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.


Washington Post Original article ›
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. ...
FRANCE 24 Original article ›
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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Europeans led by France and Germany demand stricter regulation and a financial regulatory system that oversees the entire financial system, and oversees all the larger countries. The US in contrast wants to see a lighter regulatory system, and lighter regulation of parts of the financial system like hedge funds. For the USA where the crisis originated, the emphasis is on larger stimulus spending. For the Europeans which have a larger safety net that they would like to see considered as part of their stimulus- and their social arrangement such as reduced hours in Germany to avoid layoffs, and the presence of a large public sector in France that is about 52% of GDP- the situation as they see it does not require breaking the EU's committment to control large deficits. The cultural and historical roots are also different. Germany was hit by hyperinflation in the period between the two wars, and there is thought there that this helped the rise of demagogic leaders and the collapse of democracy there. At that time the issue was war reparations that Germany found difficult to absorb in an economy devastated by the first war, which strained German finances. France and Germany also have no foreclosure crisis, and car sales and consumer spending are not in the deep decline that is seen in the USA. In fact car sales have increased in the two countries with the refunds for scrapping old vehicles, with no such plan in place in the USA. Making there is a credible position on the European side. Germany does see itself hit by the collapse in international trade. Germany and France face the prospect of helping their banking systems deal with the large bad loan situation facing them in Eastern Europe. At the same time Germany and France want to save some firepower for coming to the aid of key parts of the European community like Spain, Greece, and Ireland, which are facing a worsening crisis. In short both sides have credible positions, and some form of accomodation as events unfold may be a better desired outcome than some unified outcome. And little has been said of the position of the other countries in the G20, the emerging countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina and others, and the position of the World Bank speaking for the poorest countries. These countries may favor stronger stimulus, and would favor the stricter regulation and supervision of global financial systems favored by the Europeans. This is because they may rightly feel that the messups in the global financial system have stolen their chance, at just the point where they were turning the corner in their efforts at bringing better standards of living to their peoples....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The problem of poor competitiveness in Greece which is stifling the economy. A recent analysis by research firm Variant Perception based in London, shows severe pricing distortions in the Greek economy. The cost of labor in Greece from 2005-2010 was, on average, 25% higher than in Germany. And small business is muffled by the bureaucracy and old rules and restrictions. Compared to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have lower labor costs. This increases the trade deficit for Greece. Greece has one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world, one lawyer for every 250 people compared to 272 in the US.

The Economic Summit

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial says the summit came up short on both the Stimulus that Europe was asked by the US to commit to, and the global regulation that the Europeans asked the US to agree to. The regulatory reform is not what it needs to be to address the many issues raised by this crisis says the NYT. And Germany it says needs to see that deteriorating conditions will require a strong stimulus. By committing to $1 trillion in funds to backup international trade and to help emerging countries fight the crisis, the summit did achieve its other goal of helping the vast majority of people in the world in the emerging countries deal with this crisis, including countries in the EU.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman says the fairly obvious that Democrats in the US and Social Democrats in Europe readily grasp. That unrestricted immigration on the southern border in the US or in the southern border of Europe actually does little to improve the situation for people in the US and Europe or the people in the countries migrants are leaving because of unsettled conditions. Germany has shifted to a policy of becoming involved in development in Africa. Japan's International Cooperation Agency has worked for many years in African countries. The US has its own efforts to assist Mexico through trade and manufacturing. It is working with Central American countries that are a major source of migrants on the southern border at different times. Mette Frederiksen, head of the Danish Social Democrats government, has put it very well when she said that the only people who are getting hurt by open border policies are the working class families in Denmark. This is true also of other parts of the EU and the US. Simply by letting in migrants, a policy that is harmful to workers and families. Conservatives are looking to make political gains and further their own interests, indifferent to social divisions and increasing lack of upward mobility in society. Immigration has become the tool for many of the conservative parties that have used it in ways harmful to interests of workers and families, in Britain, in the US, and in the EU. One has only to see the large delegation that Mette Frederiksen led to India for discussions with prime minister Modi, the economic ministries, and business, to see how she did the right thing on a huge scale. Denmark is the world leader in logistics with Maersk, and in renewable energy. Denmark and the Nordic countries are working closely with a country of 1.4 billion people to improve the logistics to make India comparable to China in manufacturing for export. And similarly in renewable energy technologies. The Nordic countries and the EU have simply by these actions done more to uplift hundreds of millions of people in Asia than anything that ever happened in the history of the world. And the US is also working with India in the same way. India acts as a stable source of growth and model for a whole stretch of Asia from Indonesia to Vietnam. The population lifted out of poverty - 2 billion people. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The 25% auto imports tariff goes into effect April 2nd 2025. How much will it increase prices in the US for automobiles? The average is about 10%, say some experts cited in WSJ. This includes price increases on higher priced brands such as German brands BMW's and Audis, Mercedes Benz, and VW cars made in Mexico to ship into the US. It also includes European car makers including Stellantis that make cars in Europe and Mexico to ship into the US which could lose market share to American car makers who make most of their cars in the US. Ford makes 80%, GM 60%.  Overall US international Trade Commission in 2024 looked at the 25% US tariff in a study and showed 5% increase in auto prices in the US. President Trump's call to GM and Ford asking for restraint in pricing may be coupled with the government returning some of the money in tariffs revenue pool to American or foreign manufacturers investing more to make more cars in the US including to Hyundai which announced a $21 billion investment. More such investment decisions are expected from Japanese automakers. For example Subaru has capacity for 450,000 cars in Lafayette Indiana plant and sells 650,000 cars in the US. One would expect it to increase the capacity of the plant or add a new plant in the US. The Japanese government and Japanese business will have additional incentives to invest in the US because of the US support for Japan in the Asia-Pacific, US openness to give trade benefits to Japan in the post war period, incentive to make the Republican DJT plan for tariffs to work as a united Japan-US effort. This would include restraint on pricing.  Toyota is in much better financial shape than VW and has a large market share in the US which it will work protect with pricing restraint and more US investment. Only VW and German luxury car makers BMW, Mercedes may not cooperate. Yet VW sells only 300,000 cars in the US compared to 2.3 million for Toyota. BMW and Mercedes sell luxury cars where buyers could absorb the additional luxury brand cost without impacting inflation overall. Some of VW's car sales would be absorbed by American and other automakers considering VW was losing market share and nearly exiting the US market. before this. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A 35 year old Engineering professor from Texas who studies how transportation systems propagate infectious diseases and her 2 graduate students from China started and since January maintain the database of coronavirus confirmed cases and deaths. This is one of the widely used databases, also used by public health officials in the U.S. The database was started with a hunch from one of Lauren Gardner's students from China Ensheng Dong who comes from Shanxi province, north of Wuhan. A geography and mapping specialist he had studied in the U.S. since 2012, and spent many hours inputting data by hand following his classes. This WSJ report says the website was built in 1 day and was launched on January 22, when the coronavirus cases were practically nonexistent in the rest of the world and were concentrated in the Wuhan area. This report says behind the data reported in the media everyday is a complicated supply chain filled with challenges that come with data, what is reported, underreported and with what assumptions it is reported. Dr. Gardner says she is dealing with so much data on her dashboard, 4000 points of data, that its hard enough to pull all the data scraped together from different sources, its impossible for her to check the assumptions behind the data for consistency and trying to figure out facts underlying the data.  One of the ways the virus developed in the rest of the world is the surprise with which it caught western countries and then the rest of the world. As a result something that the government authorites would do such as the Centres of Disease Control is being done in a totally ad hoc manner. The U.S. government uses the University of Washington Health Metrics database, and in turn the University of Washington Health Metrics database takes some of the data from the John Hopkins database. Because a complacent population in the western countries were relying on numbers counted as cases to know how serious this epidemic was or whether there was an epidemic, the significance of data count from China assumed a signifcance far out of proportion to what it might normally be. This was because the western countries in Europe and America never encountered an epidemic of this kind in living memory, the last one forgotten from 1917 hundred years ago. Researchers in Gottingen University study in Germany conducted analysis of data in studies of cases published in Lancet Journal and found that only 6% of cases were being shown- that a much larger part of the population was infected. A researcher at Princeton University Ramanan Laxminarayan says countries tend to delay reporting until a problem becomes certain, because telling others comes with economic costs such as a rapid drop in trade and travel. Yet he says early warning systems are key to prevention. Early warning from the different publicly available data bases was not possible for many reasons. Relying on such ad hoc data was hazardous considering that as the NYT reported recently when there was the first confirmed detected case reported in New York there were already 10,000 persons estimated to be undetected. James Glanz and Benedict Carey, say in the NYT.com on May 7, that hidden outbreaks spread through U.S. cities far earlier than Americans knew, estimates show, which makes the publicly available databases giving a false sense of security, and not acting as an early warning because of the inadequacy of the resources for this task for individual researchers to handle. Not depending on  hurriedly put together databases with inadequate resources and having an independent sense of what the danger was as German chancellor Merkel described it in her first coronavirus address in March, was a better early warning signal than the databases in retrospect. And this too had come late. The reason is that the response had to be fast, very fast, and public perceptions had to be shaped quickly about the magnitude and speed of enormous proportions of the coronavirus, so that actions could be shaped quickly and executed quickly to stop it in its tracks.    ...
Washington Post Original article ›
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? ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
European companies rushed to make new business investment in Iran after the lifting of Iran sanctions with the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015. This report in the NYT shows companies in Europe were wary that the nuclear detente with Iran would not last. As a result the European exports to Iran up to $12.8 billion in 2017 were up 30% but still ranked Iran as the 33rd largest trading partner, behind Serbia. Other problems were bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of coordination in Iran for moving ahead with projects. After the deal was signed companies such as Peugeot, Airbus, Total, Daimler moved ahead to invest in Iran. Yet the investments were made carefully considering the opposition of the Trump administration. In one deal Airbus agreed to provide 100 new aircraft for Iran Air's aging fleet, yet only 3 were delivered by May 2018. Daimler had a deal with Iran's Khodro vehicle maker for Fuso brand trucks, yet Daimler officials say demand was weak. A deal made by Total to explore for offshore natural gas may require a waiver under a "grandfather clause" say Total officials, or the option to turn over the investment to its minority partner CNPC, a Chinese state owned company. The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Mr. Grennell, says European companies should stop operations in Iran immediately showing the U.S. plans to take stronger action.  ...
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Many of Germany's industry leaders see an escalation of the trade disputes with the U.S. as counterproductive. They suggest negotiating is the best approach and staying calm. Also rejected is reaching an agreement with president Trump at any cost.

The Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Comment by a former Tory leader, Sir Ian Duncan Smith, on negotiations with the European Union's Ursula Leyen, show how much the term sovereignty has become the word on which everything depends. Smith said on December 10 about the EU demands that Britain adhere to EU environmental and other rules after leaving the EU, "either Britain is sovereign, or it is not."  The word sovereign is discussed in this context in this Times analysis. The word comes from the old French word "sovereinete" during the period when the King's authority was being contested by feudal lords in 16th century France. The Oxford dictionary defines it as the authority of a state to govern itself, and to do this without outside interference. Tory leaders such as David Davis and others including Smith see this as meaning making your own laws. For the European Union to insist on its laws being primary and British law asked to conform with EU law making it secondary, would not only be outside interference, but also divided authority. Older French and British political philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau see this as divided authority. Even though the meaning has changed in modern times, the essential definition in the Oxford Dictionary remains undivided authority. Which is why these Tory leaders insist on the original definition as the right one. Behind the wrangling there is the sense among Leavers that Britain could do better in economic terms by setting its own direction, and doing business its way. How would a new economic power in India by 2030 affect Britain, would it create many more opportunities for Britain to grow because of its history and cultural ties. Could the relationship with the U.S. provide more opportunities for growth? What about French indifference and even disdain of Britain, does Britain have other options? Isn't the European Union merely a Franco-German alliance led politically by France and economically by Germany, and propelled by their three wars since 1871, with a bunch of European countries added in, and what has Britain got to do with it? Closer to the negotiations with Leyen there is also the question - isn't France trying to make certain with its demand that Britain not violate EU law, that Britain's ingenuity and free wheeling spirit outside the European Union does not let it grow faster than France? Where one gets Boris Johnson's immediate reply that Britain is better off not being stuck inside "EU's regulatory orbit."   At the other end of the world you have India with "Atman Nirbhar Bharat" calling for a self-reliant economy and taking the time for transitioning out of the trade relationship with China, at short term cost and long term advantage. Britain is closely watching India as it makes big strides in developing infrastructure, in renewable energy, and setting a bold vision for the future. Even France is mapping out a pathway to self-reliant economy as it looks at ways to bring production home after the pandemic. The pandemic has only reinforced the drive to be self-reliant. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Socialist Party in Spain increases its share of the vote to 29%, and emerges as the largest party to form a government with the socialist leaning Podemos party in 2019 elections. It does this by returning to its labour base and working class roots. It pitches a platform of worker's rights, higher taxes on wealthy, environmental roots, issues important to its social democratic roots. The WSJ cites a 57 year old employee of Spain's health service Antonio Benitez, living in Andalusia who says people have a hard time making ends meet, and its about time socialist parties speak of the main pillars of being socialist, without all the deviations to the centre. As free market thinking entered the mindset of leaders in the UK such as Tony Blair and Gerhard Scroder in Germany, Clinton in the U.S., the shift began towards economic efficiency in the tradeoff with equality and social justice. This was aggravated by the effects of international trade and technology in worsening income disparities and unsettling communities in traditional manufacturing. This trend is now being reversed as Socialist parties or Labour allied parties in the UK, Spain,and increasingly in the U.S., take a new position different from the past. A political scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam says its like these parties got hit on the head and now decided to go back to core values around equality, reducing disparities, social justice and the environment. Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party in Britain increased Labour's vote in the 2017 elections to 40% up from 30% in 2015. Italy's Socialists won 41% of the vote in 2014 European elections, moved to the centrist positions that made firing workers easier, pension overhauls raising retirement age, leading to losing half its support with 21% ahead of European elections in 2019. Pedro Sanchez of Spain raised the minimum wage by 22% before winning the 2019 elections compared to his predecessor Socialist premier Zapatero who is reported to have said "cutting taxes is left wing." Now workers rights and higher taxes on corporation are on the agenda.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSj points out that Britain is in a weaker position to tackle Brexit than it was when Boris Johnson called for supporting the Yes vote to Leave the EU three years ago in the referendum. Business investment is lower than France, Germany and even Italy. And today protectionism, nationalism, hostility to globalization mean that its not so easy to increase exports by signing free trade agreements with other nations. Even a treaty with a friendly Trump administration  is not certain as Mr. Trump favors looking at how he can get the best deal and reverse any advantages of other trading nations, Britain being no exception. A trade agreement with the U.S. could mean the U.S. barring Britain from signing one with China as a condition of Mr. Trump. Greg Ip also points out that it was precisely joining the EU that helped Britain catch up with German and French standards of living after a period of low growth, inflation, and balance of payments crises in the 1970's. Joining the European Economic Community was as prime minister Heath stated would " enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world."   ...
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
India places a $3 billion order for 1200 electric locomotives and railway modernization with Siemens. It includes a 35 year contract for maintenance. The equivalent of 800,000 trucks can be replaced by these locomotives over the lifetime. Siemens CEO Roland Busch says "This will help India create the world's largest green rail network, as our locomotives will save the equivalent of 800 million tons of CO2 emissions over their lifecycles."

The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Scholz of Germany holds talks with PM Narendra Modi on growing ties between Germany and India in trade, clean energy and new technologies. Scholz is on a two day trip to New Delhi and Bengaluru. The trip takes place in the backdrop of G-20 talks in India.

dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Scholz's visit to India with the heads of 12 large German companies and heads of medium size company business associations will lead to increasing economic cooperation between Germany and India. Bilateral trade is about 25 billion dollars. German companies such as Siemens are suppliers of rail locomotives for modernization of India's rail network. Topics for talks include the geopolitical situation in Europe with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, cooperation on climate change, utilization of German technologies, and increasing investment by German companies in India's economy.

The Hindu Original article ›
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As India takes on the presidency of the G20 in December the first steps are being taken by the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to build closer ties with India. The Hindu gives this intervew with Baerbock that shows Germany's keen interest in building the India Germany partnership. This sets the stage for the bi-annual India Germany summit meeting, with German chancellor Scholz to visit India in early 2023. Some of Baerbock's comments show energy and enthusiasm for India to work closely with Europe. "Our countries have so much to offer one another. We want to tap that enormous potential. One such example is the concrete agreement we will sign during my visit, making it a lot easier for both Indians and Germans to study, research and work in our respective countries." "Today's era is not the era of war, that was Mr Modi's message to Putin- that was the resounding message and I highly appreciate India's seminal role in achieving this." ...
New York Times
LyrArc Article Gist
With higher growth overseas multinational companies are increasingly investing outside their local base country. Germany has strong trade unions and German companies are investing outside Germany, in Eastern Europe and other countries. This is leading to a shift in investment to countries in Eastern Europe, China, India, etc. where there is growth and labor costs are attractive. The multinational companies still do a lot of the advanced research and manufacturing in their home base and say the growth overseas makes them stronger financially to continue to invest at home. The shift may also be due to the trade union factor- an example being the UAW union in the U.S., rigid labor rules, and other distortions from high wages and benefits that cannot be supported in the global economy. This includes distortions such as the Jobs Bank in the Detroit auto industry. Similiar situations exist in Europe where unions are strong and there is not enough of the flexibility needed for companies to grow in the global economy....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In a speech at the Conservative Party Fall conference British prime minister Theresa May positions her party as an advocate for the working class against establishment views. She was critical of smug views that the current situation was acceptable for working class families concerned about immigration and jobs. She also pointed out that the policies of central banks including the Bank of England hurt working class families and savers." She pointed out the development that has also happened in the U.S. economy and other European countries as the Federal Reserve and the ECB cut rates to near zero. "People with assets have got richer. People without them have suffered. People with mortgages have found their debts cheaper. People with savings have found themselves poorer." Her response she said would be to "put the government at the service of those who found themselves poorer as a result of monetary policy." This follows May's first speech at 10 Downing Street where she referred to "the burning injustice."  ...
New York Times Original article ›
SPIEGEL ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There are 240 Norwegian and Finnish companies in India, says this report in The Hindu. Nordic countries are providing green technologies to India. At the Nordic-India Summit held in Copenhagen in May 2022, the five Nordic prime ministers and prime minister Modi agreed to intensify cooperation on digitalisation, renewable energy, maritime industries and the circular economy. Denmark is helping India with ports and logistics. Trade ministers of Norway and Finland visiting India together  Feb 9-10 describe the efforts to provide Nordic technology solution in green transition to India. Trade between Norway and India has doubled in the last 3 years and the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is likely to become on the largest investors in India at $17.6 billion. Vestre us Norway's Minister of Trade and Industry, Skinnari is Finnish Minister of Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade. 

The New York Times Original article ›

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