LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Lighthizer in the Report on China's Entry into WTO sees this as a mistake in the policy of president Clinton. Clinton has said that was a mistake. David Sacks raised this issue in a podcast with Larry Summers, an economist who was deputy to Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary, then Treasury Secretary succeeding Rubin in 1999. Clinton on the advice of Rubin and Summers set up the framework for China to join the World Trade Organization without the safeguards and the setup that would prevent it using state capitalism and subisidies to build its own economy with exports, to ally with American corporations to support the outshoring of almost the entire industrial base of the US. Shocking as it sounds this has happened, had happened by 2016, when Donald Trump with the advice of USTR Lighthizer took the first steps to reverse this with Tariff policy, which was supported by president Biden, and continues in its new phase under DJT in 2025. Rubin and Summers had supported deregulation of financial markets and removal of the Glass Steagall Act by 1999. This was to led to the financial crisis of 2009 that was to be one of three body blows to the American working and middle class. The others China entering WTO without safeguards that led to deindustrializing US and loss of its manufacturing base, loss of 5 million jobs, tens of thousands of factories. And the third was the pandemic. “ . . .it seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime” 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reited Gen Gantz appears to be the likely head of a new government after winning the most seats in parliament. Policy towards Iran is not likely to change. But a Gantz led government is likely to reduce the divisiveness in the country, and provide a more unifying effort in Israeli society. The role of religious groups in daily life would also be held back. Better relations with Jewish people in America would result and peace negotiations with Palestinians would be encouraged. The prime minister would concentrate less power in his hands. By temperament Gantz is a quiet leader who preferred not to engage in the back and forth attacks in the election campaign even when Mr. Netanyahu  did not hesitate to do so. As the head of the military from 2011 to 2015 he also has the confidence of people in Israel looking for a new start after a long period of Netanyahu rule. The current prime minister could be indicted soon after a hearing next month on charges of bribery and fraud. Mr. Trump has said that U.S. relationship is not with any leader but with the country Israel. Gantz makes it clear after Netanyahu's style of politics has rocked Israel for many years- "We will bring about a real change in priorities, and heal Israeli society in all its parts." Mr. Gantz has said that he think the Obama administration could have done more in securing a better nuclear deal with Iran. Yet at an event in 2015 when the deal was being set, Mr Gantz said he also saw "the half full part of the glass." That the deal would keep Iran 10 or 15 years from making a nuclear weapon "with the right price." At this juncture in world affairs this is important because Mr. Trump has shown flexibility in dealing with Iran following the firing of National Security Adviser Bolton. Trump held back on a response at several points during the attacks in the Straits of Hormuz and the taking of ships hostage by Iran and the UK. The attacks on Saudi oil facilities and the difficulty of protecting oil installations in the region, Iran's increasingly difficult position under tight U.S. sanctions and pressure on Asian buyers of Iranian oil to cut back purchases, the efforts of Japan and India dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil to reduce tensions, all point to a new policy in the region with a new Israeli government playing a useful role to keep policy control in the hands of Asian countries dependent on oil supplies for their economies, and in the hands of a U.S. president better informed about a policy course that is in U.S. interests of avoiding unnecessary engagements overseas when there are other pressing priorities. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ says one of the mysteries of the Republican campaign primaries of 2016 is why each candidate, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, and Carson, all took on each other and not Trump- in the process leaving Trump to be "winning, winning, winning."

LyrArc Article Gist
Many of the towns with manufacturing plants in 1992 have switched sides from Democratic in 1992 to Republican in 2016. This explains Donald Trump's success - he tapped into discontent with Democrats who supported trade agreements such as TPP and did little to take up the cause of workers in areas hit hard by foreign manufacturing and imports. It also explains why Republicans are now favoring protectionism and Democrats supporting free trade, traditionally the opposite was true.   As the U.S. manufacturing workforce diminished in size from 15% of the U.S. workforce in 1992 to 8% in 2017, it shifted from cities with unions to blue collar suburbs. Factories in traditional Democratic places were closed down and these cities ceased to be manufacturing centres. Pittsburgh ceased to be a major manufacturing centre as manufacturing jobs declined by 37000, and service industries increased by 168,000. This resulted in the manufacturing heartland going through Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, through Ohio and the Carolinas and into the deep South. In these places whites without college education took up manufacturing jobs and identified with the Republican party's focus on social issues and abortion restrictions. So big is the shift that labor unions that represented 20% of manufacturing workers in 1992 represented only 9% of workers in 2017, according to economists at Georgia State University. Bill Clinton won 49% of working class counties where workers were at least 25% of the workforce. By 2016 the 860 such counties were down to 320 about two thirds now gone, and Mr. Trump took 95% of these counties. The change is dramatic. Voters that identify Democrat are now from cities, more educated, and less likely to be identified as blue collar. As the economies of these cities has shifted to finance and service industries, these residents have not accomodated the conservative cultural views. and have shifted to embracing more immigration, LGBT, gay rights on social issues. Before there was one mention in the 1992 Democratic platform of LGBT says the Journal, now there is 19 mention of rights for LGBT. Republicans have now shifted from privatizing Social Security, and now support some infrastructure spending. Republican platform now calls for free trade that is fair trade. And this has support from the left and the right. Factory owners and factory workers are united in their opposition to free trade rules that hit American factories. Union leaders say the Democratic Party left us. The Democratic Party gets more support and identifies more with Silicon Valley- Mr. Obama's TPP trade agreement benefitted Silicon Valley more than it did auto plants. The change happened over many years and Mr Trump capitalized on this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
House Speaker Paul Ryan's "Confident America" campaign in 2016 aims to reassure the Republican base and build support for Congressional Republicans as the Trump movement disrupts the Republican Party.

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reminds readers that it has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928. That it is not about to do it with the two candidates Biden and Trump. It sees many liabilities in the Republican candidate and does not see the future of America in what it calls four long years of political trench warfare. WSJ does not see a reinvestment in the economy, rebuilding of its infrastructure and preparing the transition to clean energy as two overriding priorities as do Democrats under leadership of Biden and policy being shaped by Sullivan after much study and reflection shown in speeches at Brookings and CFR. As a result it punts at the very time it should be looking to the future with confidence in the principles that built this nation as JFK has shown in his Profiles of Courage (1952) of senators and Congressmen who looked into their souls for the courage needed to face the future. It says Trump has been the greatest Democratic turnout machine since FDR, and Obama, with underperformances since then. It also refers to the court cases and says one third of Republican voters in Super Tuesday polls this week in March 2024 find that a conviction would be disqualifying. WSJ Editorial Board also says the Trump Presidency was a stress test for US institutions, that the checks and balances held. It sees no hope of political realignment in a Trump restoration, it sees only "four long years of political trench warfare. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Compared to chancellor Scholz Merz sets his goals and is clear about his goals. His active style is different from previous chancellors. His first meeting with Trump showed this personal style which is proving to be more effective than Merkel or Scholz. Merz had to wait for a long time in the private sector till Merkel retired to come back to politics. During Merkel's early years Merz challenged Merkel for leadership of the Christian Democrats party. Merkel's policy on migrants has proved to be a failure, and Merz is now in a position to take the CSU in a new direction closing the border and working closely with the US and Britain, Italy, on border enforcement. Merz is also unique and very different from the disinvestment period under Merkel which let German infrastructure deteriorate and fall apart, another failure of Merkel's years as chancellor. Merz's first action was to get close to a trillion dollars of new funding to rebuild defense and infrastructure over the next decade. Merz is head of a coalition with the SPD with SPD's leader Lars Klingbeil as finance minister. Scholz headed a coalition that was dysfunctional as the Free Democrats Lindner was opposed to investment in German economy from the outset. Under Merkel the Christian Democrats took no action to rebuild Germany, and were preoccupied with eurozone finances. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Republicans have supported less regulation. After the 2009 financial crisis with faulty mortgages and excessive leveraging one would expect that there would be a shift among Republicans favoring necessary regulation of banks. This did not happen after the Obama administration failed to articulate a new culture after 2009 and lost control of Congress in 2010 by as much as 64 seats in the House 6 in the Senate, and in all demographic and income groups. The result was that the 2009 crisis changed some laws but not the culture of laissez faire that less regulation was better for the economy. It is left to president Biden to tackle this problem of culture and the Silicon Valley Bank clearly shows that the parts of the Republican and Democratic parties that support less regulation even where the regulation is essential for a good economy for workers and families, are self serving. No where is this culture of laissez fairre in its other manifestation in not planning for the US manufacturing base to be strengthened by government action more evident than in the way it has prevailed to turn a blind eye to not just sending manufacturing overseas, but over concentrating it in one country China with additional supply base from Japan into China. This is the challenge that the country faces- only if the culture or mindset changes will laws have the needed impact.  This report in the NYT shows that when president Trump appointed Randall Quarles to vice chair of banking supervision in 2017, Congressmen both Republicans and Democrats believed that less supervision was better for the economy. Democrats such as Congressmen Barney Frank were themselves part of the new culture when Frank joined Signature Bank's board in 2015, one of the banks that along with SVB bank caused the banking crisis of 2023. Its association with risky crypto assets is considered by the WSJ as being one reason the government decided to close it. Frank did not see this aspect of its risk insisting that the bank was in sound condition.  This culture is also manifested in its approach to the cost of living crisis and support for workers and families. The Biden administration sees the problem of culture and of clearly making the changes that create a new culture, and a new understanding of what is right for America, for its economy and for its role in the world, and best for its people.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Based on this Washington Post sample of reader views on the presidential Debate, 4 of 5 readers in the sample are critical of the way the Post, NYT, WSJ are acting against the elected and popular transformative president of the US. What do Washington Post readers think of the way media magnates running Post, NYT, WSJ are trying to run the country in the face of a elected president who remains popular for the action he has taken on cost of living, climate change, manufacturing jobs, factories and supply chains, and is investing trillions of dollar in renewing America's manufacturing, Chips and science, and Infrastructure? Their campaigns are there for all to see against the president, even as the British election shows Keir Starmer of Labour saying "from 20 points behind to 20 points ahead," achieving a landslide even with only 2% increase in votes since 2019. Starmer too was written off just twelve months ago. The first letter is from Little Rock stating the Post, NYT, WSJ position. The second is from Linda Barnes of Ashland, New Hampshire, who faults the Post for not having the headline about "Disastrous debate performance by Trump who failed to answer most questions and lied relentlessly." Lauri Costello of Las Cruces, New Mexico, says every American would have benefitted from an in depth analysis of the debate rather than a focus on how each debater looked and spoke. Diana Hasuly of Ashburn, Virginia, says the debate was an opportunity to see two men's perspectives about the future of America, and the Post had done a great disservice to America, as have the NYT, WSJ and the Media in general, by not spelling what each man was offering America for the future. To take just three Climate change, manufacturing investment and jobs, infrastructure spending, Biden is getting so much done and has the plan for 2030, the former president has none, simply none and did not talk about this. Mark Parkhurst of Silver Spring, Maryland, says of the June 28 front page in the Post that the Post uses "falshoods" not "lies" when a lie needs to be called a lie from the former president. And says to be fair the Media needs to point out the actual achievements of president Biden not dwell on MAGA rhetoric. Is the Post or the Media in general overreaching, is it listening? What would Washington, Lincoln or FDR say?   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Phillips of the WSJ provides a profile of typical Donald Trump supporters, a couple Joey and Tina Elias, driving from Alabama to Pensacola, Florida to attend a Trump rally. Joey, 46 years old, lost his job in 2010, and has since worked at jobs a little above the minimum wage. Tina, 44 years old, is assistant director of a daycare center. They have worked hard to build a house on a 3 acre plot of land, after living for several years in a mobile home. They have 2 children, and Joey says he has to worry about job security before making any purchases. They are against free trade, as its not seen as favoring working Americans. They favor a strong military, because they see president Obama as defunding the military and weakening America overseas. They say they are not racially motivated, believe in God, but not church going. They don't feel strongly about social cultural issues, believing in live and let live. They say they like Trump not because he is saying anything new, only because he has voiced their concerns, they have felt this way for a long time. They want to see America winning- and to win as the country wins. What is striking is that the couple face some of the same job insecurity, and the paycheck to paycheck job insecurity and fear of losing what they have with job loss, that is being felt by average working Americans after the 2009 economic crisis. On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders is gaining support from white working class people who share the same anxieties about economic insecurity following the 2009 economic crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
A survey of 414 National Association of Business Economics (NABE) economists shows Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson with 15%, overtaking Trump at 14% on who would best manage the economy. On protectionist views only 9% support this. 15% said they have no opinion and 55% said Hillary Clinton would do the best job of managing the economy. About 62% say the election uncertainty is holding back growth. Some aspects of Hillary Clinton's economic plan are the $275 billion infrastructure investment over 10 years, taking action against companies that ship jobs overseas, a capital gains tax paln that encourages long term investments, supporting $15 minimum wage, making upward mobility a top priority, providing government financed access to public colleges for working class and lower income groups. Donald Trump's plan has suffered form lack of specifics, shifting comments, lack of careful study, and excessive use of slogans. Both candidates oppose trade agreements that shift jobs overseas. Trump's plan also suffers from lack of credibility overseas as this is important in a global business structure, with fears of protectionism increasing. and reminding people of the protectionism under Smoot-Hawley that increased the damage from the depression of the thirties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The author is a resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute. He says conservatism and the Republican Party have failed to recognize the problems of the American working class, leading to the rise of Trump. He adds that it will take more than one election cycle for Republicans to change this, it will take a lot more effort lasting many years. Speaker Ryan arranged a forum on working class problems, poverty and lack of opportunity, but only after Trump had made appeals to older white working class Americans who have done poorly in the last decade, making him the front runner in the race, and relegated Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to single digit support.

LyrArc Article Gist
The situation for the day before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, 2016, with voter turnout playing a key part in the election primary.

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Peterson, a professor who heads the Program on Education Policy at Harvard, says that public school education has not done as well as private or charter school education. In two areas character or values, and school discipline, public schools lag far behind private schools or charter schools. Private schools score 59% and 46% in these two areas, public schools lag far behind at 21% and 17%, in the 2016 Education Next Survey, says Peterson. He says by appointing Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, the Trump administration sees the need to think how public schools can benefit from improvement in these areas.