Merkel of Germany. A factor in German-Russian relations is the close trade links, cultural exchanges, and history going back to the GDR where Chancellor Merkel is from, built up over many years, that are likely to set the long term future of relations. China's dominant partner relationship in the China- Russia relations does not bode well for the future of relations, compared to the equal partner relations with its European neighbor, Germany. In this different light Ukraine is a temporary pause, in German-Russian relations and peace in Europe, a situation which is in China's long term interest as it focusses on its economy and the next phase of development for a modernized economy. Especially as China continues to build on its own vital trade relations with Germany and the European Union, the latest example being Germany, other EU nations, and India, joining the China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. ...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us