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.


Wall Street Journal Original article ›
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
900 million eligible voters in India means this is the largest election ever. The election will take place in 7 phases in April and May from April 11 to May 19. Votes will be counted on May 23. The election is for 543 seats in parliament, the Lok Sabha. Turnouts are high with 66% turning out in the last election that brought Mr. Modi and the BJP to power.  Unlike elections in Britain a lot is spent in each election, about $5 billion in the last election and double that this time. The U.S. elections in 2016 had spending of $6.5 billion as a comparison. Women vote at about the same rate as men and more women than men are expected to vote this time. Prime minister Modi won the last election with promises of development and infrastructure. He is delivering on infrastructure but building manufacturing and generating jobs in the formal sector remains a tougher task for any administration in 4 years. During the first term Mr. Modi made needed changes including introducing the GST tax to integrate India's fragmented market and get rid of a patchwork of regional state taxes. He introduced a whole range of projects and yojanas which are setting the stage for widening the middle class, and improving living conditions. Some of the problems such as the bad loans in the banking system date back to previous administrations and the government has taken steps to clean up this problem by refinancing banks and introducing a bankruptcy law. This has slowed GDP growth to about 7%. However this would have happened under any administration.  The brief war with Pakistan in February 2019 has added another dimension to this election with questions about whether this may help Mr. Modi because of his strong stand against terrorism camps in Pakistan.  In the end it all comes down to whether the public still believes the BJP party under Modi is best qualified to develop the infrastructure to modernize the country and improve services, and whether it can create enough of the manufacturing capabilities to generate jobs needed. It may not be that the BJP under Modi has  not made mistakes in the process of learning how best to tackle development, but whether a patchwork of regional parties led by the opposition Congress party is in a position to provide the strong decisive direction to make quick decisions on development. Getting the agreement of a number of regional parties such as the party in West Bengal state or the Uttar Pradesh state when it was under a previous administration of Mrs Mayawati means an even slower rate of decision making as it leads to lack of speedy decision making. Whether voters have short memories and forget the slow rate of infrastructure development under previous administrations or have a willingness to give the BJP a chance to show what it can do under Modi for development can eventually decide this election. An example of what this means is in how the Mumbai Metro is being pushed through to timely delivery- Metro Rail's head Mrs. Ashwini Bhide simply says she feels for the people of Mumbai who have suffered from delays in development of needed infrastructure for so long, with millions doing appalling rides in a creaky old rail system. In her view it should have been done yesterday. It is this attitude that can make or break the current administration, and whether it can get this message through to voters one more time. Most who have this attitude are aware that China is now laying enough concrete every two years than America did in the whole 20th century, as reported in the Guardian newspaper, and are equally passionate about delivery of services and rapid development of badly needed infrastructure.         ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Peggy Noonan in the WSJ comments on U.S. president Trump's effort to work in a bipartisan way with Democrats on government spending, raising the debt ceiling, and hurricane aid. Noonan says this may not last, because president Trump lacks steadiness or the understanding and depth needed to make it work. A major problem is the eight months of policy wavering moving in different directions, and endless tweets showing a lack of depth, that have alienated many. This has hardened opinion in some ways says Noonan, and is a hurdle to making things work in a bipartisan spirit. Not much is predictable in the Trump administration as lack of steadiness is a singular feature.  Other problems for this bipartisanship to work is that it could alienate the right wing of the Republican party and the Freedom Caucus, as well as the growing left wing of the Democratic party.  In this zany atmosphere things could soon be back where they were. 

The End of Fannie Mae

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Wall Street Journal's editorial columns have followed closely the working of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Especially during the last decade, when most of the excesses, missteps and failures in the operations of the two companies occurred at huge cost to the US economy and to taxpayers. The Journal quotes from the recent Treasury report on the planned winding down of the two agencies. And focusses attention on the question of what will replace Fannie and Freddie. Only the first of three options looks viable considering the goals of reducing misallocation of national resources, and winding down the federal government's role in housing, says the Journal. With this Option the federal government guarantees are limited to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans to low income buyers and VA assistance for veterans and farm programs- narrow segments that limits the guarantee strictly to 10-15% of the mortgage market. The Journal says that the conclusions of the Treasury report are what WSJ has been saying for 20 years: " The strength of this option is that it would minimize distortions in capital allocation across sectors, reduce moral hazard in mortgage lending and drastically reduce direct taxpayer exposure to private lender's losses." And the points about the benefits: " With less incentive to invest in housing, more capital will flow into other areas of the economy, potentially leading to more long-run economic growth and reducing the inflationary pressure on housing assets. Risk throughout the system may also be reduced, as private actors will not be as inclined to take on excessive risk without the assurance of a government guarantee behind them. And finally, direct taxpayer risk exposure to private losses in the mortgage market would be limited to the loans guaranteed by FHA and other narrowly targeted government loan programs: no longer would taxpayers be at direct risk for guarantees covering most of the nation's mortgages." This bit of wisdom is especially significant, as misallocation of capital that went on in housing for the better part of the last decade has hurt America and the American people. It makes sense to have explicit money allocated by Congress for housing help to the poor and have no housing guarantees that have hurt the economy....
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Brazilian economy is growing too fast, and this pace not only won't be sustained, but it has signs of serious trouble ahead. The Brazilian economy grew at an estimated annualized pace of 10% in the last 6 months and generated 962,000 jobs between Jan-April of 2010. Growth in 2010 is expected to be 7%. The jump in growth is partly the result of the stimulus measures of the Lula government. But a consensus of experts is that Brazil still saves too little, has not invested enough in infrastructure,and its economy has the potential of 5% sustainable growth each year. The central bank has increased interest rates - increase of 0.75% in April 2010, and economists in Brazil think the rate will go up to 13% in 2011. About $10 billion in cuts in spending have been announced but they are cuts to an already growing budget approved by Congress, so in reality it will only slow the increase in spending. Public debt is at 42.7% of GDP. Real interest rates have fallen from close to 20% in 2003 to between 5-10%. Costs per unit of labor are increasing at about half the rate of real wages according to a finance official. The National Development Bank or BNDES played a role in helping the economy with subsidized loans when the financial markets ran into trouble. It has expanded lending by 50%, with money from the Treasury of 180 billion reais. Some of the measures of the Lula government has reduced the skewed income distribution Brazil, and in doing so has increased consumer demand. Meeting high consumer demand, and meeting the need for commodities like soyabeans and metals from China, has boosted growth in Brazil to twice the sustainable rate and it is now at a par with China and India. But this places Brazil too dependent on the boom in Chinese demand, especially as the stimulus in China slows and the property bubble threatens China's economy. See links to China. A new President after the upcoming Presidential election will have to tackle the high interest rates in 2011, lower commodity prices, and the need for better infrastructure, and make the adjustment to a sustainable pace of growth....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein says the major news stories of today all are about the same theme- of how the US was encouraged to live beyond its means by trading partners who prospered as this went on, with the tacit agreement of financial and political leadership in the US who raised no alarm about this. These stories are: the G-20 meeting in South Korea with the goal of rebalancing the world economy, the President's Deficit Commission Report recommending bold steps in changing the tax and spending policies of the US, the criticism of the Fed's decision on $600 billion of quantitative easing, and the renewed concerns about Ireland where severe cuts in public spending have failed to reverse a downward slide.These trading partners prospered by lending Americans the money to consume more than they produce. It was he says a wonderful arrangement while it lasted, because it helped bring millions out of poverty in Asia, while letting Americans enjoy a transitory period of a higher standard of living. This unsustainable arrangement converted the US from world's biggest creditor nation after World War II to the world's bigggest debtor nation. He credits Geithner for coming up with a more convincing and less confrontational way to correct the imbalances by setting limits on the deficits and surpluses of trading nations. He points out that the Chinese have barely budged on the issue of an undervalued currency, the world be damned. And the German and Chinese criticism rings hollow he says, as both countries are the main beneficiaries of the current system. The normal mechanism of correcting imbalances with a floating rate exchange system is hardly relevant, as it is incompatible with state run economy and strategy of export growth of China. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have presented he says a bold deficit reduction plan that is credible, fair, economically sound. Even though it was received with the usual complacency and lack of awareness both in the media and in Congress. The simple reality after all the awfully complicated details and the painful implications is this: Americans have to consume less and produce more, and trading partners have to consume more and produce less. And this shift cannot be pushed into the future as our trading partners would like....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The first budget of the Obama government makes a sharp swing away from decades of earlier policy, and puts America on a new direction focussed on priorities in education, health care for all, and energy. The 134 page doocument on the budget defines the governing principles and priorities of the new government. "This is the legacy that we inherit- a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities, of missed opportunities and of deep, strutural problems ignored for too long," the document says. It declares that "government must lead" in contrast to Reagan's "government is not the solution, government is the problem." In contrast to "trickle down" policies of Reagan it proposes "trickle up" policies- shifting income from rich to the poor. It creates a $630 billion fund towards a national health insurance program built with the help of savings and cuts elsewhere. Government takes over most student lending, and dramatically expands Pell grants for poor college bound strudents, transforming it into something like Medicare that is automatic rather than approved each year by Congress. Businesses that emit carbon and heat trapping gases will have to purchase permits to do so starting in 2012. Hundreds of billions of dollars from these permits will pay for clean-energy technology and for tax credits for working couples. Income tax rates will rise for couples earning more than $250,000 beginning in 2011 and will have lower personal exemptions, lower itemized deductions, and higher capital gains tax rates. The estate tax will be preserved. Hedge fund and private equity managers wil have to pay income tax rates for that compensation as high as 39.6% after 2010, not the low 15% capital gains rate they pay now. The Defense Department would see a $20.4 billion boost or a 4% increase in 2010 over 2009, it will request an additional $75.5 billion in 2009 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an additional $130 billion for 2010. The budget is for $3.6 trillion for 2009, and projects a deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of GDP- a level see in 1942 when the US entered World War II. Under optimistic White House assumptions for a strong economic rebound, the deficit would drop to $533 billion by 2013....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The use of fast track procedures under 510 K, for approval of Ren-Gen's Menaflex product to treat knee injuries. Under 510K rules for fast track no clinical trials are required, because the product is similiar to already existing products. Menaflex does not have asimiliar product, yet the FDA allowed Menaflex to be treated as fast track. The closest is orthopedic surgical operation, which is quite different. Menaflex is a C shaped pad used to repair a torn meniscus, a rubbery substance made from cow collagen that that acts like ashock absorber between the knee bones. Their is a booming market for meniscus repair among sports athletes. In fact originally Ren-Gen did not even apply as fast track, but only afte its clinical trials ran into trouble, did it try for fast track, which was turned down several times. At which point Ren-Gen got Democrats Senator Robert Menendez, Rep Frank Pallone, Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep Rothman of Hackensack where Ren-Gen is based, and Senator Frank Lautenberg to intervene. At this point Senator Menendez and the others wrote to the FDA Commisssioner Dr Von Eschenbach, and Menendez spoke to the Commisssioner personally on the phone. After this intervention things started moving in Ren-Gen's dirtection, bypassing the FDA staffers who had reservations, and a special panel was appointed that again excluded anyone that had reservations, in an unusual procedure, which approved Menaflex. Now Congress and the Obama administration are being asked to review the whole process the FDA uses for medical devices because of the controversy this has caused about what is seen as unfair influence of companies in FDA approval process. Menaflex say those who had reservatoions faces alot of pounding and wear and tear between the knee bones and its safety and effectiveness needs to be proven before approval. It has been approved in Europe for afew years, but only 2800 patients have used it in Europe, only a small proportion of patients, and not enough is known about its effectiveness and any issues. ...
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How their strains in the the the Toyota manufacturing system and how Toyota's quality is not what it once was. Its image as a environment conscious company is also suffereing with its attempt to stall new fuel economy legislation in Congress like th Big Three American companies. And new hybrid engines are being introduced in joint development between Mercedes, BMW and GM so the novelty of Toyota hybrid may just wear out. And competitors from Germany and the US are now working harder to reduce Toyota's advantage by producing quality cars. As styling design and creative innovation has not been Toyota's strong point the Americans and the Germans have an opportunity to come up with something new. Even the incentives Toyota has to offer to sell its cars have now come up to what the Gm, Ford and Chrysler had to offer. According to CNW Marketing Research Toyota's dealer incentives have almost tripled in the last 3 years to an average of $3752 per vehicle. This is not a good sign. And we may have reached a point where the difference in quality between the GM Malibu and the Honda Accord from the Toyota Camry may really not be that much. No surprise that this is shaking up Toyota. The "Customer First Initiative" in response to quality issues and recalls is to have more power put into the hands of the chief engineer for any product launch to ensure quality problems are addressed early. And the dealers have EN2 (everything matters exponentially to address quality issues at the dealer level. And there aren't enough sensei or teachers of the Toyota Production System to meet the rapid growth of plants and the Global Production Centre was designed to meet this need by training teachers in an accelerated way in Japan. But there is a sense that a lot of the old Toyota magic may be fading just as Toyota reached te peak of its popularity sometime last year or 2005. Not because Toyota hasn't made the effort but because the whole dynamics of the car industry keep changing and Germans and the Americans are also pushing harder nowadays....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senator Schumer calls it a "momentous 24 hours here in the US Congress, a legislative one two punch that you rarely see." Schumer negotiated a major climate change action bill for $369 billion in the Senate, that also covers tax changes to cover costs, and helps cut drug and health care expenses of Americans. The second quarter shows healthy job gains of average 375,000 a month and unemployment at 3.6%. The economy declined by 1.1% but much of this was from a slowdown in home and business construction sectors sensitive to higher interest rates and from higher inventory. Consumer spending increased by 1% during the quarter. The Fed's series of 0.75 percentage points interest rate increases had softened inflation expectations before they get entrenched in the economy. This makes it possible for Democrats to present a message to ordinary Americans that president Biden is getting things done with 2 legislative achievements. A $280 billion bill for investment in the semiconductor industry in the US. And a huge win on climate change with the $269 billion Schumer is negotiating in the US Congress. It is the opposite of what Republicans are saying is Biden's failure to tackle inflation. Appropriately Biden and Schumer are calling this the bill the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. How did Schumer get this done? After the Ukraine war and EU decision to shut down Russian oil supplies, cut oil and gas use by 15%, and the climate change action inducing fires and floods, there is increasing awareness about climate change action as vital for our future all over the world. This gives more confidence to Democrats to negotiate a temporary continuation of oil and gas, with increased exports of US LNG to Europe. Senator Manchin from an energy producing state of West Virginia was brought over to Schumer's side with this idea. What Biden gets is a 40% reduction of US carbon emissions over 2005 levels, enough to get within reach of the 50% he promised at COP26 in Glasgow. It is a win-win for all sides and for the American people, and shows that patience and hard work, and persistence in the face of adversity can bring results. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear trade deal with India and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If passed by Congresas in September the deal goes into effect. At the NSG, New Zealand, Austria and China were the holdouts and had to be persuaded by the United States. Under the deal India cannot conduct nuclear weapons tests and if it does its upto the USA to decide if it will continue to supply India with nuclear materials and technologies. India is running short of uranium and other nuclear materials it needs for its civilian andnuclear weapons programs since it was refused access by the NSG after earlier tests decades before. It also depends on how the US sees China and Pakistan in relation to India and its nuclear programs. One thing is certain India will push forward aggressively with new nuclear energy programs and setup its own nuclear energy reactors to provide its growing energy needs and to reduce existing shortages and also lower its oil bill. So in the next couple of years or the next decade the world will certainly see the peaceful development of nuclear energy and development of new technologies in the nuclear energy field as India becomes a key user and developer of nuclear energy technologies. At that point India may become a part of the fabric of peaceful nuclear energy development in the world as it meets asignificant part of its energy needs through nuclear reactors. It will be a welcome development as it will ease the burden on oil supplies that in the case of China became a key part of the upward pressure on oil prices as China relied mostly on oil and gas for energy needs. This is probably the thinking in the current Republican administration as it pushed hard for this nuclear deal to supply India....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Steve Lee Myers reporting from Moscow and St. Petersburg, Jo Becker from Washington and London, and Jim Yardley from Nicosia, Cyprus, provide this extraordinary and exceptional report on the rise of a small group of friends, mostly from Mr. Putin's time in St. Petersburg, into a new sort of oligarchy replacing the old one under Mr. Yeltsin. This includes more familiar names such as Sechin at Rosneft, but also less familiar names such as Mr. Kovalchuk, chairman of Bank Rossiya, which owns major television and radio stations and newspapers in Russia. M. Kovalchuk is described as having acquired many of these media properties at a fraction of their real value. Bank Rossiya assumed management of assets of Gazprombank, and Gazprom bank purchased Gazprom Media with five television and a number of radio stations for $166 million, when Medvedev, a Putin associate put the value at $7.5 billion 2 years following the acquisition, according to this report. Other assets acquired in this manner include Channel 5 and Ren TV, giving Putin's inner circle control of the media and reducing any critical or different views on issues facing Russia. Many of Gazprom's assets were transferred to Bank Rossiya, say critics, including insurer Sogaz which was acquired for $100 million, later valued at $2 billion, says the report. Names on the this inner circle also include Yakunin, head of Russian Railways, also include names like Fursenko and Timchenko. Most of the people in this inner circle are now targets of western sanctions. Missing in this report is mention that that this inner circle of the second term as president replaces the larger circle of the first terms as president and prime minister, with Putin benefitting from experts and advisors in the first terms. That circle included Finance minister Kudrin known for his successful management of the economy, and others who left the administration after flawed parliamentary elections. Even prime minister Medvedev is not mentioned as part of this inner circle, suggesting a degree of isolation which could be perilous for the Russian economy as it deprives the Russian president of different opinion and useful advice. This is a pattern seen in many emerging market countries which experience corruption during the period of industrial development. A pattern seen also in China under the Communist Party. And in Venezuela where a new Bolivarist class was created. In emerging market democracies such as India and Turkey the problem is also present, except that in India the recent open election led to the ouster of the Congress led government with many cases of corruption in its second term. A similiar election led to a new government in Indonesia, showing that there is another way beyond the Putin Way. Behind the protests in Hong Kong and in Russia, as well as in India, were the huge gaps in wealth and the growing inequality, corruption, lack of responsiveness of ruling governments. In Russia this takes another dimension with efforts to control the internet and media, and efforts to spread this style of democracy. This has created problems in the Putin government's relations with western nations having open societies and free media, and unwilling to accept a distorted model of democracy. Another less noticed aspect of the evolution of these emerging markets is that upto a point development proceeds even accelerates even in the presence of corruption, and then reaches a point where development and growth slows with problems of corruption, mismanagement of resources, declining productivity, economic and political errors, or unfavorable external environment. India faced this problem in 2012-2013, Russia is likely to face this in 2015, and China faces the prospect of growth slowdown by 2016. This feature of emerging markets also reminds one of the frequently quoted old English saying by Lord Acton- "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." An idea also attributed to William Pitt the Elder who said- "unlimited power tends to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
President Biden's cyber security strategy recognizes that "too much of the responsibility for cybersecurity has fallen on individual users and small organizations." The strategy signed by president Biden took months to develop with involvement of 20 government agencies. The cyber security strategy says that free markets and a reliance on voluntary security frameworks have imposed "inadequate costs" on companies that offer insecure products and services. The 35 page strategy report says that "we must shift the liability to those entities that do not take reasonable precautions." Kemba Walden, acting cybersecurity strategy director, says that "software companies can and should shoulder a bigger share of the cyber risk." President Biden sees this as an effort that will draw support from Republicans in Congress.  Modernizing federal government technology, forging international partnerships for cyber norms, more collaboration with the private sector, and international collaboration are other priorities listed in the strategy report. ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist magazine editorial says the Republican plan for health care with its roll back of Medicaid expansion by limiting funding to states after 2020, and by scaling back subsidies especially for older Americans and not basing them on income levels, is likely to have its own problems just as the Affordable Care Act. One concern is that keeping healthy people in the market with a mandate that everyone have insurance is present but in a milder form with premiums going up by 30% in one year if they change their mind. There is concern that this may not work among insurers leading to an increase in premiums, pricing people out of the market in "a death spiral." This could lead to more people being priced out of the market as premiums rise. About 12 million people were added to Medicaid by increasing eligibility level to $16400, or 138% of poverty line- this reduced the uninsured from 16% in 2010 to 8.8% today. The Economist concludes that the Republican health care bill has its own problems, and that this bill does not clear up the problems in Obamacare by substituting Ryancare as the Republican bill is called. Peggy Noonan writing in the WSJ says this may have negative consequences for the new Republican base shift to populist support. Critics on the right like Rand Paul see even the reduced subsidies as an entitlement program, yet the Republicans can only change parts of the Affordable Care Act as they need 60 votes in the Senate where they only have a small majority.   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post article by Henry Farrell explains the implications of the 2016 EU ruling on Apple asking it to pay 13 billion euros in back taxes. Other countries in the European Union are upset that Ireland is taking away business and siphoning away tax revenues from their country, and giving most of it back to Apple. Normally the European Union Commission does not have authority over taxes in the member states. However considering the social and political implications at a time of deep recession and political upheaval in the EU and the U.S., the European Union Commission under Margarethe Vestager has seen it proper to look at arrangements in which companies come up with tax arrangements that deprive member states unfairly of tax revenues- revenues that could support social welfare and basic education, healthcare services at a time of painful cuts. A tax rate of .005% in 2013 for Apple is cited by Vestager as she points out that Apple's taxable profit does not correspond to economic reality, as most operations are conducted outside Ireland. Ireland is just on paper the tax location for EU operations. Vestager has thus come up with a legal approach based on Ireland's tax arrangements being a form of illegal state subsidy, which is not allowed under EU rules, and gives the EU Commission authority to require that it be reversed by paying the back taxes of 13 billion euros. Farrell answers the question why the U.S. Treasury is saying that Apple should not have to pay these taxes, as the U.S. also hopes to get some of these taxes at some future date with Apple repatriating profits to the U.S. under a still to be set tax arrangement. ...
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the balanced budget amendment say it prevents the use of counter cyclical policies in an economic downturn.
New York Times Original article ›
Economist Original article ›

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