LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides a fact check of Trump statements on crime, debt, and taxes. Trump says he is looking at a new plan for taxes not the $10 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years reducing tax collection by 22%, but something about a third of the size. No details are available on the plan. WSJ disputes Trump's statement that the U.S. is "one of the highest taxed nations in the world." WSJ points out that the U.S. in 2014 for federal, state and local government taxes collected 26% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared to average of 34% for about 30 countries, according to OECD. Debt to GDP ratio is about 75% that is high, but because of low interest rates the budget deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is close to the long run average. For this reason economists say the government should invest in infrastructure and R&D that supports long run economic growth. On crime the record is mixed with increase in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, but decreases in Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Police shootings were 67 in 2016 compared to 62 in July 2015, and the high being 280 officers in 1974 when Nixon was President. Crime was an issue in the 1968 Republican National Convention during the Vietnam era protests, police shootings and terror incidents attracted attention in July 2016, yet the situation today is very different from the war protests of the Vietnam era. On terrorism fact checks by the NYT and in Lyrarc shows Clinton at State Department and Panetta at Defense Department taking hawkish stands only to hit a barrier from President Obama for taking action needed in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Panetta's new book calls for robust action where needed. A Clinton administration would take action with allies in the Middle East. Even Hollande and Obama who pulled the U.S. and France out of following up in the French-British Sarkozy-Cameron led intervention in Libya, have changed policy, with Obama calling it his biggest mistake. France under Hollande with the U.S. is now actively engaged in the Middle East, having changed policy. It is highly unlikely that a Trump led policy which alienates most allies in the Middle East- Iran, Iraq and Saudis- is likely to work better than a determined Clinton-Panetta led effort which has support of the local countries on the ground actually currently on both sides because of complexities of Middle Eastern politics.  On trade a new administration will still have to work with China, India, the European Union, and other countries, as global trade supply chains are not likely to evolve overnight. Lessons will have been learned by Clinton about the need to bring back jobs and ensure the strength of U.S. manufacturing. Economic and jobs growth will require prudence in strengthening U.S. manufacturing coupled with global cooperation, which a Trump administration that alienates trading partners without the possibility of making any serious immediate gains in jobs, is highly unlikely to do better.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Europe and India are preparing to sign a free trade deal that would triple existing 53 billion euro trade level in 5 years. An E.U.-India summit will take place in the fall to conclude this deal. Spain is particularly interested in India as its domestic market shrinks with austerity measures taken to reduce the deficit.

LyrArc Article Gist
In the light of the Irish No vote to the Lisbon treaty for a closer political union in the EU region, and the response from from propornents of the Lisbon treaty that this would delay the process of extension of the EU towards the parts of Eastern Europe still outside the EU, what does this mean for these countries that are looking to join the EU at some point? A new World Bank study says the future for countries that remain outside the EU does not look good. Lack of competition and contacts with the outside world keeps productivity low, poor education systems and an ageing work force, and millions of people in backward regions being left out. An economist at Poland's biggest bank sees closer ties to the eastern countries outside the EU including opening up their labor markets and free trade in goods and services as a way of reinforcing the Eastern partnership that Poland and Sweden and the Czech Republic have supported for closer ties to the EU with Ukraine and other Eastern European countries outside the EU. This means bringing some of the same benefits that have helped integrate Poland into the EU....

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union has a massive surplus of $147 billion with the U.S. President Trump is making this an issue in trade negotiations. A 20% tariff on German cars imported into the U.S. is part of the tariff response from the Trump administration. 

To settle this dispute Germany is making new offers with the visit of European Commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, to Washington. France sees little room for compromise as it sees Trump's efforts designed to break European unity by driving a wedge between France and Germany.

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia invades Ukraine on multiple fronts, across Belarus, across its western border with Ukraine, on the pre dawn hours of February 24, 2022. Russian foreign minister Lavrov says "tense and detailed discussions" with US and NATO are still taking place. In talks with the US, president Putin of Russia had demanded that Ukraine commit to not joining NATO. The US insisted that this was upto Ukraine and that the territorial integrity of Ukraine had to be respected. Interventions by Macron of France and other leaders failed to bring the two sides closer. The US and Europe with a reluctant Germany looked at sanctions as a deterrent. This proved to be wrong. Mr. Putin has a passionate view of Ukraine and Kviv's historical role in the formation of the Russian state, evident in his televised address only 48 hours before the actual invasion. Ukraine has shifted between Poland and the Baltic states, Germany on one side and Russia on the other in its thousand year old history. The shift away from Bolsheviks and Communists under the Soviet Union after 1990 changed the relationship of Ukraine with its neighbors once again as Ukraine became closer to Poland and the Baltics, and Germany. Germany remains reluctant to revert to the relationship with Russia that led to 2 World Wars. During the leadership of Willy Brandt and successive German SPD leaders, as well as with Konrad Adenauer and CDU leaders, the goal was to build a good relationship with Russia. Merkel of the CDU went as far as accepting dependence on Russia for 40% of its gas supplies, after shifted out of nuclear energy and supporting a new Nordstream undersea pipeline for gas supplies.  The early reaction on DW.com and German television was one of shock as no one really expected that this would lead to a full scale invasion. Scholz of the SPD the new chancellor in 2022 was not active in forging anew consensus allowing NATO's Stoltenberg who is a former Norwegian prime minister 2005-2013 to frame the response of Europe. Norway's role in European security was marginal for most of the twentieth century. Other events had detracted from bringing active German and American participation in coming up with a framework of dialogue to address concerns of both sides and still build a common ground for peace- Afghanistan, the pandemic in its third year, China's deteriorating one sided trade relationship with America that hurt American workers and manufacturing. As a result China and Germany were essentially absent in building the framework for peace. Afghanistan hasty withdrawal made it harder for president Biden to come up with new approaches to build a common framework. President Macron made some faltering efforts on the fringes even as president Putin focused on the US response and its intentions with NATO on European soil, and declared that it was directly US Russia negotiations that needed to work. With this the whole framework of relations since the presidency of Reagan and the relations with Russia and China come to a close. And a new framework needs to be constructed that draws in India already or soon to be the most populous nation in the world, in an effort to build an enduring new framework. The voices of Eastern Europe need to be heard, yet balanced with the voices from India, China, Germany, Russia, and other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa that are affected by world events. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The euro approaches parity with the U.S. dollar by November 2016, with the surge in the dollar following the U.S. presidential election of 2016. The euro closed at $1.058 on Nov 17, 2016. It was down 4% following the election. The euro was down in early 2015. This time it is chiefly down against the dollar. This time both monetary and fiscal policy is expected to diverge with the EU, and inflation expectations are up in the U.S. Analysts expect parity to be reached in 2017. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Reaganomics, trickle down economics, it is clear don't work. James Mackintosh says in WSJ, the latest version of Reaganomics, in the form of the LIz Truss budget in September 2022 with cuts in corporate taxes, no relief for vulnerable populations in the cost of living crisis as in all other major European countries and in the US, is already getting a bad reception in financial markets with the tumbling of the British pound.Times have changed there is nothing to be gained in its approach as there are no trade unions strangling growth as in Thatcher's time that need to be restrained, and not that much red tape to increase business flexibility. Most of the privatization has already been done and some of the state run companies are operating much better today than privatized companies handling water and other services.   Instead the problem is one of much needed investment in infrastructure and public services, and social protections after the pandemic. Businesses are not being crippled by high corporate taxes. Instead the opposite is the case, with windfall profits, so that the opposite approach taken by president Biden to use the higher tax on profits of Tech, oil and other companies to finance social protections and a huge climate energy initiative made more sense, leading to the passage of the $369 climate bill  and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  The WSJ makes these points- Britain has a higher current account deficit and higher debt at over 100% of GDP compared to the period of Thatcher in the 1980's when debt was only 40% of GDP. Most important is what the WSJ says about what has happened since the 2009 financial crisis and the austerity policies pursued after that crisis that were worsened by the pandemic so that public services in Britain are actually crumbling. Politically this lacks popular support and little backing at a time of a recession in the British economy, because such policies require public support to go through a tough period . And taking this trickle down economics today when Britain faces a cost of living crisis may be an unwise act of taking an approach that is no longer relevant or shown to be working at the worst possible time, says the WSJ. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The head of the World trade Organization Okonjo-Iweala and the prime minister of Bahamas Mia Mottley say that overconcentration of manufacturing in China creates fewer opportunities for growth for poor countries. The supply chain needs to be redesigned after the pandemic not just because it creates a more dependable supply chain for the US and the European Union. It also  needs to be resdesigned to increase manufacturing in countries such as India and Mexico because this will create more opportunities for growth in other countries. For this to happen the infrastructure has to be made similar to that in China. This program of rapidly building the latest infrastructure and logistics with next generation technologies is underway in India with the Modi administration building new pools of capital, skilled labor, land and logistical infrastructure for the purpose of  rapid export led growth. A target of 2 trillion dollars in exports by 2030 has been set by India. This will affect a broad region from Indonesia to Vietnam in Asia and Mexico, Brazil in Latin America, bringing the benefits of trade to a wider region for the first time and making allies of the US and the European Union true partners in trade and manufacturing for the supply chain. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist looks at China's relationship with Russia. It says the Ukraine conflict and western sanctions have resulted in Russia moving closer to China. Yet the two countries have competing interests in central Asia, and different relations with India and Vietnam, in the Asian region. Russia is also wary of China copying designs of Sukhoi aircraft in sales to China of advanced military technology. The major oil and gas deal signed in 2014 provides Russia with a new outlet for oil and gas with the cooling of the relationship with Europe. Yet Russia has strong ties built with Germany over the entire post war period, and differences have emerged in U.S.- German relations. Germany's relationship with Russia- cooled by sanctions and German wariness over Russian intervention in Ukraine and Russian wariness over NATO close to its borders- spans 7 decades and is likely to remain strong in the long term. This comes from the shared sense of awareness of the terrible conflicts of an earlier period, just as it has for French-German relations, and from the strong efforts made by Germany to preserve the relationship and peace in Europe. Chinese president Xi's visit to Moscow on May 9, for celebrations of victory over Nazi Germany, will be followed by a visit May 10 by Chancellor Merkel of Germany. A factor in German-Russian relations is the close trade links, cultural exchanges, and history going back to the GDR where Chancellor Merkel is from, built up over many years, that are likely to set the long term future of relations. China's dominant partner relationship in the China- Russia relations does not bode well for the future of relations, compared to the equal partner relations with its European neighbor, Germany. In this different light Ukraine is a temporary pause, in German-Russian relations and peace in Europe, a situation which is in China's long term interest as it focusses on its economy and the next phase of development for a modernized economy. Especially as China continues to build on its own vital trade relations with Germany and the European Union, the latest example being Germany, other EU nations, and India, joining the China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian economy had GDP decline of 2% and was relatively not affected by the shutoff of imports of oil and gas from Europe in 2022. Gas exports to Europe began declining in the summer. The EU ban on seaborne oil from Russia and price cap went into effect in December 2022. Russia made a huge stimulus of 4% of GDP in 2022. The result is that only now in 2023 is the full impact being felt on the Russian economy.  WSJ reports that in January and February Russian exports of oil and gas revenue which makeup half of the budget fell by 46% year over year, while state spending jumped 50%. Analysts estimate that it would take a price of $100 for Russia to balance its books. Yet the Group of Seven price cap on Russian oil has brought it down to $50- the price the Ministry of Finance says Urals crude sold in February. This is a deep discount to the $80 price of Brent Crude, the US benchmark.  A bigger problem is the downward trajectory the Russian economy faces in future years. Worker shortages are severe for industry and a shift to wartime production does not add to productivity or productive capacity. The cut off from access to western technology and western financial markets will have a severe impact in the productive capacity for the economy, for oil and industrial production in the years to 2030. Russia needed to protect against the gradual shift away from fossil fuels to fight climate change by shifting the economy in a new direction using its access to western technologies not just China's technologies. Instead it now finds itself in a period of 1 year in 2022 when oil revenues surged with prices jumping from the war, and then a steady slump in all the inputs of development- supply of labor, capital and technology declining rapidly after 2023 as the costs of the Ukraine invasion are absorbed into the economy. As this report points out it is the social contract that similar to China's social contract of growth and improvement in standards of living that led to people having a large measure of confidence in the government. It was not fully grasped but it was the access to American and European Union plus Japanese technology, manufacturing, capital and markets that made this possible. With this absent the situation changes to put Russia, and China to a lesser extent as long as it trades with the west, on a different trajectory.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Everything one needs to know about Brexit. Most questions are answered here during the last minute negotiations on December 14, 2020, in a desperate effort by both sides knowing that no one is going to budge. The effort now is to say look this is going to hurt both sides during a pandemic, the public is going to be angry with the politicians one more time, which will hurt all sides. Britain joined the European Union in 1973 with Ireland and Denmark.

Britain has left the EU legally and politically. It is in a transition period till Jan 1, 2021 by which time the remaining questions on trade, on economic relations and security need to be resolved. This covers $800 billion in trade between Britain and the EU. If nothing happens to settle these issues Britain after Jan. 1 will no longer be part of the EU single market or its customs union. 

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Boris Johnson leads a new British government that is composed mostly of ministers who want to see Brexit happen, and giving the positions of Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary to persons who do not care what happens as long as Britain leaves the European Union. Johnson's date is October 31st for leaving the EU. Sajid Javid, a former Deutsche Bank AG executive is the new chancellor of the exchequer. Priti Patel is new Home Secretary. Dominic Raab a former lawyer who has called for parliament to be suspended if need be so that Brexit can be pushed through is the new Foreign Secretary. Dominic Cummings who headed the Leave campaign for the Brexit referendum in 2016 is the new adviser at 10 Downing Street. Johnson's strategy is to pack the cabinet with people loyal to his vision of leaving the EU October 31st regardless of what the EU does.  The EU has not changed its position and is even less likely to consider any new Irish border proposals. Three top ministers are opposed to Mr. Johnson's views and resigned. Treasury chief Philip Hammond, Deputy primeminister David Lidington, Justice Secretary David Gauke, all resigned in opposition to Mr. Johnson simply pulling Britain out of the EU. Johnson once said all he feared from Britain abruptly leaving the EU was a shortage of Mars bars. During the election in the Conservative party Mr. Johnson was mostly quiet and avoided any gaffes to sound statesman like, yet as the process unfolds Mr. Johnson is likely to face the same problems faced by his predecessor Mrs. May. Added to this is the new opposition of moderates like Mr. Hammond and Gauke in the Conservative party that could topple the government and lead to a general election with just three vote swing in the other direction doing this. Mr. Johnson has prepared for this by having Mr. Cummings as a top adviser in the event he faces a general election. Meantime the Labour party initially not favoring a second referendum with Mr. Corbyn's ambiguous views on Brexit, as shifted gradually to the leadership and the rank and file all favoring a second referendum and for Remain. As Greg Ip has pointed out in the WSJ this week the conditions have changed with protectionism, nationalism and hostility to globalization, and president Trump not planning concessions of any sort even for the UK in trade negotiations. This means to low productivity of less than 1% to support stifled wages, one would have to add a 3.5% hit to GDP from a no deal Brexit such as Mr. Johnson approves according to the IMF. With the migration issue not what it was three years ago and reduced to a trickle this new situation must be on the minds of Mr. Corbyn, Labour and Conservative moderates. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German views on Trump's economic policies are described by DW.com's Jeffrey Michels. German business sees a Trump presidency increasing the uncertainty affecting the global economy, a kind of second hit after the hit from Brexit. There is concern about the $114 billion euros in exports made by Germany to the U.S., because of Trump's increasingly protectionist policies. Trump could move to the centre, but so far these populist policies have helped Trump win in the primaries, and this is unlikely to change in the election campaign,  says DW.com.  Trump opposes the TTIP trade agreement with European Union, and because of opposition in Germany, these negotiations are likely to flounder. Even under a Clinton presidency there is little support for more trade agreements, and economist Krugman points out that most of the gains from free trade have already been made. 

LyrArc Article Gist
After the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, China and the European Union sought to fill the leadership on this issue. Yet the reality now looks to be different. China decreased coal consumption between 2014-2016. Now China is ramping up coal generation as it needs to provide stimulus to a slowing economy as trade relations with the U.S. worsening.  In 2017 the trend reversed with state backed loans to help economic growth and surge in provincial permits.  China is now moving forward with plans to add coal fired power equal to almost the total U.S. capacity, according to Coalswarm, which tracks power plants worldwide for coal use. This would push coal fired production to above the cap of 1,100 gigawatts China has set and its current cap. Its current production is already about half of the world's total coal fired generation and quadruple that of the U.S. In 2017 China made up one fourth of total CO2 productions.  Canada is missing its emissions targets and is not likely to meet 2020 targets say experts. In the EU members reliant on coal power energy oppose EU parliament efforts to end subsidies to the most polluting plants by 2025, seeking delay of one decade. At the climate change talks in Katowice, Poland, these changes are facing opposition. As a sign of how the situation is changing since the 2015 Paris Accords, the protests in France by yellow vest protestors started in opposition to a carbon tax intended to meet France's climate change targets. That tax increase is being withdrawn by president Macron. Families struggling financially had a different perception of the increase in the fuel tax and even young people who support meeting emissions reduction joined the protests, as reported in the New York Times and The Times. This tells a lot about how the issue of climate change has changed in the public perception in three years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A less known political leader, Albert Hernandez, who teaches university law classes, is now set to become the next president of Argentina. He has worked with Peronist party under the Kirchner administrations and quit Christina Kirchner's administration after some disagreements on policies.  He is so far ahead of president Macri- sixteen points in the primary, that it is seen as too much of a gap for Macri to reverse. Hernandez is seen as a pragmatic leader and has as his running mate Christina Kirchner. Ms. Kirchner says she supports Hernandez as he can bring together all the Peronist factions. Mr. Hernandez is 60 years old and has worked with Peronist leaders in government from the 1990's who supported free market changes and with the Kirchner administrations when Argentina was recovering from economic collapse. Hernandez says he is learning from the mistakes made by Christina Kirchner. During the administration of Nestor Kirchner, Christina's husband, Hernandez, who was chief of staff, acted as a key problem solver. Argentina faced a crisis in debt accumulation and defaulted on the debt during that period around 2003. Argentina recovered from that crisis with the help of a commodities boom and demand from China. Mr. Hernandez was also chief of staff under Christina Kirchener who followed her husband as president, but resigned early because of differences on economic policy. Today debt accumulation is again a problem, with debt built up under the Macri administration and errors in policy of Mr. Macri. Christina Kirchner asked Hernandez to lead the ticket after it was clear that Peronist factions who did not support her could only come together if Mr Hernandez was the candidate. As a moderate without ideological tendency Mr. Hernandez was able to lead a broader coalition after errors in economic policy made by Mr. Macri leading to high inflation and a declining economy. Mr. Hernandez says he would renegotiate a deal with the IMF for a $57 bailout, which was signed by Mr. Macri to tackle a currency crisis. He also plans to take a new look at the trade deal with the European Union. Today both Brazil and Argentina are mired in economic crisis. Brazil through extravagant spending including on pensions, that left basic sanitation services, transport services, health care  poorly funded. Argentina has gone from prosperity to crisis, before 2003 during the first Kirchner administration, and now under Mr. Macri in 2019. Recurrent economic crises are a regular pattern in the region since 1950, with the region dependent on commodities exports and failing to build manufacturing industries.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This piece by Kanter in the NYT gives an account of Jean Claude Juncker's background as a political leader in Luxembourg. His father worked in the steel industry and was active in the trade union movement at a time when farming and steel making supported the economy of Luxembourg. In two decades under Juncker Luxembourg was transformed into a banking and insurance center with one of the largest per capita incomes in Europe. As a Brussels insider Juncker, according to British public opinion, is an odd choice to head the EU when it is trying to make its administration more democratic and less distant from the average person in the EU. Britain's prime minister Cameron says Juncker "was never on any ballot." The reason for Juncker's candidacy is that he is supported by the centre right parties in Europe, which also lost support in the recent elections. The Socialist and left parties fared worse in the election, but both centre right and left parties lost votes to third parties and nationalist parties such as the Marie Le Pen's nationalist party in France and the Independent party in Britain. Even chancellor Merkel of Germany initially hesitated to support Juncker, but confirmed him as her choice when German public opinion showed it favored the selection based on the largest party in the European parliament making the choice. This puts Britain and Cameron at odds with Germany, with the Swedes and the Dutch calming their doubts about Juncker and going with Germany. Little is mentioned in the media about the other candidate, an SPD leader from Germany representing the socialist and Left parties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Tariffs policy is part of a renegotiation the US is conducting with China similar to that started with Japan by Lighthizer in the Reagan era as Deputy Trade Representative. It does not in any way have anything to do with the tariffs of Herbert Hoover in 1930 that gave tariffs a bad meaning. This is because tariffs were reduced since Harry Truman's efforts in 1945 by 2017 to 1.47% on average on total imported goods into the US and world trade makes up 63% of world GDP, so large is world trade today. What are Lighthizer- DJT tariffs trying to accomplish? As with Japan in the 1960-1970's it is intended to reverse the trends for China in 2000-2017 that allowed it to game the world trading system to gain an unfair advantage by dumping specific products into the US destroying American manufacturing and communities dependent on it. The US tariffs on Chinese goods proposed in 2024 by former USTR Robert Lighthizer come at a time when US tariffs are in 2023 only about 2.2% of all imported goods, $33 billion on 2333 billion of imported goods. In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China. By the time the first tariffs were taken up by the DJT administration in 2017 the total tariffs the US had imposed on imported goods were down to an all time low of 1.47% of imported goods value, $33 billion out of $2333 billion in total imported goods. Compared to the 29-40% under Hoover Act of 1930 raised to 60%.  Today world trade makes up 62% of world GDP, in 1930 it made up 9% of World GDP.  In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This interview with Donald Trump by the publisher, editors and columnists of The Washington Post, Ryan Jr., Hiatt, Lane, Marcus, Diehl, Armai, Attiah, provides an exceptional insight into the views of Donald Trump on domestic and foreign policy, on his campaign for president. It is the result of an effort to get Trump to state his policies on different issues without the fuzziness in which Trump has carried out his campaign, often taking different sides of the same issue. In some situations Trump is pressed hard on his positions or controversial statements, to clarify what he has not clarified in the burst of media attention Trump received in the past 6 months, especially on television media. First some myths and realities. A recent March 19, 2016, issue of the Economist cites the Pew Trust in showing that only about 17% of eligible Republican voters voted in the primaries. A person watching television news media coverage on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, would get the impression that the voter turnout was tremendous- this is not confirmed by the Pew Trust survey. The Economist points out that had the other eligible voters cast their ballots and even if Trump had a share of these votes, the results might look different. With a highly fragmented vote in the Republican primaries, and about half of the vote going to candidates other than Trump, Trump's voter support would add up to about 8-9% of eligible Republican voters based on the Pew Survey results. The question here would be is this a representative sample of the U.S. or of the Republican Party. And is one likely to make false generalizations about the nature of the Republican party from such a limited sample of voter opinion. Is voter sentiment inadequately reflected, and results hopelessly skewed because of the lack of good candidates in the Republican Party, and Trump's tactical rhetoric appealing to a group of working class Americans left out in the technological progress of the last decade. In the process is the hard work of the founders of the Republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the framers of the Constitution being undone by a minority of disaffected voters with legitimate grievances on distribution of economic benefits of the technological progress, trade and global manufacturing networks- with a level of divisive rhetoric and decline in levels of public debate rarely seen. These are the clarifications sought from Trump and his response. Attiah raises the question of divisive rhetoric on minorities Hispanics and Black people- Trump says he is only talking about people here illegally, that he gets support from Hispanics here legally. He turns the question to Muslims and says there is a serious problem there that means being careful about how people are being admitted into the U.S. Questions about Trump's controversial statements about a wall with Mexico are not raised. Ryan pushes hard on the question of the libel laws standard that Trump says he is going to change, asking whether this would happen if Trump thinks the reporting "is wrong" but there is no malice. Trump wants the reporting to be fair for him, that reporters call him to check if he did this or that and why, before writing stuff about him, and he sees the reporting from the Post as very bad about him. He says his lawyers would have to tell the media, that he believes he should loosen up the standards so that this kind of coverage does not continue. On ISIS Trump pulls back when asked by Diehl about statements that suggested he would send the number of troops the generals wanted on the ground- estimated at 20,000 to 30,000- saying he would find it very, very, difficult to do that. On a nuclear option for ISIS Trump says he does not favor that. Suggesting that Trump like the other candidates in the election know there are no easy ways to tackle ISIS. Trump would rely on other countries in the region for help with troops on the ground, something that president Obama also favors, with limited results. Diehl also pushes hard on NATO- Trump says hundreds of billions of dollars are going to NATO and the whole burden for defending South Korea falls on the U.S. when it is not now a rich country that it once was. Diehl corrects him by saying for the public record that its not hundreds of billions, and South Korea, Japan pay 50% of the cost for defending their region. Trump wants to see 100% for the Korean peninsula defense borne by the South Koreans and Japan. Trump seees NATO as a good concept but needing more help from Germany, Poland, Baltics. At one point the Washington Post journalists tell Trump this is a position he shares with president Obama. Trump responds to questions from Hiatt about how he would handle the situations in black communities such as Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. Trump says he feels law enforcement is important and should play a big role in preventing the destruction of property from day one. He says jobs are what hurts inner cities but offers no solution about how to get the jobs lost in the steel industry for Baltimore, black neighborhoods sitting ironically next to the John Hopkins high technology university complex. Trump brings up the response that jobs could be created if the U.S. simply did not spend money on supporting nationbuilding overseas, a policy that president Obama has supported, and which the public has favored in the U.S. As Holman Jenkins brings up in a column on March 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal, these policies are being pursued today, and most of these jobs are not coming back so how would Trump bring them back or do anything about it, especially when Chinese workers in China's factories are being displaced by robotics in places such as Hon Hai factories. The more one thinks about it many of things Trump is saying are already being done, and there are no new solutions Mr. Trump has for today's problems of lack of upward mobility for the middle and working class- a priority for Sanders and Clinton also, not just for Trump. As a television personality and a candidate with a understanding of voter concerns, Trump artfully voices voter concerns of working class Americans for problems that defy easy solutions. Are there risks with Trump's approach that Trump has failed to think through or grasp? Does the unpredictable behaviour Trump suggests that would get allies thinking and trade partners responding lead to unpredictable consequences? Divisive rhetoric creates additional distractions in tackling the problems of the middle class and working class Americans. Divisive rhetoric within the NATO alliance would create additional distractions in tackling the problems of defending the European Union, such as using the very show of unpredictability. Diehl pushes Trump on this question. Would trade threats to China lead to a withdrawal from the Senkaku Islands by China? Trump says he thinks this would cause the Chinese to retreat . What if the Chinese see it differently, in their relations with Japan and South Korea, with a long difficult history, not necessarily in their relations with the U.S. Would a trade war hurt the global economy, and hurt confidence in U.S. fianncial markets just when the U.S. and European economies are staging a recovery, and when the economes of China, Japan and India are in a sensitive phase? These questions could not be raised because of time constraints, but must be on the minds of the editors of the Post and the WSJ, coming from different ends of the political spectrum. How would this help tackle the problem of upward mobility for working class Americans that all the candidates in the presidential election share? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ireland went off the cliff by taking enormous unregulated loans. The banks lent money freely and the regulators simply ignored the bubble that was developing through the last decade. The speculators, developers, bankers and regulators all let the bubble reach astounding proportions. One developer got a $6.3 million loan on a personal guarantee without meeting his banker. One 1000 square foot Dublin carraige house went for 3 million euros in an auction. One of the developers, Simon Kelly, says that everything was funded by the Germans through the European Central Bank. The sale of the Jury's hotel in 2005 resulted in the amazing price of 60 to 70 million euros per acre. Ireland's GDP which was $25 billion in the 1980's, reached $267 billion in 2008. The boom that was initially based on export competitiveness and the low corporate tax rate combined with an educated English speaking workforce, was followed by a speculative boom in real estate financed by Irish banks, where regulators simply looked aside and placed no controls on lending. To get an idea how the government looked at anyone who raised a red flag, look at this quote from Bertie Ahern, prime minister of Ireland from 1997 to 2008, who said at a trade union conference: "sitting on the sidelines cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit sucide." And this coming from an Irish politician who helped in arranging the Irish peace accords with the help of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The risks of such uncontrolled speculation in real estate was lost on regulators, the government, and politicians. And the bankers stopped paying attention to their loans, with everyone wanting to lend money to 10-15 deveopers who were able to drive the market. The regulator at the central bank simply didn't pay much attention to the reports he received every quarter about the lending. Now the average household in Ireland owes 132,000 to the banks, according to David McWilliams of the Central Bank of Ireland, and unemployment is at 14%. If the Irish had completely lost track of the picture, what about the German and British banks that loaned money to Ireland? Why was money being made so freely available to Ireland. One Irishman says getting a mortgage in those days was like getting cupcakes. With prices haveing reached the stratosphere at 60 million euros an acre, were the European banks also pushing money into Ireland beyond the ability of a small country like Ireland to repay? According to the Bank for International Settlements based in Basel, Switzerland, Ireland owes $139 billion to German banks and $132 billion to British banks. Easy money was also available from US banks for countries such as Argentina which suffered similar crisis in prior decades. Banking crises ocurred in Asian countries in the 1980's. Much of this experience was lost in the manner German, British and other European banks loaned money to countries such as Iceland, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Asian banking crises of the 1980's are being followed by European banking crises over two decades later. The ...