LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ looks at the impact of the 2018 Trump tariffs retained by president Biden as the US seeks to reduce its overdependence on Chinese imports and bring back American manufacturing. This followed misguided policies of previous administrations since Clinton that weakened American manufacturing strengths. Have the US tariffs on Chinese goods worked? The WSJ graph with information from US Census Bureau shows that imports from China in 2022 going down to the levels in 2007 of about 16-17% as a share of US imports, down from a high of 21% before the Trump tariffs halted a rapidly rising curve. Imports from Germany, South Korea and Japan in 2022 were down slightly hovering around 4.5%. Imports increased from Canada and Mexico, the US's traditional partners in North America, around 13.5% as a share of US imports for each country. Also increasing were imports from Vietnam. Some of the imports from Vietnam are Chinese products shipped through Vietnam to evade tariffs, and it is not clear whether the figures from Vietnam have been adjusted for this. President Biden is looking at different scenarios in an effort to tackle inflation. One supported by Janet Yellen, an economist at US Treasury is for the US to relax some of the China tariffs. Most economists in previous administrations including Yellen failed to understand what surrendering American manufacturing to China on the scale and speed that happened would do to communities across America that depended on factory jobs. The devastation of these communities has led to increased divisions in America, weakened American manufacturing, and led to outflow of technologies vital for national security and national well being.  Republican senators, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan are opposed to any relaxation of tariffs. Studies show the removal of the tariffs would have only a small impact on the consumer price inflation index reducing inflation by 0.26%. Lifting some tariffs on school supplies and summer bicycles as proposed by the US Chamber of Commerce would have little or no impact on the consumer price index for inflation. This is because the inflation is triggered by oil and gas price increases stemming from the Russian policies and invasion of Ukraine. This has also aggravated food and grocery costs  through blocking of agricultural imports from Ukraine. An additional factor was the increased demand after the pandemic easing in 2022, but that demand is already easing in July with glut in inventories at Walmart and Target, and excess warehouse capacity at Amazon. It would also send the wrong signal to China that the tariffs imposed by president Trump after a Section 301 trade investigation and based on improper loss of technologies to China are not being taken seriously by the US, says Republican Senator Hagerty of Tennessee. The Labor advisory committee to the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai also opposes any such move after the serious damage done to US workers and to US national well being and security. This happened under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations with failed trade policies that ceded manufacturing to China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What a change DJT's first 100 Days and actions on immigration and tariffs , Ukraine and Russia, have made in China's and World relations in Asia, and in Europe - all for the better, significantly better relations worldwide.  China has worked out a peace settlement in Ladakh frontier with India. It has come together in Tokyo with Japanese prime minister Ishiba and China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi holding hands, and South Korea joining, all three nations vowing to remember history and work together. In Europe Russia is being brought back into the community of nations for big power cooperation with the US after 3 years of war in Ukraine. And Germany has removed its constitutional brake on spending that frees up $1 trillion in funding for infrastructure to replace much of its rail and other infrastructure built in 1900. One would not know this reading the NYT on democracy or the WSJ on tariffs or the Washington Post on assault on federal workforce, or the Atlantic, Politico, DW.com or FR24, Der Spiegel, nor Le Monde, much of the world media slanted on way or another. One does not hear about military exercises so often as the world realizes that so called large economies China, Germany, Japan and India all depend on American goodwill and willingness to give rather than take for most of the post war period since 1950. For the last 6 years in the latter half of the Trump administration and the 4 years of the Biden administration during the pandemic relations between China and the US deteriorated and China first retreated into its own then opened up a bit. The initial idea that it could manage the DJT trade actions evaporated as Biden continued the DJT first round of tariffs. Now Navarro, Lighhizer, and his deputy Jamieson are all back advising DJT for anew round of reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China for not stopping fentanyl flows.  In 2022 in eastern Ladakh China's PLA had a big standoff with Indian forces in eastern Ladakh at Galwan and Pangong Lake. The Quad was active with Australia India and the US in Indo Pacific and China conducted military exercises close to Taiwan.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this look at China's One Belt One Road Inititative, DW.com analyst Siegfried Wolf is critical of the way it was put together. It has no institutional structure, and is mostly based on bilateral not multilateral arrangement, and lacks transparency. He says its will complicate geopolitics in the region. This is already evident with Japanese foreign minister Kono calling for Japan, Australia, India and the U.S. to come up with an alternative to OBOR. Wolf says the EU has concerns about corruption, exclusion of regions inside countries such as Pakistan in economic arrangements, and seeks free trade guarantees. His biggest criticism of the Silk Road Initiative is that being based on Chinese loans it will pose a severe challenge in terms of debt buildup for weaker economies. This was already evident with the effort to convert part of about $6 billion in loans to Sri Lanka, through a $1.12 billion lease to China of the port of Hambantota. Wolf says many of the projects inside OBOR were already planned before it was setup, and now put under OBOR as part of president Jinping's initiative.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's regulatory structure for the nuclear power industry is weak because of the dual role played by the regulator- Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. It regulates the nuclear power industry, and also promotes Japanese nuclear technology in Japan and overseas. The tasks are separated in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission supervises nuclear plants in the U.S. It is independent of the Department of Energy which does research and promotes nuclear power. An earlier effort to correct this dual role arrangement in Japan failed, when an independent Nuclear Safety Commission was created under the cabinet. This body was never given the authority to inspect companies and mandate changes. A body that supports the commission has 4000 scientists and staff. It does research in nuclear technologies, but it has ended up becoming nothing more than a think tank, in the words of a former commission deputy chairman. What makes this situation worse, is the practice of amakudari, or "descent from heaven," a practice in Japan where senior Ministry officials retire young and take up positions in the private sector at companies like Tokyo Electric Power Company. In recent years most of the retired officials have taken positions in the energy sector. In fact Japan's Bar association investigated problems after a 2007 earthquake that shutdown a TEPCO nuclear plant. It recommended an independent regulator. The Democratic Party of Japan supported this idea before taking power in 2009. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's manufacturing sector contracts in June with the PMI index dropping below 50 - to 49.0.  Exports were also coming in lower. Experts say the increase in interest rates by the US is reducing imports of Chinese goods into the US. This comes as local governments are strained in their finances by $900 billion, and a budding revolt is taking place from property buyers with developers in financial trouble, as reported in the WSJ. Psychological hurdles now loom in the loss of confidence in the public in the property sector, loss of confidence of foreign investors with many constraints in operating, mental health issues for the population in many cities with the covid lockdowns.   The growth has slowed to 0.4% and there is now a realization dawning that there was overdependence both on property sector and foreign investment that set up new factories offshored from the US and Europe that alienated the public in these countries. Unlike wih the situation of Japan in the sixties and seventies for modernizing its economy growth of the scale China was pushed into by misguided and self interested  business interests in the US including its investment banks and local government officials in China without restraint by the central government in Beijing, ultimately led to trade friction and permanent damage to US China friendly relations. Communities in the US and the EU simply could not cope with the hyper growth from hyper shift of factories from the home countries to China that pushed this hyper growth. The property sector played the same role in the domestic front with too big a burden carried by it resulting in hyper growth. This did not have to happen. It happened because of a lack of understanding that this would have consequences in the longer run which is now showing up. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
GM and Ford US International Trade Commission report in 2024 sees only about a 5% increase in prices for a 25% tariff in car imports into the US from EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico and China. With US production GM at 60% Ford at 80%, both companies are better positioned to shift production to the US following 25% tariff on cars imported into the US. GM also has the financial strength to invest in new auto plants in the US. Given a period of transition US companies are in a position to tap the added demand as more cars are made in the US.  Stellantis Stellantis formed from the merger of Chrysler, Fiat and Peugeot makes many of its cars overseas in Mexico and in the EU, and has considerable exposure. Toyota Toyota sales in 2024 were 2.3 million cars, with about 60% of the production in the US. Hyundai and Kia, Nissan Hyundai makes about 80% of the 840,000 cars it sells in the US in US plants. Hyundai plans to invest $21 billion in the US to make cars in the US including $5.8 billion for a steel plant in Louisiana. Other companies may follow Hyundai to Make in the USA. VW VW had plans for an expansion to make 590,000 cars. It has current  sales of about 400,000 cars in the US. Expansion at the Chattanooga plant or putting in another plant could help it make most of its cars in the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India's Foreign Minister told a conference that China's forward deployments at Galwan in violation of 1993 and 1996 agreements was an attempt to change the Line of Actual Control. China after years of peaceful development under previous administrations, during which China had gained from the trade relationship with the US and foreign investment from the US business community, sought  to put India at a disadvantage using its larger economy and technological assets obtained through American business assistance. This was done by making forward deployments right at the Indian border to change the Line of Actual Control in progressive steps. Jaishankar made it very clear. "It is hard work, very patient work, but we are very clear on one point, which is we will not allow any unilateral attempt by China to change the status quo or alter the LAC. I do not care how long it takes, how many rounds we do, how hard we have to negotiate- this is something we are very clear of." Going back to the period of independence with Nehru in 1947- China's occupation of Tibet was an occupation of a peaceful country that led to the situation that India faces today of a border stretching from east to west on the Himalayas that faces China. Faced with the partition and refugees from that partition India under Nehru was not in a position to respond effectively to that occupation. Does China gain anything from being at that border through the occupation of Tibet is a serious question? Why? Because it faces a Vedanta and Buddha driven culture and people with population of 1.8 billion stretching to the Indonesian islands that were and still are the fundamental source of  China's own Buddhist culture and tradition.  US business has allied with one country after another Japan, China and now India. The US has faced wars with Japan, and sometimes in a failed attempt to understand the aspirations of  Southern Asia allied with British ideas of the region which were based on the policies of British Empire to divide the region on religious and language, caste based barriers. US business also lacked a true perception of the importance of working class and families in the US as it sent factories and surrendered its own manufacturing to China. The world is now changing following the pandemic and new supply chains and manufacturing policies of the US are being structured. It is in this context where India's pace of economic growth and technological advancement will change its capabilities and its capacity to meet the aspirations of 1.8 billion people in Asia with a common tradition and culture. It is in this context that one can ask the question does China have anything to gain from the occupation of Tibet and being on the border with a country and cultural tradition of 1.8 billion people stretching across South and South east Asia?  ...

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
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will spend Tuesday night August 2 in Taipei, Taiwan. China has threatened severe consequences and Taiwanese forces are on alert. Yet with over $1 trillion in China's exports to US and EU in 2021 the response will have to take this into account as also the US and EU to redesign its supply chains. This is the first trip of a senior US official to Taiwan as Speaker Pelosi comes next to the Vice President to succeed the presidency. The US response to the Russian attack on Ukraine was made in Biden's word as a deterrent to China in its role in the Indo-Pacific region. The Pelosi trip may be a reflection of this policy that seeks to maintain the US position that Indo-Pacific is international waters, that US policy will continue as before undeterred by actions such as the Russian attack on Ukraine with the support of China. And that US will engage fully with allies in the Indo-Pacific- Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan. And that is doing this with the cooperation of its allies in the region- Australia, Japan and India. US and EU imports from China are $541 and $522 billion over $1 trillion for 2022. Loss of even a significant portion of these exports from major tensions in the region would have a severe impact on Chinese economic growth. The US and EU are already engage in redesigning the supply chain and would also face problems in a transition similar to the gas rationing in Germany after cutoff of Russian supplies. The trade is too big a factor at this time. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Europe responds with platitudes and vague references to "benefits for everyone" and "detrimental" without facing up to the facts. How many American cars do you see on the streets of Germany? in Berlin or Frankfurt?- or Japan? in Tokyo or Osaka?-or South Korea? in Seoul? And how long has this been going on - since the 1980's. Europe's answer to the Marshall Plan and Japan's and China's to post war American help for recovery, was to exclude American cars and other products. GM and Ford have pulled out of China and so has VW. China's plan is to flood the world with electric cars, and Japan's to flood the world with hybrids. For far too long America has relied on capitalism that has no state involvement. In this kind of competition with hidden subsidies and national planning at the core of industrial growth in Asia. The US government has to have state involvement in it's auto, steel, aluminium, and chip industries, not to create trade disturbances but to create an even playing field for all, and rebuild a middle class destroyed by unfair trading practices of Asian nations and the EU, including Canada and Mexico which are simply used as bases to ship to the US. Ford makes 80% of its cars in the USA and GM can make the investments in new plants to raise its production from 60% in the USA to 80%. South Korea's Hyundai and Kia are investing $21 billion to make in the USA. Toyota and Nissan, VW, BMW and Mercedes can do the same.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
By influential business leaders from Brazil, India, Sweden, the US, France and Japan. A strong case for completing the Doha Round even if this takes difficult and decisive choices. The concern is about preserving and building on all the gains in free trade made in earlier Rounds. Not one of the earlier Rounds failed so this would be a first. Differences in areas like agriculture which are politically sensitive in countries like France and Brazil stand in the way. See the article by Scott Miller, French Resistance to Trade Accord has Cultural Roots, in the Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2006.

LyrArc Article Gist
Key points in Putin annexation speech are shown in the Washington Post. Putin presented an anti-western view that went over European history of colonialism in Africa and Asia. It presented a Russian nationalist view oof European powers and the US as trying to diminish Russia throughout history, that refers more to the British than for the country that emerged from British colonies in America with the idea that "all men are created equal." This was similar to a speech made at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that stated some of the same points. Putin referred also to the use of total bombing on Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne, by the US and Britain, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945, the US action in the Vietnam war. Putin's view- "I emphasize that one of the reasons for the centuries old Russophobia, the undisguised malice of these western elites toward Russia is precisely that we did not allow ourselves to be robbed during the period of colonial conquests. We forced the Europeans to trade for mutual benefit." About this version of history of European colonial powers - it is not entirely true, because as Cambridge historian Brendan Simms points out in his  book-  Europe- the Struggle for Supremacy  from 1453 to the Present,  Russia is itself throughout this period one of these European powers. Russia was also one of the powers present in China before the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and in 1901 when the concessions were drawn from China in that period. Of the military force of 19,000 that entered Beijing in 1900 and crushed the Boxer rebellion of local Chinese calling for ouster of foreigners from China, Britannica.com shows that most of the them came from Russian and Japan, with lesser numbers from Britain, France, the US and Austria Hungary.  After suppressing the Boxers the foreign powers including Russia, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and also the US asked for reparations and concessions on Chinese ports. Tsingtao went to Germany, The British and Russians getting concessions in Tianjin. Only America stated under president Woodrow Wilson that the reparations were excessive. Wilson converted American reparations into funding for Beijing's first modern university Tsinghua University, where  many of China's leaders were educated. During the period 1901 to 1945 the US opposed British colonialism in India and China. The US opposition with its Pacific fleet was strong enough to prevent further division of China among the colonial powers. In the 1940's the US under Franklin Roosevelt and his representative in China General Jospeh Stilwell carried out the campaign against the Japanese invasion of China so that the national integrity of China could be preserved. Stilwell called for reforms of the corrupt Chiang Kai Shek Koumintang government which rejected Stilwell's advice. Leading to its gradual collapse to the Communists under Mao-tse-tung, as the popular support shifted. It is now known what exchanges took place between Franklin Roosevelt and British governments including Churchill and Clement Attlee, and it can be said that the US under FDR was always putting pressure on the British Empire to free India from colonial rule. In 1942 there is the letter from Gandhi at Wardha to Roosevelt asking for help just before the Quit India movement, and Roosevelt's response is clear in the way he told Churchill by 1943 that America would never go along with Britain's unfair and impoverishing rule of India after winning the war. Roosevelt did not need Churchill's "growling" response, he had already put the British as a junior and much diminished partner. American help was crucial in convincing the British to quit India, which is also why it happened so quickly after 1945.  During the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after defeating Germany in 1945, much of Eastern Europe came under Soviet and Russian domination. Poland was partitioned between Germany then called  Prussia, Austria and Russia, as colonial powers in 1772, followed by further partitions. The roots of the Ukraine crisis in some ways involve Poland and Polish history, as Lviv is only 70 kilometres from Poland. As the view on the Ukrainian side reflects this colonial history of Russia and of Germany in western parts of Ukraine. America under Abraham Lincoln fought a great war of Emancipation to live up to the document of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that "all men are created equal." The United States of America did not look to colonial possessions for its wealth because of the abundant land in a new continent and the early developments of the Industrial Revolution. Of rail, steamship, of mechanized agriculture and industrial production, in the period after 1850 that made America unrivaled in its industrial strength right upto the 1950's, and  which continues to the present day.  The industrial development of of Japan and South Korea, then of China, and now in India would not be possible without the  hand extended out by America to nations in Asia,  a benevolent hand in creating a tide that lifts all boats. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach after Liberation Day- soon to be relics from the China Trade of yesterday. On April 9 US responded to China's 34% tariff with another 50% tariff of its own on China. The US tariff now stands at 104% to China's 84%. China says it won't back down and "will fight to the end." The US president DJT is now certain to restore world trade to the days before China entered the World Trade Organization and upended the world trade order leading to the deindustrialization of the US when US corporations followed Apple in 1998. With Tim  Cook in charge of Apple manufacturing in 1998 doing the first major act of outshoring the whole manufacturing base of a company to China. It was a strategy- to use the huge profits of a three punch approach- brand the product at the high end to command high price in the US through innovation and design (punch 1), followed by making using Chinese labor at low cost in China (punch 2), to generate the huge profits to create a virtuous cycle of investment from these profits to generate new cycle of growth (punch 3). What Apple gained, America's workers lost. This was sold by economists at the service of corporate narrative that it was good for America in the face of the facts showing just the reverse for 25 years 2000-2025. Soon almost the entire manufacturing base of the US was shipped out to China, or Chinese supply bases Vietnam. Japan fell in line and became a supplier to this China Manufacturing for the World. What started out as Microsoft demolishing Apple by 1998 and Apple using this 1-2-3 punch strategy turned into first a disaster for American workers, a loss of the working class leading to the loss of the middle class backbone of America, replaced by Silicon Valley and financial interests in New York City and disproportionate rewards to capital, the rural and small towns, cities across America's heartland thrown into decay and neglect.   ...

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
No less than the Editorial Board of the NYT says  Democrats have their heads in the sand when it comes to reflecting honestly about transgender -with the Cass Commission of Britain's NHS advising serious caution- and social issues. Lack of acceptance about the need for strong action on issues of trade that have hurt ordinary Americans with the destruction of manufacturing and the middle class. Some of this was done with Biden taking a stand on trade by keeping the DJT tariffs on China, and supporting US manufacturing. But this was not enough- stronger action was needed especially with strong tariffs action as the last resort needed to get Canada, Mexico and China to stop fentanyl flows to the US in 2025 and protect the middle and working class in the US in their neighborhoods.  Yet on immigration the NYT does not come flat out and say that opening up the border was the single biggest error of the Biden administration. And a failure to talk openly to the American people in a fireside chat reminiscent of FDR about Venezuela and Mexico. Part of the reason was a misconception about American power when it could be used to good purposes and has been in history. The Monroe doctrine of the 1820's asserted American right to prevent colonial powers returning to the American continent north and south. This was a good idea and helped this continent develop freely and independently. The US has a right to prevent migrant trafficking and fentanyl flows in its backyard in the American continent, including taking economic action, when it causes serious disruption leading to 7 million refugees and millions of migrants crossing borders. It also has a right to create an even playing field for trade, that not DJT alone but advisers with great experience, Robert Lighthizer, Deputy Trade Representative under Reagan- who negotiated with 1980's Japan on the same grounds as we do with China today- strongly advise the president to do.   ...

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
WSJ report shows that on the morning of the 90 Day Pause in Tariffs announcement discussions took place with the Swiss prime minister, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and watching Fox News interview of JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon. Seeing the turmoil in financial markets and bond markets, US president DJT made the decision to give time to make the agreements with about 50 countries, and time for financial markets to understand the president's  policy and goals to reformulate the world trading system into one that offers a level playing field. The chart showing the Tariffs of 67% by China and US 34% imposed tariff in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, was say reports the result of the influence on the president of the advice of Peter Navarro.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's expertise is in financial markets as a protege of Soros, Navarro's is world trade. Bessent stepped in when financial markets appeared to reflect the uncertainty and convinced the president that the 90 day pause would be the best way to implement the policy on trade. There is a vigorous debate in the administration about how to get a level playing field for trade, and get the job done without disruptions in financial markets or a recession induced by uncertainty. On April 10 as part of the effort to talk to the American people US president DJT opened up his Cabinet meeting to the media and had Bessent, Borghum, RFK Jr and Marco Rubio talk about their plans and policies. Proper implementation, gaining confidence of the people of America and financial markets, is now as important as the goals and policies in the next 90 days. Getting the trade deals with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Britain and India would go a long way to reassure financial markets and set the right tone for the future.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt interviews Seiji Maehara, Japan's Foreign Minister. Hiatt says Maehara is committed to easing immigration and increasing tourism and student exchanges. A new program of child allowances is designed to reverse population decline. Prime Minister Kan has proposed closing the deficit by raising the consumption tax. What struck Hiatt most from the interview was the emphasis on the US-Japan partnership and shared values of democracy and open trade, and the sense of a shared disillusionment with China.

LyrArc Article Gist
Anton Harder in this Wilson Center publication of research uses correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and his sister Vijaylakshmi Pandit ambassador to the US in 1950, to show that the US made an offer for India to take a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. India had supported two resolutions on June 25, and June 27, first condemning the invasion by North Korea and second the organizing of a UN force of 29 countries to push back the North Korean invasion. Even though the US is not seen as actively engaging with India during that period and seeing through British eyes the colonial policies of encouraging  different powers in South Asia, that may not be true.  Who was India's foreign minister in 1950? Jawaharlal Nehru was both prime minister and foreign minister till 1964, which means there was less discussion of foreign policy than happens today during the Ukraine invasion with Jaishankar a career diplomat with 30 years experience, Rajnath Singh, and Mr. Modi, in talks with president Biden recently, and in further discussions Modi had with EU's Von der Leyen and UK's Boris Johnson, Kishida of Japan. Who was India's defense minister in 1950? Baldev Singh, a Sikh independence struggle leader was Minister of Defense for 1947-52 and tackled partition of Punjab and Kashmir issues. The rest of the years to 1957 when India faced the Chinese invasion of Tibet India's defense minister was also for most of the period Mr. Nehru, except Ayynagar in 1953, and Kailash Katju in 1955 and 1956. The controversial V.K. Krishna Menon was Defense Minister from 1957 to 1962, when Indian defenses were further neglected leading to the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, and his replacement by Yashwantrao Chavan. The purpose of this is to look back at what happened in earlier periods to understand where India stands today- and what choices it makes today. Clearly the US was looking for allies then and now. Nehru saw things from his own reading of history seeing China and India as both suffering from western invasion, not realizing that China's experience under Mao was different- that of Japanese invasion and bombing of China's major cities not just colonization of Hong Kong and other ports for trade under British trade based policies in 1850-1900. Thus a Communist Chinese version of China's defense involved taking over border regions such as Tibet putting China in direct and open opposition to India. Nehru never really grasped what was happening in Tibet and the war China fought against the Nationalists. American general Stilwell loved China deeply and had an understanding of its people as shown in Tuchman's account in her book Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-1945. Stilwell during that war had a better understanding of China, the strengths and weaknesses of Mao's China and of the Nationalists under Chiang, than Nehru. Some of these errors post 1950's and a concentration of foreign, defense and embassy positions in the person of Mr. Nehru and of Nehru family member such as Mrs. Pandit led to the Indian failure to act on Tibet and see it as see it for what it was -facing a Communist Mao led China that had fought the Japanese invasion as different from Bodhidharma's China of the history books. Bodhidharma's China will outlast Mao's China, yet it is Mao's China that India faces today. This also tells us that India has to think in new ways- as Lincoln said during a period when America was also making its own progress as an industrial nation in the 1860's. "The dogmas of the quiet past are not adequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew, we must act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country." India's values are values of democracy heightened not just by Mohandas Gandhi's ideas with Hind Swaraj written in 1910 just as powerful in 2022, but also by the heights of Ladakh where elections are held in remote regions of the Himalayas. India's values are values that are also shared in the best that America has in its values and culture and in the defense of freedom.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Labor Department reports U.S. created 209,000 jobs in July 2014. The unemployment rate goes up slightly to 6.2%. Wages went up only by a penny and remain only 2% higher than a year ago. Retail was up by 27,000 jobs, manufacturing by 28,000 in July. Economists say the steep drop in the unemployment rate to 6.2% does not reflect the true conditions in the labor market, as the labor force participation rate is at 62.9%. One economist called this disturbing as some of the youngest workers are dropping out of the labor force. The Alliance for American Manufacuring pointed out that the U.S. manufacturing sector has recovered only about 30% of jobs lost during the recession following the 2009 financial crisis. It said the the lack of investment in infrastructure, high trade deficits and currency manipulation by China and Japan, remain obstacles for American manufacturing's resurgence.

LyrArc Article Gist
S. Korea and the U.S. propose limiting trade imbalances to 4% of each country's GDP by 2015. S. Korea is the host of the current G-20 meeting. Germany and Japan oppose this move, arguing that their governments cannot engineer such outcomes, as it was determined by economic activity in the private sector. Japan's representative, Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda, said that while he was dubious about the idea of setting strict numerical goals, it would be acceptable to use them as reference numbers. Germany has traditionally opposed the idea. Germany wants to be counted as part of the European Union, rather than as a single nation, in any such reference goal. China has not commented on the target. S. Korea has presented the idea as a way to use more than currency exchange rates to achieve a global rebalancing. And People's Bank of China Deputy Gov. Yi Gang said Oct 10, that China is planning policies that could result in its surplus falling below 4% of GDP in 3 to 5 years, from about 5.8% in 2009....