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.


BusinessWeek Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Unknown Original article ›

More Defendants Wanted

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Lack of individual accountability has been a defining feature of large U.S. Justice Department legal settlements with banks and other corporate entities since 2009. This WSJ editorial says establishing individual accountability where wrongdoing has happened is something it has consistently called for since 2009, especially as establishing this would reduce the unnecessary burden imposed on shareholders and employees who may have had nothing do to with the wrongdoing.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Meltzer says a Fed QE III woud be bad monetary policy. He puts several questions to Bernanke- how the Fed and Ben Bernanke can know now what is the right interest rate policy in mid 2013, and what reason can the Fed give for adding excess reserves when U.S. banks have $1.6 trillion in idle reserves at the Fed. Meltzer cautions the Fed and other policymakers not to pay attention only to short term forecasts, which can be susceptible to large errors. And calls for attention to the long term consequences of their actions. One point he emphasizes is that the unemployment problem cannot be resolved with short term policy actions nor can it be resolved in a short time. It will take population growth, falling housing prices and rising rents to create opportunities for new construction. Another change is the transition to a less consumption driven and more export oriented economy. This transition which has started will also take time. He urges the Congress and the administration to focus on: reducing corporate tax rates by closing loopholes, long-term reductions in entitlement spending, a 5 year moratatorium on new regulations, and the Fed adopting an explicit inflation target between 0% and 2%....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The problems with a second phase of quantitative easing, go back to asking why the first phase hasn't worked to prevent the economy from sliding back. So far the Fed has engaged in buying $1.7 trillion in bonds in that first phase. This shows the limitations of this approach. A lot of money was injected into banks. And the banks have $1 trillion on their books that is not being used for lending. The reason being its hard to find borrowers, as borrowers are cautious and concerned about the economic future. The Quantitative Easing in this second phase is supported by the reasoning that deflation risks remain. But this raises another question, what level of quantitiative easing would work, and would such enormous levels itself cause bigger problems.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Bernanke's defense of the action of the Fed's monetary policy making committee, on November 3, 2010, (with a vote of 10-1) to buy an additional $600 billion of Treasury securities over the next 8 months. His defense focusses on the prospects of deflation- how low inflation can morph into deflation (falling prices and wages), that can create a long period of economic stagnation. In addition, with low and falling inflation, Bernanke sees spare capacity in the US that can be utilized to reduce the number of jobless people. He points to the rise in stock prices and fall in long term interest rates in anticipation of the Fed's action, as evidence that this Fed move would improve financial conditions. Lower mortgage rates would make housing more affordable, higher stock prices would increase consumer wealth, confidence and spending. Spending would lead to higher incomes and profits for economic expansion, from this viewpoint. The situation in November 2010, was a deepening housing slump anticipated for 2011, gridlock after the 2010 midterm elections and no agreement on additional stimulus for 2011, the need to rebalance the global economy lacking cooperation from China (with China increasing imports and reducing exports and the US increasing exports and reducing imports). Fed's Bernanke does not mention these factors, and only hints at the gridlock towards the end of the statement. This Fed action will push the dollar lower, just as efforts to improve exports and the trade balance are underway. The Fed's committee sees the risks of commodities inflation as an acceptable risk in the current situation, and the use of a cautious approach assessing the purchase program regularly as sufficient measure of safety. As to difficulties of the unwinding of these policies, the Fed sees present danger outweighing the risks of no action. For emerging markets such as Turkey, India, Australia and other countries seeing even more inflows of capital, the risks are left to these countries to manage. The central banks of India and Australia moved to increase interest rates at the same time that the Fed made its move....
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The British parliament votes 321 to 278 on a motion that rules out leaving the UK specifically on March 29 without a deal negotiated with the European Union on future relations. The margin of votes was 43. Thirteen government ministers abstained from the vote. The repeated votes in parliament are a tactic used by the prime minister Theresa May to get her party members to back the deal she has negotiated with the European Union. The ruling Conservative party is split on whether to leave the European union and if so what the relations should be between Ireland and Northern Ireland, whether Britain should remain in the customs union of the EU.   The repeated votes have only exacerbated and made worse than before the divisions in the Conservative Party, leading to a view that only a second referendum can break the deadlock. The indifference shown in France and Germany by business and the public to Britain's membership, and the manner of handling of the immigration crisis by Chancellor Merkel with large numbers of African and Arab immigrants entering Germany, have contributed to the dissension in Europe over Britain's right to control the flow of immigrants across its borders. The deeper Merkel positioned the ruling CDU party to welcome migrants in 2016-2017, the more skeptical the British public became on the free flow of people in the EU leading to the large bill boards on open immigration in Europe during the referendum on EU membership and the small margin in favor of leaving the EU. Austerity policies of Cameron and Osborne over two terms only increased the divisions of British society. The lack of good leaders in the Conservative Party has worsened the crisis. Theresa May comes from a London constituency which voted against leaving the EU, yet has taken up the leadership of the different Leave factions in the Conservative Party as she sought the position of prime minister after Mr. Cameron. Prime Minister Cameron promised the referendum on EU membership in a ploy to win votes in a closely contested general election and called the referendum not anticipating the result, and resigned as  prime minister. By being against Britain leaving the European Union, yet willing to use the issue for opportunistic vote getting in a close election Cameron and other politicians in the Conservative Party split the country in what some have called an act of recklessness. The votes in parliament and possible fesh elections, a second referendum, are a way to find a solution to this mess.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As the popularity of left party Podemos increases before the upcoming elections in Spain, it comes under increasing attack from the governing party and the Ciudadanos party for advisors from Podemos giving economic advice to the failing Maduro government. Venezuela's economy is in dire straits with high inflation and shortages. Podemos appears to have overtaken the Socialist party in Spain to become the second largest political party. The leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, and other Podemos leaders are cited as having done advisory work for the government in Venezuela.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Brexit and Scotland's referendum both have similar consequences economically for Britain and Scotland. This hurts both countries in unwinding relationships built over many years, unwinding 44 year membership for Britain, and 310 year union for Scotland. Britain exports to EU are 45% of total exports, and for Scotland the number is 63% for exports to the rest of the UK.  Scots benefit about 1200 British pounds more for average citizen than a average citizen of UK, and pay 400 pounds less to the government. Scotland would start with a 90% debt to GDP ratio if it takes a proportionate share of UK government debt from the beginning of independence. Fidler correctly points out the economic risks to Britain and Scotland which are being ignored or not fully taken into account by politicians.

Washington Post Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Andy Grove of Intel teaches a class at Stanford- he taught aclass earlier this year- and talks about his experiences. Some see Grove's disciplined management style as areflection of his experience escaping the Nazis from Czechoslovakia. Dr Grove says it comes from his experience at the CIty COllege of New York He recounts this in one of his books, where aparticular Professor helped mentor him but who was in the beginning very tough on the young Grove. Grove says that what impressed him most in those early years at City College was the way hard work and talent were rewarded and where students challenged their Professors without any attention to rank. Interestingly this is still true at many universities, and meritocracy prevails there. The opposite is true when one thinks of this at many corporations which gradually fall into astultifying mode where senior managers are not challenged and politics prevails. GM is a good example. Grove says he experienced this at Fairchild -where he worked with computer chip pioneers Moore and Noyce -with its elitist, back-stabbing and lax corporate culture. Senior executives at Fairchild walked in whenever they felt like, and younger employees were penalized or fired for similiar behaviour. When he took charge at Intel Grove imposed a strict arrival time of 8 am with latecomers forced to sign asheet. He also did not go along with trends like flexi-time and teleworking. He became known as ablunt and demanding manager, but afairminded boss who rewarded good ideas whatever the source. Asked about the strict arrival time Grove says that people don't understand that he was never that disciplined himself and he was not even amorning person. His view is that he wanted to avoid what he saw as aoutrageous double standard at Fairchild. With a better culture he was able to attract the best talent to Intel, and he used the strong discipline to improve the lousy manufacturing at Intel. Three decisions shaped Intel. The first, is the recognition of the strategic inflection point when current strategy is no longer viable, because unanticipated external forces make an existing business strategy obsolete. This happened when Intel got clobbered by the Japanese in the memory chip field it had dominated. And at such moments there are internal forces and inhibitions to overcome that make starting over or doing something totally different extremely difficult. For Intel this was the habit forming tendencies from having done one thing so well- the companies roots and the founders and engineering staff's knowledge and preferences lay in memory chips- such that that it became an emotionally stormy thing to break from this past. Grove made a complete U turn to go in another direction which he describes so well in his book -Only the Paranoid Survive. Timing is critical, and instinct and judgement is all that you have got to rely on. Its like a group of hikers in the woods and after suspecting that they are on the wrong track one of them says, "Hey guys I think were lost." Grove even describes the scene with acomparison to a scene in the World War II movie Twelve O'Clock High, where a new commander is called in to straighten out an unruly and undisciplined squadron of fliers in sel-destruct mode. The commander on his way to take charge, stops his car, steps out smokes acigarette while gazing into the distance. Then he he throws the cigarette down, grinds it with his heel and tell his driver "Okay Sergeant, lets go." Grove says he related to this scene in this decision at Intel, with every fiber of his being experienced this crisis personally, and learned what it takes to claw your way through a strategic inflection point, inch by excruciating inch. He says it takes objectivity, the willingness to act on your convictions, and the passion mobilize people into supporting those convictions. The second and third decisions was less gruelling but also courageous. The Intel Inside advertising campaign meant building abrand with customers even though Intel had never done this before. The decision to not have secondary suppliers and press the issue of manufacturing quality within Intel till Intel got it right also had never been done before. Andy Grove's strategic inflection point is what GM missed and set the process in motion towards bankruptcy. See the links in Intelilinks. The management style is also relevant to that discussion. Grove also provides insights in the Cross-Industry Insight Mechanism. He sees strategic inflectionpoints in autos and health care industries. He says the auto industry is going to be increasingly divorced from oil and the next big company will come in the auto battery technology field. He also believes health care and the pharmaceutical industry can learn from chipmaking. The clinical trials in pharmaceuticals take way too long, are slow-moving and bureaucratic. The pharmaceutical firms can learn from the fast "knowledge turns" in chipmaking, so that cycles of learning are accelerated....
Economist Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A WSJ/NBC poll of Sept 20, 2012 showing Obama with a eight percentage point lead in Iowa, and a five point lead in Colorado and Wisconsin.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
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. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The basic problems facing American health care. Douglas Elmendorf , head of the Congressional Budget Office, says none of the bills he has seen make the fundamental changes needed in how medical care is delivered and paid for. The big issue is the unwilingness of different interests to accept serious changes. THe NYT says the long run solution to the problem of rising costs is to move away from the fee-for-service system that pays hospitals and doctors for each additional service they provide and into anew system that is organized around ways that encourage low-cost and high quality healthcare. The difficulty is that the long run may be too far, considering the seriousness of the crisis. Elmendor also suggests taxing employer provided health benefits, as this will discourage the excessive use of medical care. As the NYT says this is politically risky, even though it believes this may be a way to the new system which has to discourage the use of health care in the manner it is conducted now, with too many tests being conducted. A new system requires an enlightened approach on the part of each interest group in the face of a crisis, and the failure to do that may only end up retaining some of the worst aspects of the old system just mentioned that drive up costs and make universal health care unaffordable....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial says sharks circle in Congress to kill the Obama plan for a new consumer protection agency with the necessary powers to protect consumers. Campaign contributions to members of Congress by the banking industry is having anegative effect. But says the NYT the federal regulators who put the interests of banks first are also having the negative effect. It cites the example of a Fed governor, Elizabeth Duke, who says the Fed has all the powers to protect consumers, in a Congressional hearing. Says NYT the Fed was given sweeping powers to prevent predatory lending in 1994, but did not issue new rules till July 2008, till the damage had alredy been done. And not just to consumers, but to the American and global economy. It goes on to say that consumer protection is the unwanted stepchild in the regulatory community as protecting consumer s is spread across 20 statutes and seven different agencies. Considering the damage to the economy that has already been done its amazing that the same tired old arguments can be repeated without severely straining credibility. The close relations between Geithner, Rahm Emmanuel Obama's chief of staff, and others in the administration with the banking industry do not bode well for coming up with the strong legislation to protect consumers. See the link to Chase's Dimon's close relations to Rahm Emmanuel and members of the Obama administration. And the close connections which helped the banking industry kill legislation that would have helped homeowners, by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures....

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