LyrArc Article Gist
With 40% of the unemployment shown as longterm unemployed, U.S. Federal Reserve policies are focussed on bringing down these levels, which pose a risk to the productive capacity in the U.S.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Through 2015 oil companies expect to spend $15 billion a year on pipelines and to retrofit refineries to process heavy sands Canadian crude, and production of heavy sands crude is expected to go up to 3.7 million barrels a day by 2020 from 1.2 million barrels a day today. This is changing the way crude pipeline map looks as the diminished supply from Mexico and Venezuela means less crude going north, and more going south from Canada.

LyrArc Article Gist
Marathon gets 20% ownership of Athabasca oil sands from Western of Calgary.

LyrArc Article Gist
The oil sands project by the Syncrude consortium which includes 12% ownership by Petro-Canada came in at twice the the original US$4.1 billion estimate. Petro -Canada faces similiar problems in its own project to produce 280,000 barrels a day by 2014. The project is expected to cost US $24.8 billion. Cost are rapidly escalating for oil sands projects and it require very good project execution skills. Oil price below $60 could change the viability of these projects.

LyrArc Article Gist
Alberta will get more royalties from the Canadian oil industry of about $1.4 billion or 20% more han before, after increases in oil royalties announced by Alberta's premier following a government review panel's reports.

LyrArc Article Gist
Prices of natural gas in the US have risen 93% since August 2007 and as global demand continues prices are expected to fuel inflation in the US. Producer prices were up 1.1% in March according to Labor Department and natural gas prices contributed to this increase. Natural gas heats half of uS homes, supplies 20% of USA electricity and is used to make products from fertilizer to plastic bags. And demand from the US power sector is growing at 10% a year as natural gas is clean burning to produce electricity at power plants and preferrable to caol burning plants from environmental standpoint. With environmetal regulation and costs natural ga ma be preferred by plants for power generation. A revolution has ocurred in the way natural gas is cooled into liquid LNG and transported in LNG tankers so that places like Nigeria and Quatar can now ship to Japan and Europe. And LNG contracts are now written in less rigid terms so that supplies are not fixed over 10 year periods like before and can be diverted by suppliers to other markets where prices have risen so that when a nuclear power plant shuts down in Japan LNG supply can be diverted to Japan from other countries because of vastly higher prices in Japan. This also happens elsewhere last year a drought in Spain cut hydroelectric power and Spain turned to Algeria and Egypt which had already diverted supplies to Japan which paid prices twice as high as Spain, so Spain secured supplies from Trinidad a US supplier, which reduced supplies to the US by 31% over 2006. So this shifting global supply chain means shortages and prices in one place can reverberate all the way to the USA. Because of these and other reasons US prices are expected to go much higher by estimates from Barclays and Deutsche Bank....

LyrArc Article Gist
Geithner in written testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, stated that "President Obama - backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists- believes that China is manipulating its currency." What is noteworthy is that experts are generally in agreement that something should be done about this in cooperative fashion, from Obama's economic team, Obama's own views on this, The National Association of Maufacturers, Labor and so on. The trade deficit with China has continued at high levels even with the current economic slowdown, so this issue remains as one that the Bush administration never really addressed. Simon Johnson, a MIT Professor, and former IMF Chief economist says that even the IMF has not addressed it, and that the Obama administration needs to call China to account. He says this could lead to a spat with China, and if the US does not back down to a row. The concern has been that China would not buy up Treasury debt the way it has in the past, at the same time the question is whether there is some point where the deficit is so large and the US so dependent on foreign buyers of Treasury debt, that it needs to be addressed on a number of levels. Including addressing currency and fair trade issues, a more rational balanced consumption of everything from oil to goods from lowcost Asian countries, to reduce the toll on the overextended American consumer and on the extent of US borrowing needed. From China's perspective there may also be the same concern about export led growth, which may come to be seen as undependable anyway, because with or without some currency advantage the overextended US consumer is not buying anyway, holding off on purchases of everying from cars to flatscreen televisions. With growth at 6.8% in 4th quarter 2008, according to the Chinese Government Statistics Bureau, and expected to drop to 5% in 2009, the export growth model is no longer the panacea for China's unemployed as it once was at 12-13% growth rates in 2006-2007. In fact it may now look to be a better wiser policy if China had increased the value of its currency even more than its slow gradual approach to slow the growth rate from 12-13% to a more sustainable 9-10%, and lower American imports and lower the American trade deficit. Part of the problem in China was the difficulty of applying any sort of brakes once the local governments were set free to expand as much as they could, and prevented any controls from being effective. Steel production continued to grow even after there was evidence of large overcapacity, and government direction failed. Buy some time to shift to domestic consumption based recovery, is what the Chinese policy may be now. Indications of this are evident with its grappling at the issues it has not tackled like giving ownership of land to farmers in rural areas, and to building a healthcare system for the country, both of which are part of a host of issues to shift to domestic consumption based recovery. So unlike the way the media and some experts portray it its not a tough line that the US is taking against Chinese unwillingness. China may want to cooperate.That may be true if China was missing out on 10-13% growth rates, but these were unsustainable anyway and bad policy. At growth rates below 5% as projected by analysts China may want to jettison the export model of growth and build an alternative one. In that case as China shifts to domestic consumption, currency adjustments may be seen quite differently than they were in the past....

LyrArc Article Gist
The best that can be said about all the efforts to stabilize the housing markets is that they help in the context of the credit crisis that hit the economy hard with the Bear Stearns crisis and help to provide an orderly retreat for housing prices and ways to soften the blow to homeowners and lenders caught up in the wave of foreclosures. But housing prices themselves have not declined anywhere near what one would expect. In fact BW, p17, April 7, 2008 shws percentage changes for existing homes from Feb 2007 to Feb 2008 with data from the National Association of Realtors. And they are surprising when you consider sales for the northeast down 26% and prices up slightly 0.4%. Elsewhere the sales are down 29% in the Western states for a 13% price decline, sales down 20% for a 7% price decline in the Midwestern states, and sales are down 22% for a 9% decline in the Southern states. Jobless rates are 3.9% in Austin, Texas and Birmingham, Alabama and only Detroit, St Louis and Cleveland have jobless rates above 6%. What this suggests is that the unemployment situation has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening and drop in capital investment. As house prices have not declined much declines over 10% mostly in the western states and places like Detroit but not in the northeast and across the south, and unemployment still low across many regional communities, consumption spending has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening. Once tightened credit conditions hit payrolls as companies cut their workforce and unemployment moves up then expect to see greater housing price declines as more houses go into foreclosures, and then expect consumption spending to feel the impact which would reduce sales and further trim payrolls as companies run their factories at less and less production capacity. This sequence would continue and bring the economic crisis to more and more parts of the country in a manner that we have hardly see upto this point. What we have seen is the unfolding of a collapse of mortgage securities firms and of mortgage securites insurance providers like ACA, and with it the huge writedowns about $150 billion taken by the investment houses and the banks. And this has happened as a wave of foreclosures took place in 2006. And the collapse of Bear Stearns with the effects felt in global stock markets. In the communities themselves in the areas of consumption spending and in jobs the conditions will only now begin to be felt and the real impact not felt till the end of 2008 and into 2009 with the Fed action to shore up confidence adding several months in slowing the process. See the link to BW, Bernanke the Reluctant Revolutionary, where the BW estimate is that Americans took on about $3 trillion in additional debt between 2000 and 2006 from what they would have taken if they had followed the trajectory of spending patterns that had prevailed upto that point, with their recent free spending ways. It would take abot 3 to 4 years conservatively for Americans to work down all that debt. Another way of saying this is that consumption spending is going to take a big hit and with it sales of companies and consequently higher unemployment and more part time labor force with less benefits, which would tend to depress consumption even more. The winds of housing, credit, consumption and unemployment would all hit the economy in about 12 months time. Credit will further tighten as BW estimates about $130 billion of additional writedowns still expected....

LyrArc Article Gist
Van Dam says its not that great being a worker in the U.S. because it is hard for the unemployed resulting from competing with workers in other countries with lower wages, and for those who are unemployed harder because worker collective bargaining is weakened over 3 decades. He cites a 296 page OECD report showing very little government support for unemployed and at risk American workers. It says this has contributed to higher income inequality and larger share of lower income people than almost any other advanced a nation. Only Spain and Greece are shown as having more households earning less than half the median income- showing large numbers of people are poor or close to being poor. In the U.S. an average of 1 in 5 lose their jobs each year, and 23% of workers 15 to 64 are in their job less than a year in 2016. The job churn hurts workers because of firing and layoffs being frequent, more than is healthy for a economy. The U.S. and Mexico are the only two countries not requiring advance notice before firings. And fewer than half of workers find a job within a year in the U.S. Two in three families with a displaced worker fall in poverty for some time. Unemployed workers with typically 26 weeks support get less support than any other country in the study. Only 12% of workers in U.S. are covered by collective bargaining. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) says Glaxo's drug Benlysta for lupus is not "good value for money." The drug is priced at 10,000 pounds a year in the U.K. ($15,600) and much higher at $35,000 a year in the U.S. Benlysta is covered by insurers in the U.S. and some European state run health systems according to Glaxo. NICE also rejected a new multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya, which costs 19,000 pounds a year in the U.K. ($29,700), and $48,000 a year in the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
Global austerity measures could lead to a weaker and slower recovery in the absence of other policy actions to tackle the deficits in the medium term.