LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. government sold its last remaining shares in auto company GM booking a loss of $10.5 billion- a recovery of $39 billion dollars of the $49.5 billon dollars given to GM. The Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., points out that the cost of bailing out GM and Chrysler was about $13.7 billion. The benefits were 1.2 million jobs protected in 2009 during the depths of the financial crisis. It also preserved $39.4 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections in 2009 and 2010. The Treasury Department estimate of the cost is about $15 billon, including money invested in GM's former finance arm Ally Financial Inc. President Obama says the effort helped create 372,000 new jobs in five years. Treasury Secretary Lew summed it up by saying "it helped stabilize the auto industry and prevent another Great Depression." Other intangible but larger benefits in the long run were building up the companies anew with new pay structures the auto companies could support in a globalized economy, bringing in new management and discarding of old mindsets and culture, new relationships with unions and customers, committment to achieving fuel efficiency targets with new technologies in cooperation with the U.S. government guidelines, and renewed confidence of millions of employees in the U.S. auto sector. It is also the one area in which the Obama administration scores a clear win, and in which president Obama took the greatest interest as senator. That the public did not fully appreciate the significance of the step is more a reflecion of public frustration with how the companies were run by the old management, and a continual reminder of the importance of good management for the U.S. industry and economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Abe of Japan and President Jinping of China meet for 25 minutes on the sidelines of the Asia Africa Summit in Indonesia, on April 21, 2015. In a sign of thawing in relations both sides take an active interest in improving relations. This is the 60th anniversary of the Bandung conference in Indonesia, and Japan restated its pledge during the 1955 meeting of Asian and African leaders to not use force in territorial disputes. Abe said he had "deep remorse" for Japan's role in World War II. Xi Jinping's speech covered China's effort to build the "Silk Road" infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, and said the AIIB bank was seen positively by the international community. Jinping emphasized the joint responsibility of both countries for peaceful development and regional stability. Abe suggested that a communications system for emergencies be established between the two countries and a defense dialogue be setup.

LyrArc Article Gist
Gen. Martin Dempsey took a cautious approach to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Syria. He did not approve of the way Gen. McChrystal expanded U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and the hasty manner in which the Iraqi army was trained under his predecessors leading to some commanders being appointed who later became members of sectarian death squads. Under his command the U.S. limited its role in Afghanistan and Iraq and handed more responsibility to local forces. Gen. Dunford who succeeded Dempsey as chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. follows the cautious approach set by Dempsey. Dempsey's approach extends to what he believes is an Heisenberg effect in physics where when you you observe or touch something it changes the way it functions and operates. For critics such as Senator McCain, who served in Vietnam as a pilot, if Dempsey did not want to intervene in some country, he could invent the reasons not to get involved. President Obama exceeded the caution exercized by Dempsey, leading to a situation where the U.S. after hasty action under a Republican president seemed to lurch in the opposite direction under his Democratic successor by not taking action where U.S. presence was needed, followed by a corrective course to make up for this....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial points out that the lack of action from the Obama administration has led to the current situation in the Middle East with Russian intervention, the wave of refugees from Syria, and the increasing sectarian conflict. It cites from president Obama's address to the UN General Assembly that "the nations of the world cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion," yet failing to take action in the Middle East to prevent this from happening.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ben Van Heuvelen documents in the Washington Post what Ali Nabhan and Bradley pointed out in the WSJ in May 2009, that the officers in the Iraqi army lacked the training and discipline to act as an effective fighting force. These early indications proved correct and were ignored by the Iraqi government and the Obama administration till it was too late with the fall of Mosul and the ensuing chaos in Iraq.

LyrArc Article Gist
ECB president Mario Draghi tells a newsconference on April 14, 2015, that the bond buying program is "proceeding smoothly." He said that he does not see scarcity in the bond market. The ECB plans to continue its purchases of government bonds and other debt at a rate of 60 billion euros a month through September 2016. He said the program of very low interest rates for a very long time "is fertile terrain for financial instability imbalances," but he did not see evidence of systemically large financial imbalances at this time. The ECB approach would be to tackle the risks by using its power as a bank regulator, not by changing monetary policy, said Draghi. He was optimistic about the initial results, saying "more accomodative monetary policy is being translated into better credit conditions, which is something we have not seen before." The euro is down to $1.06 and low oil prices have helped improve economic conditions, as well as ongoing structural reforms pushed by the EU and ECB. Draghi's forecast for economic growth in the eurozone is now up from 1% to 1.5% for 2015....

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.

LyrArc Article Gist
Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and Britain, has edited a collection of essays in a new book titled- Pakistan: Beyond the "Crisis State." It tries to form a new construct to move the debate on Pakistan into a future in which Pakistan can exist as a "normal country" free of a paranoia about India that affects its outlook, and free from the military connections that have shifted the focus from development that a friendly neighborly coexistence with India would provide. Intriguing essays include one by Saadat Hasa Manto who goes back to 1951, when the Cold War was at its peak and the U.S. formed a relationship with Pakistan based on military assistance, with only small fraction of aid going into development programs. Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad puts it directly: Pakistan needs to become a normal state and the only way to to do this is for the rivalry and obsession with India to be resolved and put behind it. As it now stands the U.S., India and Pakistan all stand to gain tremendously in such an outcome- the U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan and the Taliban because at its core the Taliban issue goes back to the Pakistan rivalry with India, Pakistan and India because it puts the focus on development, infrastructure building, and economic gains....

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chandrasekeran looks back on the troop surge ordered by President Obama on the advice of General Petraeus and General McChrystal in Afghanistan, and the results in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdraws troops in 2012-2013.