World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The New York Times Original article ›
South China Morning Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hamburg is the key city in Germany's trade with China. About half of $200 billion in trade between Germany and China passes through the port of Hamburg. The South China Morning Post looks at the dilemma in Hamburg over relations with China in the post Merkel era. Merkel maintained strong and close ties with China signing an agreement with China her last year in office. This was when Mr. Trump was US president. Since then president Biden has changed US policy towards Europe. The South China Morning Post points out that The Greens and the FDP key partners of Scholz in a new coalition government, are critical of Merkel's policy towards China in its overall relationship with the US and the rest of the world. Scholz was mayor of Hamburg, and a partner in Merkel's coalition government in which he was vice chancellor. Scholz has talked very little on what the new German policy would be. China seeks to maintain its economic ties in the next few years with Germany while reducing its dependence on other countries under Xi Jinping's new vision for China that seeks to depend less on trade and real estate for its economy and growth. Yet the pace of change has accelerated during the pandemic with a new global supply chain emerging from the chaotic years of 2020-2021. US policy under president Biden is similar to policies under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's during the economic and political crises, and look to be setting a new path to the future for the rest of the world. ...
ProPublica Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in ProPublica on October 13, 2020, by Lydia DePillis was written near the end of Robert Lighhizer's term as US Trade Representative.  Bottom Line: It is human behaviour that no country, no kingdom or group will give up its money advantages secured when the opposition was weak or disorganized till the last fight is fought. The British were not giving up India, a source of financing the war against Napoleon in 1800's and then the Industrial Revolution in 1850's, the Dutch were not giving up the financial advantages of their Spices Empire in Batavia (Indonesia). History has shown this. Once gained under a state capitalism Japan was not going to give up its financial advantages gained by the 1980's when the US was weak or disorganized, till the last battle was fought.  Lighthizer who for the relentless Japanese was equally relentless till the goal of fair and level playing field for America was secured. This is true for China today on Liberation Day. This entire report by De Pillis in 2020 shows the Chinese would be relentless in 2020 like the Japanese in the 1980's, the Dutch in Indonesia  in the 18th and 19th century and the British in India in the 19th century and 20th century. China turned Mexico and Vietnam into supply routes into the US market. It continued its efforts to gain US technology in other ways. USTR older officials from the Bush Obama years of failed negotiations with China and endless hours putting together minute details of agreements including the TransPacific Agreement of Obama were not going to like the new approach of Lighthizer so stuck were they with the old approach of no clear goal and not getting an even playing field from China. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Efforts by prime minister Erdogan of Turkey to reach a peace agreement with the Kurdish PKK and its leader Mr. Ocalan who is in a Turkish prison since 1999. Mr. Ocalan is reported to be ready to reach an agreement. Prime minister Erdogan is keen on reaching an agreement because of the war in Syria, where a group related to the PKK and Ocalan is in control of the Kurdish northeastern region in Syria. This creates a situation where the Kurds in northern Iraq and in Syria could form a Kurdish state. Other reasons for Erdogan to push forward with an agreement are his intention to rewrite the Turkish constitution to setup an executive presidency. Erdogan would then be able to run for president. He would need Kurdish voters support for this move. In recent years Turkey has moved closer to Iraq, is its main trading partner and a destination for Turkish exports. Turkey now sees itself as a regional power in the Middle East after years of waiting to become part of the European Union. Turkey sees other advantages for this move to a peaceful Middle East- it sees benefits from trade with Egypt, and a new Syria after the fall of the Assad regime, making the whole region a destination for Turkish exports and foreign investment. As part of this move Erdogan's administration is lifting curbs on the use of the Kurdish language in the Kurdish southeast of Turkey and in the regional capital of Diyarbakir. This is an example of how trade, commerce and changing political conditions can create peaceful progress. It is reminiscent of the situation in Spain where the Catalan language was suppressed by the government of Franco till the 1980's, when the formation of the European Union and the changed political climate led to autonomy for Catalonia under a elected federal government....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Why a free trade agreement with China is still too early. Because India has still to develop its manufacturing base so that it can export to China. Already China's trade surplus with India is $10 billion because of more value added manufacturing goods from China.
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Three tankers held off the coast of Mumbai by India's Cost Guard have been sanctioned for carrying Iranian oil. India stopped buying Iranian oil in DJT's first term 2016-2020. In his second term DJT wanted India to stop buying sanctioned Russian oil as a way to reduce funding for Russia's invasion of Ukraine now in its fourth year. India has stopped buying Russian oil as part of the goodwill effort to reach trade agreements with the US, EU, and Germany. The seizing of the oil tankers is part of a new effort by India to support bringing Russia to the negotiating table to end the Ukraine war. Russia has demanded Ukraine turn over Donetsk region to end the war, which is a major stumbling block as Ukraine says there are Ukrainians living in Donetsk region. Germany's increase in its defense budget and investment in its armed forces has led to Germany+ (Germany plus UK and France) acting as the chief supporter of Ukraine, after the US has taken more of a neutral stand. The US basically wanting to end the war in 2026 so that the US can address the situation in the western hemisphere with drug and migrant trafficking gangs in Mexico, Venezuela and Columbia, and rebuild its economy to bring back manufacturing from China. For India the guiding principle of its foreign policy is Gandhiji's thinking and advice for fairness and peaceful coexistence - it does not believe in a British inspired NATO expanding on the borders of Russia, and at the same time does not see how a war on a neighboring Russian speaking region is in Russia's continued interest for a fourth year with bombing of energy infrastructure to leave Kviv in darkness. Non -alignment was Nehru's not Gandhiji's idea- the ideas of respect and fairness are basic to Gandhiji's thinking and India will remain true to his ideas in world relations. One aspect of this change in world affairs is missed by all and the media, that is that with the EU and US+ Japan, and India+ Indonesia there is a population of 1 billion of western peoples, and about 2 billion of Asian peoples, for a total of 3 billion people. This is a region three times the size of China, which with its access to capital and technology, labour and good governance is in a position to industrialize and reindustrialize, and bring manufacturing/science and technology to the core of this economic region by 2035. An industrialized India with 2X-3X the size of its current GDP will still be governed on Gandhiji's ideas for world relations in 2047. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
One negative effect of the trade war with the U.S. is an increased emphasis on energy security and increased use of coal in China. After China committed to goals for climate change coal use declined in 2014, after reaching a high in 2013. The attack on Saudi oil facilities showed risk in its reliance on Saudi oil. China's import dependency for oil reached an all time high of 72% in 2018, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review. Gradually the commitment to climate change and lower use of coal has changed since 2016 with the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Initially after the U.S. withdrawal under president Trump China made bold commitment to lead the fight against climate change but has since wavered. In an October 2019 speech Premier Li Kequiang called for the development of the coal industry to ensure energy security.  As China's economy slowed in 2019 in the face of U.S. tariffs and a trade war with the U.S. efforts are being made to increase infrastructure investment which has driven coal use higher. China's steel output reached a record of 750 million metric tons in 2019. The amount of coal fired capacity under construction in China now exceeds the rest of the world combined, much of it from plants permitted before 2017, according to Global Energy Monitor. China is also expected to become the world's largest importer of natural gas by 2020. Even the Russian gas fields from Siberia supply only a fifth of China's energy demands in 2020.  China has made large strides in renewable energy helping it meet its Paris Agreement targets. Renewable energy is about 10% of China's energy mix, but its use showed growth of 29% in 2018, making up half of the world's growth. China's use of coal in the energy mix has dropped to 58% in 2018 from 72% in 2008, according to BP 2019 Statistical Review, as a result of renewable energy investments. At the Madrid Climate Conference China renewed its commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Now it is a balancing act keeping in mind energy security and economic growth along with the need for clear skies and better air quality. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Indian exports to US drop from $8.8 to $5.5 billion May to September drop of 37%. A trade agreement is likely and should be similar to Japan's or EU where with Japan it is now 15% and with EU it is 10%, both key allies of the US. India is also a key ally in Asia requiring the DJT administration -once it gets over Modi-DJT differences on the nuclear aspect of the India-Pakistan 48 hour conflict in 2025, and India reverts to getting oil and energy from non Russian sources as it did in 2019, and issues of agricultural exports to India- to drop this tariff of additional 25% for Russian oil and drop the basic tariff of 25% to 15% as the US did with Japan. At 15% Japan and India will still be able to compete with China's 47% (dropped from 57%) to export to the US.  The result can be positive for India as it improves it's cost effectiveness to export to the US and EU, with rapid investment to improve logistics, and streamlining import of technologies and machinery to rapidly cut costs of production. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows it has collected $63 billion in tariffs over the preceding 12 months. Even though there is no agreement on trade with China, president Trump says the U.S. is benefitting from higher tariffs by tens of billions of dollars. In May he estimated tariff revenues could reach $100 billion.This report in the WSJ says this could happen if the the new tariffs of 10% on additional $300 Chinese goods imported to U.S. goes into effect on September 1. This is likely considering that China sees this in different terms than the U.S. such as its sovereignty, whereas the U.S. sees it simply in terms of fair trade. With new elections China may be simply putting things off till the election is decided as Mr. Trump has pointed out. The tally of what the U.S. Treasury gets annually if $100 billion is generated in tariffs goes something like this. Of this $30 billion was generated previously for the U.S. government, so the incremental amount is $70 billion. Of this about $16 billion goes to offset the effect of loss of farm exports to farmers, mainly soyabeans exports to China, through a rescue fund. This leaves additional $54 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Money that could conceivably be put back into infrastructure that the U.S. badly needs in mobile and fixed to improve internet speeds and move up from its low rankings compared to China and other countries. A WSJ report this week shows Germany in worse shape than the U.S., both countries having dismal status in mobile infrastructure- the U.S. at No. 37, and Australia No. 4, Canada No. 3, and even Croatia No. 9. This throws some light on why this trade dispute has become intractable, for China the right of a sovereign nation to move past middle income status even as its telecom technology with Huawei 5G is top class, and for the U.S. the right not to fall behind in advanced technologies such as Telecom. It is also why one hears so much about Huawei and why it has become a flashpoint of the conflict in trade and trade practices. It is thought Mr. Trump is conducting this trade dispute. Yet less known is the fact that prominent Republicans in Congress such as Senator Warner have stated on television talk shows that they are concerned Mr. Trump may give up too much in negotiations that lead to the U.S. not being able to compete in telecom advanced technologies that matter for competitiveness and for national security. What was treated by Bush and Obama administrations routinely without much attention to the consequences is now a top concern for Republicans and others in Congress and business. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides an excellent summary of the positions of the candidates in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 on key issues, education, healthcare, immigration, taxes, national debt, infrastructure spending, and economic growth. Clinton is clear on specifics, Trump has not made clear the details of policies and talks in general terms. On immigration the 2 candidates are far apart, on issues of infrastructure Clinton plans a $275 billion effort to repair the country's infrastructure and Trump says he would make a big effort. On taxes Clinton plans to pay for spending with higher taxes on the rich. Trump says he would provide huge tax cuts, yet make large infrastructure spending without clarifying how this would be done with sharply lower taxes. Both candidates oppose the TPP and oppose trade agreements that lead to loss of U.S. jobs.

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How other nations will negotiate such as EU, Japan and South Korea, which are allies of the US to reach trade agreements remains unknown with the ITT ruling. Will it have an effect, or will other nations recognize that DJT will pursue the Nation's interest in avoiding dangers of $1 trillion trade deficits and loss of manufacturing knowhow to other nations. As DJT has the option to issue tariff orders under other legal authorites which have firm footing such as Sections 301 of Trade Acts which were used in the first term.

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin in the NYT why the U.S. China Phase 1 Trade Agreement is more than a hill of soyabeans as he puts it, more than about all the soyabeans that the U.S. farmers can sell to China. China's economy was seeing the effect of U.S. tariffs. Additional tariffs to cover all imports from China to the U.S. would have worsened this. China avoided this by agreeing to Phase 1. The U.S. had looked for some enforcement mechanism based on China putting this down in a written agreement particularly for avoiding subsidies to state enterprises and improper access to U.S. advanced technologies. China's reluctance to do this led to Mr. Trump saying that China had reversed its position and Trump expanding the tariffs stage by stage. These issues are now set aside for Phase 2 still to be negotiated. Both sides taking what they could get. China relief from the threat of tariffs on all exports. The U.S. under Mr. Lighthizer's negotiating leadership retaining the enforcement idea through the tariffs that are still in place of 25% on half of China's exports to the U.S. The bonus for Mr. Trump is the goodwill China generates by agreeing to buy all the U.S. farmers can produce, farmers having not only stood behind Mr. Trump but also forming a key part of his support base. China will continue to compete in technological areas with the U.S., and the state enterprise model which worked for China as Mr. Xi tells visitors will continue. Phase 2 is just that Phase 2, when and if it can be negotiated between Trump with his negotiator Lighthizer and Xi with his negotiator Liu He. On key points neither side is budging. A key goal for Mr. Trump is to put the trade surplus China enjoys of $300 plus billion a year with the U.S. on a serious downward path, and bring so many of the jobs and manufacturing back home. On this trade data for 2019 and the plan for 2020 of both countries is clear. It should be down each year by 10-20% for the next few years, a major achievement of Mr. Lighthizer, who did the same with  Japan under president Reagan. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jenna Wortham asks the question do tech companies have undue influence in Washington especially when they are pursuing their own ecosystem expansion, citing an example from Facebook app Free Basics. There is another question that comes with the election campaigns of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, and issues of upward mobility. With this issue raised also by Janet Yellen of the U.S. Federal Reserve of the loss of intergenerational mobility in the U.S. at a conference in Oct. 2014. This question is whether the tech world in California can be sensitive to the problems of cities depending on manufacturing in the midwest and the eastern U.S. that are recovering from deep recession, because the environments are so different. Working in the tech world in California is so different from the rest of the country, almost a different way of life. It also has deep political implications, because the priorities are different. Sometimes as with the TPP trade agreement they may conflict- this includes an industry such as the auto industry that also is incorporating technology at an accelerating pace and which has employed many times more people than does the tech industry in California, and in many states. This leads to president Obama's support for the TPP trade agreement, an agreement which analysis by some experts shows is more beneficial to the tech industry in California than to the auto industry in the midwestern states. The NYT's Krugman says overall for the U.S. it is marginally helpful as most of the gains in free trade are already behind us. See Lyrarc using search terms-Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership. Yet it remains a mystery why president Obama has made it a part of his legacy, when Hillary Clinton realizing the issues in this election has clearly stated she will not support it. It has other implications as well, as it has given rise to demagogic rhetoric in this election, where other issues far more significant such as the condition of western democracy are at stake. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's car exports have grown in the last six years to double what they were before, growing to $40 billion. This includes a jump in export of SUV's vehicles. Just in the first quarter of 2018 the export of automobiles from Japan to U.S. is up by 10%. Japan is not keen on talking about this issue. President Trump is looking at negotiating a one on one trade deal with Japan instead of through the TPP agreement. as this is seen as a better way to address a $60 billion trade deficit. TPP is not a solution for the U.S. imbalance in trade with Japan as Japan already has no tariffs on imported cars. Yet other barriers exist that make it difficult for U.S. automakers. Ford exited Japan in 2016 and the U.S. has only 1% of the Japanese market. Japanese buyers stay away from American cars and prefer the smaller highly fuel efficient cars made in Japan by Japanese automakers. Perception of buying home made also exist. Other barriers also exist such as zoning and for setting up dealerships, unique safety standards. Japanese automakers make most of the sedans in the U.S. but export the SUV's from Japan. ...
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
India is a major farm exporter with over $50 billion in exports of farm products. New trade agreements with US and EU will shrink the current $14 billion surplus over imports as imports increase to meet US and EU negotiation requests.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico's GDP decreased slightly in each of the 4 quarters in 2019. GDP growth was 2.1% in 2018. Cancellation of some infrastructure projects and policy changes lead to lower private and public investment and decline in industrial production of 1.8% for 2019.  Foreign investment held steady at $33 billion and the passage of the new North American trade agreement signed by president Trump is expected to lead to better growth in 2020.

Under Mr. Obrador revision of energy contracts, and cancellation of some projects due to budget constraints, led to decline in public and private investment of 5.1% through November 2019. 

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Nathaniel Taplin of the WSJ says the tariffs put on $50 billion high tech products by the U.S. and retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion products are not about a trade war but a way both countries will negotiate setting out their two positions.  A look at the role of foreign firms in China shows China has access to new technology using these firms as a conduit and these firms are also generating more jobs, being highly productive. These firms Taplin says will set back their investments if no agreement is reached or if it is harder to bring Chinese made products into the U.S. At this time China badly needs this investment and technology access because of their dynamism compared to inefficient state run firms as it struggles under a massive debt load with very high debt to GDP ratio.  A major issue is job growth as companies getting foreign investment are much more effective in jobs generation, delivering 10% of all urban job growth from 2007 to 2016, using just 5.5% of total investment. Return on assets at 9% compares to 4% at state run firms. If this dynamism is reduced or affected in some way China could have to provide more unproductive debt buildup stimulus.  For these reasons China has good reason to make concessions, says Taplin. Trump administration will ask for greater semiconductor purchases, much looser joint venture or foreign ownership requirements, higher Chinese payment for U.S. intellectual property. For all these reasons this is not about a trade war but about serious negotiations taking place so that there is a level playing field in the next phase of competition in high tech between the U.S., China and the E.U. changing the dynamics of the trade relationship in ways that reverse the trends of the past. ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Supply chains are unraveling in many industries with the tariffs imposed by president Trump on imports from China, and renegotiated trade deals with South Korea and other countries. The growth in the value of foreign value added was possible with cuts in tariffs in the period after 1990 and the emergence of China as a low cost manufacturer with cheap labor. Foreign value added increased from 20% in 1990 to 30% in 2011. The impact on factory towns and communities in the U.S. of trade in which the U.S. manufacturing declined as it shifted to China resulted in the surge in support for president Trump. The tariffs war with China is an effort to correct this imbalance. The result is a shift in supply chains away from China in some industries and gradual shift in others. Rising wages in China had already resulted in early shifts and the the environmental costs adding to this trend. President Trump temporarily suspended a threatened imposition of duties of 25% on $325 billion of Chinese imports. A renegotiated Nafta agreement with Mexico for automobile production and determination of U.S. based content and wages was designed to reset the relationship with Mexico and the auto supply chain for production in Mexico. A threat of tariffs on European auto imports to the U.S. is set for a decision in November. The trade dispute between Japan and South Korea and threat of tariffs also shows the effect this is having in other countries. With the U.S. looking at its own interest in the global supply chain and its advantage or disadvantage, industries and companies are not free to make decisions based on which country offers the best arrangement and deal for manufacturing. Notions of competitive advantage in the tech race with China are affecting the way the U.S. and European nations are acting. ...
South China Morning Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time a senior figure in Beijing tells why China rejected a U.S. offer for a deal in May 2019. Mr. Trump said at the time that China withdrew its agreement on the deal after initially agreeing to it, creating a lack of trust. 

Senior economic official Li Deshiu says "it was a wholly unfair treaty that seeks to colonize China's economy. If this is accepted it is giving up China's development path, giving up China's rights for development, and making China a vassal of the U.S."

He says the trade war is a broader U.S. strategy to limit China's development in key industries. This is the Chinese perspective on the situation which was not stated in clear terms but alluded to till now.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This opinion in the Hindusthan Times points out that prime minister Modi's speech at Kozhikode following a militant attack in Kashmir in September 2016, reflects a long standing policy since the late 1970's of Congress party and BJP or Janata party administrations. The idea is to encourage cross border exchanges to reduce tensions. The emphasis in back channel talks between India and Pakistan also emphasize the idea of CBM, cross border movement. The prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, has also expressed in the past the importance of cross border movement and trade as ways to improve the economies of both countries. The idea of building up trade and increased exchanges between the two countries is supported also by the U.S. and other western countries. The example of Ireland and Northern Ireland where trade and cross border exchanges are considered important by all parties after Brexit, is an example of how important this is.

The Guardian Original article ›
US Supreme Court website Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An excerpt from the hearings on the major questions doctrine and separation of powers with Congress. JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sometime ago you dismissed the applicability of the major questions doctrine, and I -- I want -- want you to explain that a little bit more. I mean, it seems that it might be directly applicable. You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this -- this particular case. Congress uses tariffs in other provisions but -- but not here. And yet -- and correct me on this if I'm not right about it -- the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for -- in any amount for any length of time. That seems like -- I'm not suggesting it's not there, but it does seem like that's major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit. So why doesn't it apply again? GENERAL SAUER: Well, we agree that it's a major power, but it's in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers, that the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions, which are emergencies. So it would be unusual... And another excerpt from the hearings on fentanyl- JUSTICE KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we've had cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world. GENERAL SAUER: Well, this particular emergency is particularly existential, as Executive Order 14257 says, and, of course, no one disputes the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, which, you know, we had an agreement last week to create progress on, which illustrates the effectiveness of the tariffs tool (this refers to the agrement with China last week by Nov 1 that cuts the 20% tariff from 20% to 10% if China completely cuts off flow of fentanyl from inside its borders.)  Clearly some in the US have not grasped the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, a crisis of proportions so great that it would be an existential crisis for any nation. A concentration of the world's manufacturing in one nation with a trade surplus of $1 trillion with the world is also an emergency that extends into the existential sphere. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Krugman says in the long run Brexit is not catastrophic for Britain with a loss of 2-4% of GDP and affecting incomes. He compares it to Canada and the U.S. before the North American trade agreement, Canada's economy still functioned decently.  The problem is more in the short run as no border infrastructure is in place and this is where a bigger hit is feared in the disruption of the flow of goods.

Krugman also cautions people in the European Union who do not see the impact on the EU even though it is relatively smaller than the larger impact on Britain.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Alexandra Stevenson provides this exceptional account summarizing the reasoning in the minds of Argentine negotiators and holdout bondholders over a debt dispute remaining from the 2001 Argentine debt crisis and default. Over a decade later the repercussions of Argentina's 2001 debt crisis and default are still taking new twists ant turns. Holdout bondholders won in U.S. courts and Judge Griesa ordered Argentina to make full payment demanded by holdout bondholders. Argentina responded by depositing $539 million in Bank of New York Mellon as instalment payment to exchange bondholders. Judge Griesa responded by ruling that if Bank of New York Mellon made the payment it would be in contempt of court. Griesa also called for court mediated negotiations between Argentina and the holdout bondholders to come up with an agreement. Argentina and hedge fund holdouts negotiated in July 2014 but talks faltered. Legal experts say that if Argentina makes an agreement with holdout bondholders led by NML Capital which is asking for $1.5 billion, the risk is that the exchange bondholders could also ask for better terms. After the 2001 crisis following which Argentina defaulted on its debt, agreements were reached for bondholders to be paid about 25 cents on the dollar. Not all bondholders agreed, the bondholders who agreed are called the exhange bondholders, and the ones holding out holdout bondholders. From the Argentine government's point of view the risk of reaching agreement with the holdouts suing Argentina is that the other holdout bondholders not represented in the lawsuit could also ask for the same terms, and Argentina would have to pay all the holdouts costing it $15 billion. Risks if Argentina allows it to go into default are that exchange bondholders would come together to pressure the Argentine government to make a full payment of their discounted bonds quickly. This would cost Argentina payment of as much as $28.7 billion, according to JPMorgan estimates, under the right to "accelerate" payment if Argentina is considered as having missed a July 30, 2014 payment deadline. Legal experts say Argentina has to weigh this risk, which may or may not occur depending on the exchange bondholders taking such action, against the risk of having to pay out $15 billion to all the holdouts. Paying all holdouts would be politically very unpopular in Argentina, posing political risks for the socialist Peronist Kirchner government, already facing difficulties with the trade unions and the stronger opposition from centrist parties in Buenos Aires province. Default would affect Argentine access to capital markets, which is already highly restricted. Yet because Argentina has made the payment to Bank of New York Mellon, blocked by Judge Griesa, the nature of this default would be different. A worse case scenario for Argentina's Kirchner government is reopening negotiations with exchange bondholders for higher payment on debt than the 25 cents on the dollar already agreed to. Argentina faces an acute cash shortage with international reserves of only about $29.5 billion in May 2014, and a slowing agricultural export dependent economy. This is why the prospect of a technical default is being treated with relative calm in Buenos Aires....

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us