LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Shear of the NYT describes Biden's thinking about China and his candour during fund raising events for his campaign. Biden says he seeks "competition, not conflict with China." He tells an audience in Utah, "I don't want to hurt China, but I'm watching." Biden signed an executive order last week banning American investment in certain technology industries in China that could enhance its military capabilities. In relations with China Biden is moving forward with easing tensions by having Blinken, Kerry, Raimondo and other officials visit Beijing to ensure open communications and discussion. Biden seems to be following two tracks one of being open about China and the evolution of the relationship in erratic ways over different administrations where it was counterproductive for both nations- creating more potential for conflict than less when technology flowed freely from the US to China in business to business dealings- that did not reflect how the US sees both its responsibilities and its leadership in world affairs over the twenty first century. China has reverted to its political position in the postwar years as it adjusts to the new US perceptions of what happened to US jobs, manufacturing and trade over two decades since the opening to China at the WTO. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's manufacturing sector contracts in June with the PMI index dropping below 50 - to 49.0.  Exports were also coming in lower. Experts say the increase in interest rates by the US is reducing imports of Chinese goods into the US. This comes as local governments are strained in their finances by $900 billion, and a budding revolt is taking place from property buyers with developers in financial trouble, as reported in the WSJ. Psychological hurdles now loom in the loss of confidence in the public in the property sector, loss of confidence of foreign investors with many constraints in operating, mental health issues for the population in many cities with the covid lockdowns.   The growth has slowed to 0.4% and there is now a realization dawning that there was overdependence both on property sector and foreign investment that set up new factories offshored from the US and Europe that alienated the public in these countries. Unlike wih the situation of Japan in the sixties and seventies for modernizing its economy growth of the scale China was pushed into by misguided and self interested  business interests in the US including its investment banks and local government officials in China without restraint by the central government in Beijing, ultimately led to trade friction and permanent damage to US China friendly relations. Communities in the US and the EU simply could not cope with the hyper growth from hyper shift of factories from the home countries to China that pushed this hyper growth. The property sector played the same role in the domestic front with too big a burden carried by it resulting in hyper growth. This did not have to happen. It happened because of a lack of understanding that this would have consequences in the longer run which is now showing up. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia has 600 billion dollars in reserves and with oil prices above $100, with the Ukraine conflict lifting oil prices for Russian oil exports, there is little that the US and Europe have done to prepare for this situation. The Merkel years were essentially wasted in building a trade based relationship on cheap Russian gas supplies, and the wasted resources under Bush and Obama in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only distracted the US from the major issues relating to China and Europe that it now faces. 

The need is for a new overall structure to be built- for social structure supporting all aspects of infrastructure, and stronger supply chains with local manufacturing. And international structures that include India and other nations of Asia and Latin America, Africa, that would be a framework for the future- a broader framework for peaceful relations.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
With Britain preoccupied with Brexit, and the U.S. in a trade dispute with China, Chancellor Merkel remains the only western leader to visit and hold extensive talks with Chinese leaders Li Keqiang and Xi Jinping. She also visits other Chinese cities such as Wuhan and gives a speech at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, in which she commented on the social credit system being implemented in China about the social creditworthiness of individuals and businesses.  Merkel sitting next to premier Li Keqiang in Beijing advocated "that conflicts be resolved without violence and that anything else would be a catastrophe." She called for a peaceful resolution of the situation in Hong Kong and for Hong Kong's rights to be "guaranteed." This is significant because the close cooperation between Germany and China is critical for China today to tackle the economic problems created by the trade disputes with the U.S.  Merkel has a close relationship with Chinese leaders and has visited China many times, giving her the confidence to talk to Chinese leaders without arousing any sensitivities about internal affairs of China. She is the only leader who can speak her mind to Chinese leaders, without offending them. When she used the word "catastrophe" she chose it carefully. It took decades for China to build the trust and relationships with Europe and the U.S. that it has.  Trading relationships matter for both China and western nations and are built on trust and good relations. With the Shenzen region growing faster than Hong Kong, and thinking like Beijing, China could tackle the situation in Hong Kong over a long period. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though U.S. president Trump has singled out countries such as Mexico, South Korea and China for trade practices, the U.S. today faces stronger competition in trade from Germany. The trade surplus with Germany for 2016 was $297 billion for Germany compared to $245 billion for China, according to Ifo economic institute. China's trade surplus according to the World Bank was down from 10% of gross domestic product or GDP in 2007 to 3% in 2016, while Germany's has gone up to 8.5%. The Chinese currency is seen as not being undervalued by some experts, while the euro has lost a quarter of its value in the last 3 years, giving Geman exporters an edge. The U.S. also competes with Germany in nine of the 10 export categories such as machinery and electronic equipment, according to the Peterson Institute. Then why is the focus under U.S. president Trump not including Germany? One reason is that China's products have put a downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages, and the the speed with the Chinese manufacturing has grown in certain industries. Germany has very few of the manufacturing subsidies that China provides to its industries. And the depreciation in the euro is not favored by the German government as it opposes the policies of the European Central Bank. Germany also has a higher propensity to save about 10% of GDP compared to about 3% for the U.S., according to OECD. As a result Germany is accumulating foreign assets at a faster rate than any other nation, while the U.S. is borrowing capital from overseas. Ways to change this are minimum wage regulations introduced by the government, but larger measures such as increasing government investment in the economy are not supported as the country prepares for the future with an aging population.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ committed to orthodox economic theory thinks of tariffs as tariffs such as Smoot Hawley from the 30's. This is why it is not true- It is about fentanyl flows that have led to 490,000 deaths over 12 years in the US and few in the US like to talk about it. Smoot Hawley had nothing to do with fentanyl, drugs trafficking and migrant trafficking that every nation not only has a right but a No.1 responsibility to its citizens to keep its neighborhoods and its children in neighborhoods safe. Smoot and Hawley were US Senators and US Congress was isolationist in mood. Their grasp of the world trading system was meager and they stepped in at a time when the world had economically not recovered from World War I, and the French against US General Pershing's advice had set the most punitive arrangement in Germany that crushed Germany after an armistice Pershing opposed that left the Kaiser's political structures intact. Tariffs is not DJT's idea. It is the solid experience of Deputy US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer under Reagan who conducted negotiations with the Japanese who stalled and stalled Lighthizer says, let negotiations drag on into endless nights, and Lighthizer and his team stood firm. The relentless Japanese relented and Lighthizer secured the agreements that ended this phase of trade relations in the 1980's. Lighthizer was Trade Representative in the DJT first term 2016-2020 and launched the negotiations with China. This is now 8 years since 2016 and 2016 itself was 35 years after Lighthizer negotiated with the Japanese. Today's US Trade Representative is Jamieson who was Deputy Trade Representative under Lighthizer in 2016. Each detail is carefully thought through to bring it to a fair conclusion in the interests of the world and the US. Information traveled slowly GM could not tell at any time how many cars were in inventory on its lots in 1920's. US lacked basic infrastructure for government that FDR and Labor Secretary added firt in New York in the 1930's and which was transferred to 50 states by 1940's. Today information is quickly at fingertips and consultation processes are built in between industry and government at all levels. A lot of information is carefully evaluated. USTR as DJT showed, the major study of USTR Office in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, has all trade barriers carefully analyzed in minute details for every country. And is working on this for 40 years. There isn't even a slightest  comparison between this and the Smoot Hawley crowd in the 1920's.  The goal not to beat anybody. Just to set the goal of a level playing field for world trade. That is the foundation of trade that is fair and respected, and is a win-win for all. WTO's basic foundation No. 1 principle is a level playing field. It is just that this was a kind of Marshall Plan for Asia of the US to let poor countries such as Japan war wrecked in 1950, and China colonial power wrecked by first Britain then Japan struggling and poor in 1990's, giving them some time to rebuild by ignoring unfair barriers to trade for 10-15 years 2005 for China. Barriers that never got dismantled and technology that leaked from the US 2005-2016 under the Obama administration. Smoot Hawley was not about the US Navy building its own ships and US shipyards in the 1920's. In 2025 US shipbuilding industry is stolen, this is why the words used "pillaged" "looted" were used in the Rose Garden. Little by little American private enterprise capitalism was superseded by a new form of capitalism in Japan then in China that combined state capitalism with private enterprise capitalism. This then was the threat America faced, and needed to redouble its energies and seek fair play.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Carrie Lam's withdrawal announcement for the extradition bill that sparked the protests comes after 3 months of protests in which Lam could have started conversations and dialogue with protesters. This is now not likely to end the protests as a number of issues have emerged including social, political and economic issues and police action. For China it also raises questions of relations with major trading nations such as the U.S. With the stalled talks on trade and tariffs, and a slowing economy, the last thing China needs is for this to overshadow the bigger issues of economic growth and continued development of its economic potential. Lam's withdrawal decision is received with much skepticism in Hong Kong as this report in the Guardian shows. Coming earlier it could have some meaning, there is now a wider gap in the perceptions of both sides. Beijing sees itself a s wary of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, as Mr. Xi points out, and the protestors in Hong Kong not sure of Beijing's intentions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Hindusthan Times compares the relatively few comments from India's Ministry of External Affairs on the Dokalam standoff between India and China, and the frequent and patriotic comments from the state media in China. India took a firm position on the sensitive border area road construction by China, because the Doklam plateau is the narrow area in the mountains that allows entry to India's northern plains. India and China announced disengagement following the incident. This report points out that the resolution happened on the eve of a BRICS meeting in China. Indian prime minister Modi's absence from the BRIC's meeting would have been an embarrassment for China, says the Hindusthan Times. The resolution would have happened after both sides realized that the border issue escalation was not in the interest of China and India as both sides face more important issues- India in the focus on modernization and China on sustaining growth and maintaining trade relations with the U.S. Trump administration at a time when the debt to GDP ratios exceed by some estimates 280% and trade has become a sensitive issue in America's midwestern states. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A new foreign investment law passed by the Chinese People's Congress is designed to address concerns of western companies facing problems operating in China. This includes unequal market access, forced technology transfers, unfair treatment in public procurement. It was passed in only 3 months after the first draft was debated showing the importance Beijing places on the bill. Its a step designed to help in the trade talks with the U.S. about leveling the playing field. China amends its intellectual property law and introduces a punitive damages "mechanism" so that infringements are fairly dealt with. The new Chinese law replaces three foreign capital laws passed between 1979 and 1990, and is a unified legal standard for foreign investment in China. It eliminates the requirement for foreign companies to transfer proprietary technology to Chinese joint venture partners and protects against "illegal government interference." The European Union Chamber of Commerce says Article 40 still allows for"political issues to influence investor-state relations." Experts say this is a small step in the overall effort to level the playing field. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Indian trade with Latin America 2025 of $40 billion sees a catchup effort to China's $480 billion trade. Efforts by Brazil's Petrobras and Argentina's YPF to increase exports of oil and LNG to India and increase imports of pharmaceuticals, automobiles and textiles.

Sabrina Olivera from the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI) says-

"The fact that India is the only democracy in Asia gives it an advantage in Latin America, where most countries in the region are democracies, trust in India is stronger than in China."

Brazil's president Lula and Indian PM Modi worked closely for G20 Summits in New Delhi and Rio de Janeiro. This cooperation and a need for Latin America to diversify from concentration of trade with China, increasing potential with India, can lead to a doubling or tripling of trade with India in a few years.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Security is at the heart of India's foreign policy. S. Jaishankar points this out at Thiruvanathapuram. He says this was true of the effort at Balakot and even in the midst of Covid at the Line of Actual Control with China when India sent up enormous numbers of troops to defend the border. This is also behind the stand with China that security and LAC comes first in all relations with China. Trade and exchanges all come in the context of LAC, settle the LAC issues first then we can proceed with better bilateral relations, this is what India is telling China.  There are good reasons for this. India has a large border in the most formidable terrain of the Himalayas which is also close to the plains of India in the LAC with China. Any difficulties at the border would weaken India's secuerity and weaken development efforts in the same way that Japan sought to weaken Chinese development through invasion in the 1930's. Tibet looms out of the past. When China invaded Tibet Nehru's couple of pages in Discovery of India on China show that he had no idea of the China that had emerged with Mao and the CCP in its historical struggle against Japanese nationalists and imperialists. He had an idea of China that came from the Buddhist period and India's links from the past. The ruthless Japanese invasion that China confronted on its soil, and British colonial incursions before that, had already transformed the China of the past, which now under Mao in 1948 may have sought more defensible borders by extending them to Tibet as a buffer state. Historically the British had never tolerated Russian or other European or Japanese interference in the border states such as Tibet. There was also the question of capacity. By the time of the invasion of Tibet in the early 1950's China had already fought the Korean War with the US. India's army and defense forces were just coming out of partition and ill equipped for the task of defending the borders in Tibet region. Current governments in a more normal setting cannot change this part of history, yet can take full recognition of the facts that this has created. A strong defense has to be created for defending a border that extends for thousand of miles now that China has unlawfully occupied Tibet. On it also depends a strong and vigorous development effort that helps build the kind of modern defenses as the economy grows and absorbs new technologies rapidly. Both defense and development go together, one cannot have defense without rapid modernization and development, and one cannot have rapid modernization and development without defense. A weak defense would lead to distractions in development leading to the lack of rapid modernization and development as the intruding power interferes in insidious ways in the internal and external links of the country. This is the lesson of colonial interference of western powers in Asia. As Brendan Simms shows in his new book, Europe - Struggle for Supremacy 1500 to the Present, it is also the lesson of a different kind of colonialism inside Europe since 1500, where weaker states inside Europe fell behind with interference in turns by the imperial powers of France, UK, Austria-Hungary, Prussia and Russia. Poland, Finland, Czech Republic in the past and even Ukraine today are just some examples of what can happen when one loses sight of this principle. Poland and the Polish Commonwealth in the 19th century, Hungary right down to 1956, and China in the 1910-1930, India in the 18th and 19th century were weakened internally even after recognizing the problem, so that recognition of the problem is not an adequate condition to prevent countries from facing such foreign interference. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mark Landler of NYT provides the background of the relationship with China and Taiwan during the Reagan administration. Reagan criticized the decision to abrogate recognition of Taiwan as a candidate and in 1982 pushed for Six Assurances, one of which was the assertion that the U.S. did not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Mr. Trump told a news channel that he doesn't see why the U.S. is bound by a One China policy, and that this would have to be part of a deal that included trade, and solving problems related to North Korea, and the South China Sea island fortifications. 

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib, executive editor of of the WSJ, attributes the divisions in America both on the left and the right to a deep skepticism among people about the intentions of the U.S. political and financial establishment to conduct the country's affairs in a way that benefits all people. Both the traditional Democratic and Republican establishments, the Bush-Reagan, Clinton-Obama politicians and the financial community were seen as self-serving and looking after their own interests. The right of center supply side economics and the the tolerance for immigration levels of 30% rise in the last decade were discredited. A much larger recovery program was seen as needed from the deeply bruising effects of the financial crisis of 2008, started by the reckless financial establishment behaviours, than either the Reagan supply siders or the Obama people had understood or planned. This opened the way for Mr. Trump to take up the cause of ordinary Americans with a message of ambitious infrastructure development, confronting China's use of trade adversely affecting American workers, and slowing down immigration. And within the Democratic party the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders with programs for a wealth tax that would finance Medicare for All and college education supported by the federal government. Both the traditional Republicans under Bush and Democrats under Clinton Obama were seen not upto the task, after the 2008 financial and economic crisis created deeper scars than were imagined possible. The lack of effective policies under Bush or Obama simply aggravating the situation further. The culture wars have split Americans down the middle with a breakdown of the traditional American family and social structures creating deep anxieties in America. Obama's comments unsettled people in the heartland when he said that economic decline in the Rust Belt had made people there to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."   The trillions of dollars spent in wars in Asia and the Middle East were seen by Mr. Trump as an enormous waste when much needed investment was deprived of attention at home. Mr. Trump hammered this point home till today it is well accepted across America.  Even as political divisions persist they are now on how to tackle the redevelopment and growth of the U.S. The new focus of agreement has shifted with agreement across the country that infrastructure development in the U.S. and defending workers rights to jobs and opportunities is the top priority. That trade relations need to be reshaped keeping this priority ever present in negotiations. As a result all parties could agree on infrastructure and the recently concluded agreement for trade with Mexico and Canada and phase 1 of negotiated agreement with China. In overseas affairs the U.S. under Trump seeks cost sharing with a 2% of GDP defense spending by other nations so that money can be diverted to use at home. In this sense the debate has already shifted in the U.S. and the UK to how to address the problems of uneven development and growth across the two countries and better allocation of scarce resources to needs at home. Which is for the U.S. a good thing in the middle of all the perception of divisions.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany is trying not to choose sides in the trade and security disputes between China and the U.S. Yet it owes a lot to the U.S. from the days of the Marshall Plan and U.S. taking on the role of defending Germany after the Berlin Wall. China was then a partner with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  Today China is Germany's top market for its car industry. Yet the U.S. export market is much larger than China at $119 billion with China's at $96 billion. In Germany 28% of jobs are linked to exports, and in manufacturing this goes up to 56%, according to Germany Ministry of Economic Affairs. Germany supplied much of the factory  equipment from its engineering companies and the infrastructure that powered up the China transformation. A transformation now underway in India.  There are signs of a shift as engineering companies in Germany grew faster in the U.S. than China, increasing by 6-10% a year. India remains a key growth market for Germany over the next 10-15 years as growth in China slows and India accelerates with its younger demographics and investment in infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure in China is built and it is approaching the saturation Japan reached in the 1990's with additional investments adding little in the way of productivity. Longer term Germany has more potential for growth in countries in South and South East Asia  that will need to make huge investments in infrastructure and technology for manufacturing to meet the aspirations of the people there. Other issues related to freedom going back to the Berlin Wall and the rebuilding of Germany after World War II will emerge. German companies are running out of patience says this report in the WSJ with the bureaucratic obstacles, forced technology transfers, subsidies by state model to extinguish competition, and protectionist approach to home markets, even as state funded companies in China put other companies in Europe, Asia and the U.S. at a disadvantage. Germany will need to transition to a shift in its global relations, a process that is only now taking place. Just as with austerity policies in which it has now made the shift from going with the northern European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland) to the Southern European (France, Italy, Spain) in favor of common solidarity even at the short term cost of common debt, Germany now is facing the shift for solidarity with the U.S. for its support of Germany from the period of the Berlin Wall in the 1950's, for the U.S. and European solidarity in the face of the post-coronavirus world. The U.S. showing its generosity and openness to Germany and war torn Europe even as it took on the added responsibilities for creating a new alliance with Europe.   ...