LyrArc Article Gist
The two front runners among Democrats in the campaign for President in the U.S. are building their lead on the basis of programs to reduce inequality and build the social fabric. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren support a program of Medicare For All. This program is a single payer program run by the government so that medical costs can be cut by the government directly negotiating cuts, which would reduce some of the cost.The WSJ looks at the ways this can be financed at a cost of between $11 trillion over a decade. Programs of less extensive coverage  in Medicare for All excluding undocumented workers and having individuals share some costs would cost this much, according to some experts.The gap would be financed by taxes such as that on Medicare currently. Sanders additional tax premium would be 7.5% paid by employers and 4% by employees. About $1 trillion is generated by each percentage point of taxes over a decade says CBO, so that a combined 11.5%  tax would cover Medicare for All. Alternatives or some combination would include this with taxes on the wealthy. Tax hikes on wealth, income and financial transactions would generate $11 trillion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget. Currently a majority favors a Medicare for All plan, and this support could grow as people understand that it would be progressive and reduce the burden on the middle class by shifting some of the burden to the wealthier in society in today's economy, where much of the increase in wealth over the last 3 decades has gone to upper income people. Much more so in the U.S. than in Europe creating a tear in the social fabric and disaffection with Democrats, who in earlier administrations from Clinton to Obama failed to maintain the gains made under FDR, Truman and Kennedy. This has led to a Republican administration under president Trump that won over disaffected Democrats but hope to merley to maintain the status quo. Warren is trying to change this with bold social programs that fit today's needs and circumstances. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under Mette Frederiksen immigration which reached 21,000 in 2015 was down to a little over 1000 a year. She is a strong fighter for workers and families and labor rights and yet tough on illegal immigration. She has been proven right about this as Britain and the US under Biden are seeing illegal immigration as a threat to workers and labour, are seeing the risks of distraction from illegal immigration doing a serious disservice to workers and families by making it hard to fight for workers and families on wages, cost of living and other issues.  Even with a strong record of fighting for workers and families, Frederiksen was one of the first European leaders to see the dangers of illegal immigration to society. It gave parts of the political spectrum that had no interest all along in workers and families doing well, an issue to run on that would come to cause grave harm to workers and families. This turned out to be the error of Angela Merkel a CDU leader brought up in Communist East Germany, who had no idea of the risks of her approach for open immigration. As Merkel let this chapter unfold it created fissures in Europe, with Tories and Nigel Farage taking Britain out of the EU and laying waste to its economy for 5 years till Labour's Starmer adopted a tough immigration policy and became prime minister in 2024. That danger then spread to the US in 2016 which also suffered as Republicans and Trump did the same in the US around rhetoric but without serious action on immigration till the Lankford- Biden legislation.  That bill would have closed the border with Mexico and ended immigration as an issue forever if passed into law in December 2023, as Senator Lankford says would have happened. Ending immigration as an issue forever alongside foreign wars as an issue, so that a concentrated effort could be made on improving badly damaged lives of workers and families. And on rebuilding badly damaged manufacturing in the US, rebuilding collapsing infrastructure, and competing with better education and healthcare with the large Asian countries China, Japan/ South Korea, India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ story shows how China started its steel industry from small beginnings when Chinese leader Deng visited a Nippon Steel plant in 1978. He made the decision to go big with Baosteel, with an investment of $6 billion, with the words- "if we do it lets do it big." This was 36 times the Chinese foreign exchange reserves at the time. From 4% of steel production, this went up and up, passing the U.S. in 1993, past Japan in 1996, and in 2018 producing three times the steel of U.S., Russia and China combined, producing 923 million metric tons of steel in 2018, or more than half of world production of steel. With steel China was able to build its automobile industry, shipbuilding, bridges, infrastructure, high speed rail network. This was done using global demand, subsidies from the government, cheap loans and tax breaks. Markets worldwide were affected by substantial excess production in China. From Baosteel the spread of the steel industry to all 23 Chinese provinces led to China accounting for 25% of world exports. By 2016 5 million workers mostly from the agrarian countryside were employed in the steel industry, helping China transform itself into an rapidly urbanizing and modern economy. It was a period when the rail network was tripled between 1975-2017, with shipping companies that ensured access to Australian coal and Brazilian iron ore. From 2011 to 2017 Chinese steel dropped global prices by 57% triggering closure of steel mills in EUrope and the U.S. About a third of trade complaints since 2001 by G20 countries against China are about steel. After entry into the WOrld Trade Organization Chinese steel exports rose to 8% of GDP from 2%. Subsidies, cheap energy, and shift of agrarian workers to cities. U.S. investigations around 2006 showed Chinese steelmakers subsidies covered 30% to 45% of the subsidized value of steel pipes exported overseas. China's steel prices were set 20-40% lower than the U.S. China responded to complaints saying it was trade protectionism. The WTO rules call for full disclosing of all subsidies. This was disclosed 5 years after joining WTO in 2001, and only for central subsidies. Local government subsidies were not disclosed till 2016- the U.S. says 15 years late. Still the Bush and Obama administrations failed to take action. In 2018 Mr. Trump seized on this as a campaign issue that resonated with American workers in manufacturing communities across the U.S. In 2018 November president Trump announced a 25% tariff on imports of Chinese steel. A six month probe by U.S. officials had already shown 40% of sales value came from subsidies for corrosion resistant steel from China. The U.S. Trade Commission imposed tariffs of its own from 39% to 241%, with the Trump tariffs of 25% coming as an additional tariff to tackle the trade surplus with China. Meanwhile in China the government is closing uncompetitive smaller steel mills and in 2016 it combined baosteel with Wuhan Steel to create a larger company, and consolidate remaining companies. Baosteel now provides the steel for CIMC to dominate the steel container business, and to make ship to shore cranes, and make the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.  It also goes to show what can be accomplished from small beginnings for countries in the developing world from Asia to Africa and Latin America, with government and industry focussed on development and growth.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Steve Bannon is described in this indepth report by Scott Shane as a workaholic, born to working class family with his father a telephone line operator, who went to Virginia Tech and joined the Navy in the hope of advancing a career in politics. At Virginia Tech he won a leadership position of the student organization. He was described by another student who knew him well as passionate but not likely to get much done. The period at Virginia Tech and in the Navy were the Carter years followed by election of Ronald Reagan. The election of Reagan had a huge influence on Bannon- the same overtones of that campaign of Reagan are seen today in the forgotten men and women, white working class families that Conservatives then and Tea Party Conservatives in the Obama years felt ignored. The downward drift of the lower middle class families that saw incomes drop as manufacturing hollowed out in the U.S. with foreign competition, the failure of establishment politicians of both parties to protect American manufacturing and working class families, added to the sense of angst for Bannon. Bannon just like politicians in the Obama camp such as Emmanuel, found the way to politics through finance and gains made as the banking sector and financial institutions made huge financial gains by 2008. This was a stepping stone for their political ambitions. Emmanuel who is also a workaholic and passionate about his views worked to elect a black president, Bannon choosing to do the opposite and push for bringing back the Reagan era. Most on the liberal side see him as part of a racist movement. Reagan was none of those things. How does one reconcile the two? It is possible that seeing the fight against the established politics as an impossible task, Bannon in his passionate temperament did not object to the support of right wing extremists, in the same way that Trump did. As both Trump and Bannon have people of Jewish origin and black people in their circle of friends or family. What incensed Bannon as described here by Scott Shane of the NYT, was that after the financial crisis of 2008, hardly any bank executives who had committed wrongdoing went to jail, his father's line operator retirement savings were devastated by the financial crisis, and working class families struggled harder than ever, that his daughter at West Point was with mostly children of working class families who were the ones fighting America's wars. Many ironies abound in the story. Bannon got his business start in the same financial institutions that were involved in the financial crisis of 2008, Bannon & Co was acquired by Societe Generale. He is from an Irish Catholic working class family in Richmond and attended Benedictine High School, with a mother Doris that worked on the campaign to elect Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, as the first African American governor of Virgina.  The other ironies are in that Bannon sees Trump as "an imperfect vessel" but still good enough, and Trump sees himself as "making all the decisions" when asked about Bannon, as a range of interests struggle to form a coherent movement on the right in American politics- an unlikely combination of a telephone operator's son and real estate magnate's son who built his own real estate business in luxury real estate towers far removed from ordinary men and women they represent. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Merkel meets President Trump in a key summit in March 2017. The two leaders have different styles, one flamboyant the other reserved. Chancellor Merkel tells the German media "it is better to talk with each other than about each other." Trump called Merkel's refugee policy "catastrophic," Merkel has said that the Geneva convention requires countries to do this on humanitarian grounds. On trade German's Economy minister Brigitte Zypries says Germany would file a suit on any hike in import duties at the World Trade Organization, that WTO rules restrict import taxes to 2.5% on autos. Germany's BMW plant in the U.S. exports more autos than GM and Ford put together, and Merkel is likely to emphasize large German investment in the U.S.. The heads of BMW and Siemens and other industry executives are accompanying Merkel to the U.S. as trade will be a key topic.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman says there is cause for concern from May's U.S. jobs report of only 38,000 jobs added- low even with Verizon strike jobs added back in- compared to the 200,000 a month average since Jan 2013. One cannot read too much into one months report, yet the political uncertainty in a election year adds to the problem. The low interest rates near zero offering little possibility for rate cuts, make it difficult to come up with a policy response. Under a Clinton administration the infrastructure spending option would face Republican resistance.  It is not clear how a Trump administration would respond. Krugman says the jobs figure reflects a stronger dollar- a result partly of the Fed's plan to raise rates- that is hurting U.S. exports.

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Biden's very conservative choices for his cabinet which one British reader of The Times calls UK One Nation type choices. Many of the cabinet members could easily have served under a Republican administration before Trump or a Democratic administration in the tradition of Harry Truman in the 1950's. No members of the cabinet belong to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  A look at the Truman administration after 1950 shows John Wesley Snyder, who headed a bank in St Louis and worked for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under Franklin Roosevelt performing a key role for integrating 8 million GI soldiers into the economy, and implementing the Marshall Plan. A similar job awaits another banking official Janet Yellen in Biden's cabinet to keep people employed during the pandemic. Xavier Becerra, currently attorney general of California, and formerly Congressman for 24 years, who endorsed "medicare for all" is the new Health Secretary. He grew up in a one room apartment with his Mexican parents. Secretary of State goes to Anthony Blinken, Dean Acheson was in this role under Truman as the Cold War surged with the Berlin crisis and the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Today the challenges from Russia and China are taking the shape of a revival of tensions. George Marshall who led American forces in the war, was secretary of defense. This position is given to a soldier Gen. Lloyd Austin who led forces in the wars in the Middle East. This has the potential to deliver better results after the years when America veered off course under the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, following the Truman, Eisenhower administrations that setup the recovery after World War II. Today after the banking crisis of 2009, disastrous healthcare and infrastructure neglect in the U.S., followed by the pandemic, a recovery like the one after World War II is needed.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Juan Manuel Santos, former president of Colombia helped negotiate the peace with the FARC guerilla movement in Colombia. Here he points out the changes in South America that have led to the end of guerilla conflicts. This achievement comes after extended conflicts that affected Peru, Colombia, central American countries Nicaragua, San Salvador, Guatemala, following conflicts in Brazil and Argentina that led to the formation of military dictatorships that fought battles with guerilla movements. This goes back to the Castro movement in Cuba against the dictatorship of Batista, and the Cold War during the Krushchev days of the Soviet Union in the sixties. Much of this has ended, yet Santos draws a conclusion that the Western hemisphere is in peace that ignores the legacy of these conflicts. In many places the drug trade has simply moved to places further north, to destabilize governments in central America. The guerillas have become part of the drug trade as ways to integrate them into society have lagged behind or not worked. As a result life is difficult in central America leading to migration northward, similar to migration to Europe from war torn regions in North Africa. Mexico has continued as a key part of the drug trade affecting rural communities in places previously untouched by drugs such as New Hampshire and places in the northeastern U.S., even after a decade of war against drug trafficking gangs by Mexican president Calderon. It also destabilizes Mexican politics such as the murder of 42 students in Guerrero province for civil activism. It is also destabilizing a major democracy such as the U.S. as Donald Trump has sought support from communities devastated by drugs in the U.S., and sought support for a racist approach to politics. For these reasons the more visible conflicts of North and South America are now replaced with a less visible but no less insidious and dangerous mix in politics that has entered civil life and discourse across the region.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
No country benefited more than first Japan and then South Korea till 2000, and now China till 2022 from the trade and sharing of industrial technology enabled by the American backed system of trade and industry. Walter Russell Mead says in WSJ that China has chosen to challenge the system through which it developed into an industrialized nation with the US running huge trade deficits, sharing its technology and letting Chinese manufacturing displace American local manufacturing. China is seen as challenging the system. Yet what has happened is that this process of displacing American manufacturing and industry was not sustainable anyway and continued for a decade longer than it would otherwise have lasted because American industry could not easily reverse a course it had set of setting up manufacturing in China, once that manufacturing base had already been transferred from the US to China and American companies had grown accustomed to a new state of affairs of making overseas in China. Not much thought was given to how American workers would react to that situation as companies and industries making that transfer made independent decisions. This led to the election of Trump with wins in midwestern states that had suffered from loss of manufacturing communities.  The Trump tariffs on Chinese goods and the Biden administration lining up completely behind American workers and families for the first time for Democrats has sent the signal to China that it finds the situation of China's dominance in the trade system unacceptable. The document of "China 2030" of the Chinese Government with planned dominance in key sectors and industries was met with alarm across America in all parties. The paradox of Apple as a key sector in Chinese manufacturing and the largest American company is the result of policies pursued by America without realizing the true cost of shipping manufacturing out of the country. That process is now being reversed with change of management starting at Intel Corp. and other companies to bring the manufacturing base back to the US. This policy is being resolutely pursued by the US and will speed up following the pandemic which has further demonstrated how much of a mistake the policy of sending out manufacturing in critical areas such as health could be. This is the reality behind the rhetoric and verbal exchange between China and the US. With the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing countries such as India were put in a difficult situation  as this was preventing the local industrial base developing in India with Chinese imports in the same way as it had damaged that of the US and the EU. Worse it led to the use of US and European technology in China's defense industrial base including aviation and other sectors that threatened India's borders with repeated Chinese incursions in the Himalayas, from the Pakistan western Himalayas to Ladakh and the eastern Himalayan mountains. That situation existed long before the Trump and Biden administration and the Modi administration called for a return to America of its industrial manufacturing base and its technological leadership. Both the Bush and Obama administrations and the Indian Congress administrations failed to realize the dangers of letting the US, European and Indian industrial base wither. India is not just a country but a culture that extends from the Himalayas all the way across Bangladesh to the Indonesian islands which shares a common cultural history of Buddhism and the Vedanta. This is a region that has a population of about 2 billion people. In a larger sense the cultural history extends to  Vietnam and Japan with its Buddhist culture whose origins go back to India, and also of China itself. In the larger sense this is a population of close to 3 billion people. The economic development of this region and learning from the parliamentary traditions and scientific discoveries of the modern period since 1700 is a task for both the US, Europe and the people of the region.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is the difference between South Korea and the U.S., Europe in the handling of coronavirus? It is tracking and testing.  President Trump and health adviser Dr. Fauci, see South Korea as the successful model to be followed in controlling the coronavirus. What has happened till now it is accepted with shortage of basic medical supplies and equipment, stress on hospital systems, are merely mitigation actions. South Korea was prepared for the coronavirus crisis because of the MERS and other epidemics, and failures resulting in corrective actions. Labs were centralized and better equipped for testing and tracking the infected. One of the key tools is testing. President Trump says the goal is for the U.S. to exceed and far surpass tests per capita in South Korea. Five million tests are planned by the end of April in the U.S. Where the U.S. falls short is in use of multipronged digital tracking using data from people's use of mobile phones, credit card usage, and use of apps designed to separate infected people from others. South Korea is a democracy with a population of 52 million people, about the size of France. People who were student activists in the democratization era in South Korea say the use of digital technology is a need today. We have to adapt in emergency situation they say. Ki Mo-ran, epidemiologist, and adviser to South Korean government says this is a key part lacking in the European and U.S. efforts to control coronavirus. She says in South Korea we know the patient's contacts, where he goes and stays, so we don't have to lock down everybody. Without digital tracking one cannot know which place is contaminated, which place is clean, so that there can be a lockdown of just that area and not the whole country, says Ki Mo-ran. She asks the question- is one person's privacy more important than the lives of a family or other people who are affected. Is it OK to lockdown every child in the country in a home as in Spain for over a month so that particular people's privacy is respected? These are serious questions for western society, are they exceptions or is democracy not just a western idea but equally cherished in Asian societies, people talk about Confucianism in China and the Asian culture forgetting that the biggest democracies are quite large and functioning well in India in addition to South Korea, Taiwan Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Japan, far larger in area and population than China. The French government has chosen the app TraceTogether as the least intrusive one adaptable to France for use there. The U.S. is having Google and Apple develop one of its own. India will be developing one of its own. The NYT raises the question will it be watered down so much in France or in the U.S. and UK to be less effective than the  dire need for an alternative to lockdowns? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Baker and Shear show the changes in president Trump's views on Islam and Islamic extremism following his meetings with leaders from the region since taking office. In his speech to leaders of the region Trump said "Islam is one of the world's great faiths" and said what was needed was "tolerance and respect for each other." He also said it was not about "conflict between religions, sects or civilizations." General McMaster calls it "learning" for Trump, something Trump has shown a capacity for when he badly needs to get it together and make a conscious effort. As a result the page on the travel ban on the Trump website has been taken down. This is an astonishing about face seen in one way because of Trump's rhetoric during the election and right upto the travel ban, yet it also shows Trump's business instincts and willingness to learn and be open, showing he has many personality traits and is a more complex person than he looks at first glance. This may also be how he survived in business bankruptcies, by adapting and learning. Contrast this with the views of Marine Le Pen during the French presidential election, and it shows that the business side and commercial instincts of Trump make a real difference. He can appeal to the cultural angst of followers, whether it be for Mexico or the Middle East, yet take a sensible approach to get on with it when needed. Trump needed to be careful about words and meaning following a month of media revelations on the relations between Flynn and Russia, and the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Trump campaign connections with Russia. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Galston focusses attention on the major problem facing democracies in Europe and the U.S.- that of providing decent paying jobs and improved economic prospects for lower and middle income households. He cites the surveys from the Pew Research Report and the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics showing how middle income households median net income remains stuck at levels of 1997, and lower income households at levels of 1996. The median net worth of American households adjusted for inflation presents an alarming picture of being at $96,000 in 1983 and $98,000 in 2013 for middle income families, and being at the level of $12,000 for lower income families the level of 1975. Most of the new jobs as much as 95% are being created in the low wage service sector and the BLS statistics show the future looking much the same- with huge numbers of low wage jobs, fewer decent manufacturing jobs because of automation and jobs shifts to low cost locations overseas, remaining manufacturing jobs in the U.S shrinking by another 800,000 to 7% of the workforce by 2025. The result is the alarming rise of populist politicians like Trump in the U.S., Le Pen in France , and populist politicians in Hungary and Poland. Cultural liberals in the Democratic Party and the Republican establishment are both threatened by the rise of cultural illiberalism, xenophobia, and nationalism, as economic anxiety increases, and fears of terrorism and immigrants add to this anxiety. Progressive tendencies in the Republican party since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and of professional elites in the Democratic Party could become endangered if no serious effort is made to come up with solutions to the problems these trends present. The disconnect between the concerns of the working and middle class and the professional elites as the gap widens and the social compact in America and Europe breaks apart, means a new mindset will be required in America and Europe to deal with this. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Germany on Trump's economic plan and the need for changes by his advisors. DW.com's Wenkel says Trump needs to understand that 80% of job losses in recent years have come from not from globalization, but automation and higher productivity, rationalization. He says higher tariffs on Mexico could backfire.

LyrArc Article Gist
With so much coverage of other aspects of China,  to really understand China and Xi Jinping one has to understand the rural urban situation in China. Xi's long experience as a teenager in the cultural revolution of Mao was in rural areas, the 8 years he spent there till the age of 22, as this report by James Areddy with help of Yijun, Cheng and Qi aptly shows. It traces the shift and mass migration to cities starting with Deng's modernization drive in 1979. This shift of labor to city and town factories as the U.S. and Europe shifted factories and production to China is the story of our times. How it has both helped and hurt China and how it has become the dominant issue of our times, and a lesson for India in the middle of its own modernization and shift of labor to cities. It has helped China modernize with the shift during 1979 to 2016 and run into a road block with president Trump leading a movement in the U.S. of people most hurt by the outsourcing of factories and production to China. It was not meant to be this way. Yet the shift also led to ripping up the fabric of communities and towns with loss of factories across America over three decades. Because China is a large country the impact was huge decade after decade, leading to a backlash against lost jobs in the U.S. and in Europe.  Xi Jinping has romantic view of rural China as he spent 7 years in Shanxi province rural areas during the cultural revolution under Mao. During this period he toiled as part of farm labor alongside villagers which allowed him to get to know villagers and farmers in the countryside well, and formed his view of the world around him. As it is described in a description of the man in Chinese sources- "He arrived at the village as a slightly lost teenager and left as a 22 year old man determined to do something for the people."  China's system separated migrants from city dwellers not  giving same rights to better education, to schools and housing, and official documents separating the two, city dwellers and migrant populations from rural areas. As a result as China modernized and population shifted -shown here in excellent graphic charts over four decades- in 1979 from about 80% in rural areas and 20% in urban the shift goes to 50-50 by 2001. Today it is 40-60 with 60% in rural areas but a population of 40% suffering from severe inequalities and  low incomes. So that GDP per capita of $10,000 for China is deceiving. The real incomes in average disposable income is about $4300 in urban and $1700 in rural area, according to National Bureau of Statistics. High school education is hard enough to get in rural areas, medical care is very basic and the $1700 would hardly get a room in low income housing in a large town in China, says premier Li Keqiang. Keqiang did his masters thesis on urbanization and has studied this shift from his college days. Just as in Gandhi's India, Mao's China is the story of the villages, with 128,000 villages for 600 million people in Mr. Xi Jinping's anti-poverty drive. Hong Kong other issues have to be understood in the context of these concerns of China's leadership today- the sense that strong central leadership alone can keep the country together and bring a decent life to the people in the villages and in the countryside outside the cities.  Modernization of cities still set in the context of China's vast rural population and essential to its full uplift and progress. Xi has allocated $80 billion each year to bring roads, schools, medical facilities, and other amenities including electricity and modern heating. The idea now is to shift people back to the villages, find opportunities for jobs and livelihoods in farming, tourism with guesthouse facilities, and other occupations in the villages. The villages are being turned into attractive places to live one by one in this party drive and providing new enthusiasm and support for the party's efforts. India can learn from this experience in China. The western nations of the U.S. and Europe can no longer and will no longer undertake the wholesale shift of factories with loss of jobs to China or India to offer the prospect of bringing these countries to the kind of urbanization and overall prosperity of small nations like Japan and South Korea, which are a tiny fraction of the population of China and India+ Pakistan + Bangladesh. As a result China is changing strategy now with a return to some aspects of the informal economy in Chengdu with street peddlers and tiny retail, and return of migrants back to better built and improved villages in the countryside. A better life than in cities is possible this view says for people from these rural areas, if the rural areas are given modern facilities and construction and resources are allocated, job creation locally tackled. The villages can offer better air quality, better quality of life where villagers who earlier migrated to cities with ownership of land, when they are modernized with better roads and have better facilities for education, housing and healthcare, better amenities. The new approach is to strike a good balance for urbanization, by modernizing and investing in villages and small towns, so that cities can cope and overall life can be better than with mass migration and wholesale urbanization. It is also a balance that works well for the U.S. and Europe which can redirect manufacturing to their home regions as part of a better distributed and balanced supply chain than the one that was unwittingly built over the last three decades.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ report sees Angela Merkel as leaving an international legacy of cooling relations with America. It says Angela Merkel turned down US president Biden's first call after his election as president because she was going to her cottage in the country that weekend. This report says after 4 terms Merkel is to be seen as dramatically increasing her country's economic dependence on China, pushing through a energy deal with Russia, joining France in challenging US political influence in Europe, rejecting American requests on economic policy and setting Berlin's openness to Chinese technology.  What happened with her youthful fascination with America during the years growing up in East Germany asks the WSJ? It also says of the Bush years of unregulated banking leading to the 2009 US banking crisis- that left her with a distaste for Anglo-Saxon banks and Wall Street lobbying. Of the Obama years it says Merkel found Obama unsteady, verbose, and sometimes meddling, with the spying on Merkel's phone also giving her a sense of disrespect to Germany. The result was that Merkel increasingly was fascinated by the Chinese experiment in development, visiting China 13 times while in office, studying Chinese history, politics and economics.  Merkel over this period met with the Dalai Lama and had questions about one party rule by CCP. Yet she became more and more resigned to Germany as a country of 80 million, not the EU and Europe as one group united in vision with a population of about 500 million, larger than America that could be a force for good in its own right. She said "we can be as hardworking, awesome,  as super as we like, but as a country of 80 million we won't be able to prevail if China ever decided that it no longer wants to have good relations with Germany." She ignored the experience of Sweden and Scandinavian countries in their relations with China. In saying this she ignored the potential of India and its neighbors in south-east Asia that make up about 2 billion people or about twice the population of China. She also seemed unaware of the role Woodrow Wilson, FDR, have played in realizing the democratic vision of the German revolutionaries of 1948 who failed to bring democratic government to Germany. And she had forgotten of the role Harry Truman, the commoner president of the US, who played a major role in establishing German democracy and its dignity during the Berlin Crisis after the blockade of Berlin by the Soviets in 1948. The mediocrity of presidents from Bush to Trump has bothered Merkel. Yet it may very well be that there is nothing mediocre about Mr. Biden and America's vision about its future as it grapples with the social and economic problems of the last three decades, as it has done before in its history and come through. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The bottom half of all U.S. households have only recently recovered the wealth lost in the 2009 financial crisis. They still have 32% less wealth than in 2003 when inflation is taken into account. The top 1% of households have more than twice as much as they did in 2003. Wealth is defined as net worth that includes houses , savings and stocks minus any debt. The wealthy have 85% of their wealth in stocks and bonds. For the bottom 50% half of the assets are in the house or family home. Economic and regulatory trends have happened in ways that favored the people investing in stocks, and rescued people investing in stocks with policies designed with this purpose by central banks and the U.S. government. By contrast for the bottom 50% buying a home is more difficult today. The problem this WSJ report points out is that the next recession would most hurt the bottom 50%, even before they have recovered from the last one which was a result of shaky practices of banks in financial lending and not some cyclical swing in the economy. Policy was then geared to provide a recovery first for stock markets as a way to economic recovery. The bottom 50% have little stake in the stock market, the top 1% have most of their gains from the stock market. Much of the popular anger comes from the way policies by both Democrats and Republicans differed little in past administrations in the way they approached this in shaping economic policy. As a result infrastructure building and investments in public services took less priority in this period of 30 years with trade imbalances with China building up on the external front, in another side to this development. The shift to Trump and to right wing populists in Europe is only the first phase in the corrective action that has to take place to return to a fairer distribution of wealth that existed before the last 3 decades. Eventually it is not right wing or left wing factions or parties, but healthy policies, that matter to create a better balance for society.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Venezuela faces an uncertain future after U.S. efforts to support Mr. Guaido and call for new free and fair elections have failed. With help from Russia the Venezuelan economy is showing signs of recovery from the steep decline and high inflation in 2019. Oil production is expected to reach 1 million barrels a day in 2020 after falling to 650,000- 700,000 barrels a day in 2019. Russia's oil company Rosneft provides critical help for Venezuelan oil sales and maintenance in oil fields.  National Security Adviser John Bolton is faulted for his advice to president Trump on Venezuela, that merely voicing support for 36 year old Guaido, would lead to regime change without action from the U.S. With the recovery in Venezuela with help from Russia and Cuba, Mr. Guaido's popularity has dropped by 20 points to 38%, according to a Venezuelan pollster Datanalisis. Most Cubans and Venezuelans in the U.S. are in Florida where there is support for new elections, and Mr. Trump continues to support Mr. Guaido. The lack of support for change from other countries including Europe, India, Turkey, and Mexico have led to a stalled situation in Venezuela. There is concern for the steep inflation, the migration of about 4.5 million Venezuelans, the shortages of critical supplies as a result of the economic collapse in 2019. The situation is stabilizing for the government yet the future of Venezuela with U.S. sanctions and weak economy leaves Venezuela in a precarious situation. Venezuela continues to be an example of how well meaning changes for social justice can lead to political changes that bring about economic collapse. This happens  when business and the economy flounder under mismanagement and corruption under crony socialism, a variant of crony capitalism. The old capitalist class and the privileged families who ran the country under its old two party system are gone. Replaced with a new class. The trying out of untested economic ideas in the quest for social balance leads to economic mismanagement, loss of critical human resources which leave the country, and a higher degree of poverty with shortages than before.  Today in Latin America Brazil shows how allowing generous pension benefits at the expense of basic needs and public services in the budget can hurt the economy. Argentina's overborrowing once again shows how this leads to IMF loans and harsh economic austerity. Chile shows how not financing pensions and public services can lead to collapse of public confidence and riots. Venezuela shows how the quest for social justice and reducing privilege can itself get flawed, leading to mass migration of as many as 4.5 million citizens. This happens under models that vary from free enterprise models to socialist or nationalist models showing that models can be less relevant than good sense and good management. In the beginning and for some time each of these models worked well, commodity price supported booms concealed real problems. Avoiding extremes, prudent spending, good investment and hard work, investment in education and infrastructure, building consensus, and good management, is critical for the future to avoid the bad outcomes facing much of Latin America. A lesson also for Asian and African countries that basic virtue is more important than socialism or free enterprise or nationalism when it comes to development.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Issues raised by the huge mismatch between revenues and investment for AI. $400 billion estimated investment by 5 Tech firms in 2025 alone with revenue of about $40 billion and huge uncertainty about when AI will produce returns. Articles seen this week of November 17 in the WSJ and NYT on this issue, podcasts, discussions in other media outlets. Could this lead to a dot com bubble type economic crisis? Could that lead to a recession? Alongside these articles another article in the WSJ on Nov 17 shows the benefits small firms get by using AI, benefits which are on the fringes of their business, not essential but with some experimenting firm owners/managers able to tweak AI information for use in business. Nothing significant which firms will pay much money for. The uncertainty is a major factor. Should geopolitics trump all these concerns? Is the competition with China require this scale of investment, and is China following a more utilitarian approach as reported in a WSJ article this month, of investing in AI in a utilitarian way targeting its use in improving manufacturing, improving infrastructure, and not wildly throwing money at experimental uses that are unlikely to yield much result. In geopolitical sense would the country that not only promoted AI but used it efficiently and cost effectively, used it in ways that promote the overall public good, get the WIN. In short it behooves everyone of us to ask hard questions of AI, to dehype the hype, to look for the public good that comes out of this from it's efficient use. To ask the tough questions when $400 billion generates only $40 billion in 2025 and the $3 trillion planned investment over 5 years is half unfunded, is it going to crowd out energy needs for homes and business, push renewable energy targets back, crowd out essential investments in the crumbling aging infrastructure of the US and Europe, crowd out essential investments in education, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, that hold better promise for our People. Will it also put retirees at risk when corporate bonds from retirees money fund the unfunded portion of AI? This means making the political dimension not about migration, settling the illegal migration issue that was meant to be settled a long time back, or about cultural issues that have little day to day impact on our lives which are about groceries, childcare, housing that are non ideological. Making the political dimension not about remote countries that one knows little about except when it affects public safety and health as with fentanyl. Capital allocation decisions to the vital needs of America can then be free of politically induced error, so that it can be subjected to the test of how best it serves the public interest and the people of the Nation. ...