LyrArc Article Gist
A 93 year old hero of the French Resistance, Stephane Hessel, publishes a pamphlet called "Indignez-Vous!," released by a small publishing house from the publisher's home. He calls for resisting the "international dictatorship of the financial markets" and "defending the values of modern democracy." He protests France's treatment of illegal immigrants, the influence on the media by the affluent, cuts to the social safety net, French educational reforms. It was first published in October, and now has sold 1.5 million copies, all through word of mouth advertising. It has been translated into Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Greek. New editions are planned for Slovenian, Korean, Japanese, Swedish and other languages. In Britain, it was published with the title "Time for Outrage." The pamphlet is about 4000 words and only 14 pages of text. Its timing is good, as the French are debating what to do in their politics with an election approaching and Sarkozy's standing at new lows. The short length and low price are a big plus, at $4 it made a convenient Christmas gift. Britain, Spain, Portugal and Greece are going through austerity cuts. Public sentiment has been aroused by the cuts, and by the overarching influence of financial markets on the economies of these countries. Some of these countries referred derisively as piigs- Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain -countries in the financial markets. The economic impact has fallen disproportionately on the young, with high jobless rate for young people from Italy to Spain, and cuts in funding for universities and schools in the UK also fall heavily on young people. A sense that something has gone wrong in the free market system and the western world. Austerity cuts in spending in the U.S. create a similiar feeling and joblessness among young people is also high in the U.S....

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson discusses the differences between the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for June 2014 using the Payroll Survey and the Household Survey, each telling a different story. According to the Payroll Survey 288,000 jobs were added. The Payroll Survey is a monthly survey of 554,000 business locations, with firms asked to give the number of people on payrolls, pay and occupations. The Household Survey of the BLS asks households in monthly interviews with 60,000 Americans whether they have a job, is it part time or full time, are they looking for full time work, or jobless and for how long. The Household Survey showed June 2014 job increase at 407,000, using an estimate of 1,115,000 increase in part-time jobs and a loss of 708,000 full time jobs. Of the two the payroll survey is larger and considered by economists to be more representative. Other statistics show the parttime workers at about 3 million higher than 2007 before the 2008 financial crisis, suggesting the shift to part time jobs has been one negative result of the crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Home Affordable Refinance Program's (HARP) gradual success in 2012-2013 in reducing foreclosures, after struggling in 2010-2011. From about cumulative 1 million who refinanced loans under HARP for relief in home payments the numbers went up to close to 3 million by the end of 2013, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Of this a major proportion were people who owed less than 105% of their home's value. The performance of the program improved with a revamp of HARP at the end of 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Islamist parties are having difficulty integrating into political life and bridging the differences with secularist or liberal political parties in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan and Turkey following the democratic transition in 2011-2013 in the Muslim world. Some progress has been made, but lack of experience, lack of respect for the opposition and other opinion, overreaching, personal styles of individual leaders such as Erdogan and Morsi, and poor economic conditions after decades of neglect under military rulers in Egypt and other countries, is creating problems for Islamist parties in government.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta describes plans to support forces of the Free Syrian Army during the summer of 2012. The efforts had the backing of key members of the National Security team and Secretary of State Clinton. The plans were rebuffed by president Obama and the election campaign team because of the approaching November 2012 election and the president's hesitation to get involved in the Syrian war. Plans were developed by CIA director Petraeus, supported by General Demsey of the Joint Chiefs, and Leon Panetta. Plans were to vet forces in the Syrian resistance, to provide training and arms. After Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Clinton had a concussion, these plans were not taken up again. This shows that by summer 2011 the consensus was for supporting Syrian democracy forces in the Obama administration, only to be held back by president Obama. This is likely to be a question for future generations of Americans as they assess the record of the U.S. in the Middle East and the missed opportunity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German leadership in the eurozone and the EU- with the strong stand for eurozone countries to do their economic homework and restore fiscal balance, and the action taken to bring the EU countries together on Russian intervention in Ukraine- is leading to questions about the dominant role played by Germany. Chancellor Merkel has played a leadership role partly because of the absence of other leaders with strong support in their home base who could provide such leadership. Merkel's poll rating in Germany actually shot up during the eurozone crisis from 40% in 2010 to 70% in 2013, and steady at 67% in June 2015, as German taxpayers and voters see Merkel as preventing debt ridden countries in the eurozone passing on higher costs in the debt crisis to Germany. With German wages kept low for the last decade to ensure a economic recovery and lower unemployment, Germans see no reason to support other eurozone countries when a low wage sector exists inside Germany, except under conditions that ensure fiscal balance. In a Harris poll taken in France June 30-July 1, 2015, Chancellor Merkel is rated higher at 43% expressing approval compared to 36% saying they approve of French premier Hollande's handling of the Greece and eurozone crisis. Over 50% of people in Spain and in France disapprove of Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis, yet two thirds of France's main centre right party support Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis. In the Harris poll when asked how Merkel, IMF, Hollande and Tsipras handled the Greece crisis people polled in France gave 43% approval to the IMF and Merkel compared to 36% for Hollande and Tsipras of Greece, and 60% disapprove of Hollande and Tsipras handling of the crisis compared to 53% disapproval for the IMF and Merkel. The Christian Democrats party in Germany has dominant leaders in its tradition starting with Konrad Adenauer in the early postwar years, through the Kohl years during reunification and Merkel in the eurozone crisis. By contrast the Social Democrats from the period under Wily Brandt, through the Schmidt years and Schroeder have operated under more of a consensus leadership. Under Sigmar Gabriel or some other Social Democratic leader Germany is likely to have a different style of leadership in the future, especially because the German public does not favor Germany playing this kind of dominant role. At different points in the eurozone crisis Merkel's leadership was needed for decisionmaking- making banks take a 50% writedown on their loans in negotiation with Charles Dallara in Brussels, calling for Italy's president to bring in a new government (led by Mario Monti) when premier Berlusconi failed to make needed changes, and providing flexibility for spending rules for Spain, Italy and France. Merkel has actually moved to the centre to maintain popular support inside Germany, especially since the new coalition government was formed with Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel. On the other major issue of immigration Merkel has provided decisive leadership to prevent the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Germany. Herfried Munkler, author of "Power in the Middle," about why Germany is playing this role may provide clues to Germany's role- by representing different aspects of German public opinion Merkel has prevented the rise of right wing populist or nationalist parties in Germany, which would distort the German narrative about what it sees as its role in keeping Europe together after three wars. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The author Li Congjun, is head of the Xinhua News agency, official press agency of the People's Republic of China. He calls for rebalancing the global economy with China depending more on domestic consumption, efforts to restrain the excesses of property and asset price bubbles, and renewed focus on technology and investment.

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum describes how Obama as president took action on the stimulus after the 2008 financial crisis, but did not take the necessary action to stem foreclosures and aid a recovery in housing. This now appears to be one of the critical failures of his presidency.

LyrArc Article Gist
The memo to U.S. president Reagan written by his economic advisors in November 1980 before his first inauguration. Inflation was running at 13% and the economic problems looked as intractable as they do today. Advisors included Milton Friedman and George Shultz. The memo called for setting steady policies for the long run to encourage investment and growth, and at the same time steady monetary policy. This is different from the repeated quantitative easing efforts by the Federal Reserve responding to financial markets, and the Obama administration's stimulus efforts that have not led to long term growth. On the long term perspective the memo said: "The need for a long-term point of view is essential to allow for the time, the coherence, and the predictability so necessary for success." The memo was released by George Shultz.

LyrArc Article Gist
Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, tells Italian newspaper La Repubblica on September 1, 2014, that Russian president Putin made some abnormal remarks in a phone conversation. Responding to Barroso's question about whether Russian troops had crossed into eastern Ukraine, Putin is reported to say: "That is not the question... But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks." The WSJ editorial on September 3 referred to an earlier editorial on "Putin Bonaparte," giving some idea of how such comments by Putin are seen in the media, and how Putin's actions in Ukraine are creating new tensions with the NATO alliance and the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama's speech announcing the details of his executive order on immigration on Nov. 20, 2014, starts by saying he is not bypassing Congress or the Republicans. He says Republicans had the opportunity to pass legislation in the House that passed the Senate, or come up with their own bill. And still have an opportunity to come up with a bill he could sign into law that address the shortcomings of the current immigration system. In selling the bill to Americans he points out that this is not an amnesty, that the current system which allows immigrants here to stay illegally without paying taxes or any accountability is an amnesty. He points to deportation of millions as not an option, an out of the character of America. That deportation of criminals will continue and is up 80% in his administration, without mentioning that deportation under his administration for ordinary undocumented immigrants without any criminal record had reached a high of 400,000 a year under his administration, higher than under the Republican Bush administration. In fact it had reached such levels that Hispanic groups stated they would sit out the midterm 2014 elections and not vote for Democrats or Republicans, after providing a significant part of the winning margin for Obama in the 2012 presidential election. President Obama says he has the legal authority to prevent deportation, and that this is essentially what this executive order does- providing a temporary right to stay and work in this country to undocumented immigrants here living in the shadows who are here for more than 5 years, not a permanent status or citizenship. He cites other presidential decisions of the last 50 years, Republican and Democratic, that have integrated large groups of undocumented immigrants, including an executive order by President Reagan. And he refers to the Bush presidencies 41 and 43, where both father and son, considered Hispanic Americans "a part of American life," as good hard-working people deserving a chance to be Americans. The speech ends with an appeal to the compassion of Americans urging them to look at their own individual stories going back one, two or several generations, or Ellis Island where the early waves of European immigrants entered the country in the 19th century, and to immigrants from the period after the early British settlements in the 18th century. This is typical Obama, as much as the calculated decision to pursue a aggressive deportation policy was for the first 6 years of his administration, including the decision for "Dreamers" or young people before the 2012 election. "Scripture tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. we were strangers once, too. And whether our forbears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here because this country welcomed them in." Over 2 million deportations in one of the most aggressive deportation policies of any administration, followed by an effort to stop deportations before the next presidential election, when the NYT had called his deportation policy "infuriating." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. President Obama's 2013 State of the Union address focussed on the problems facing the U.S. middle class, calling it "our generation's task" to tackle this problem. Economic changes have changed the patterns of economic growth and jobs, growth, income growth, that prevailed from the end of the Second World War to about 1989. But he offered few solutions beyond increasing the minimum wage to $9.00 from $7.25 to reduce poverty.

LyrArc Article Gist
Julia Preston of the NYT looks at Mr. Trump's speech on August 31, 2016 in Pheonix, Arizona, and compares what one can discern about the Trump policies on immigration with that of president Obama. She points out that it is similar to the deportation that was conducted under president Obama in some ways, but is more extensive in its dimensions. It includes sanctioning sanctuary cities, expanding the deportation law enforcement personnel, and deporting about 2 million people with criminal backgrounds. The estimate under the Obama administration is for about 176,000 people with such backgrounds. The Trump estimate appears to include people with minor offenses says Preston, because it is so much higher. As a result this could also include people who have no criminal background and disrupt families on a large scale, with hundreds of thousands of longtime residents and families deported. Under the sanctuary example of Trump, Denver, New York and counties in California would be places where Trump would cut off federal funding. On the wall itself, Mexico's president Nieto says he told Trump Mexico would not pay for the wall, and Trump says exactly the opposite that Mexico would pay for the wall in his speech to supporters.  A Gallup poll shows that 76% of Republicans, 91% of Democrats favor a path to citizenship for those here in the U.S. illegally. For the whole population only 15% oppose giving illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and 84% support doing this. Which suggests that Trump is only appealing to his base of support, not adding to it, as Cillizza points out in the WP fact check.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...