LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporters Grant and Berzon provide an indepth account of how Donald Trump survived the worst crisis of his business career in the 1990's, as his deals involving the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City collapsed. By describing how Trump responded the report provides insights into Trump's manner of operating, character, and the financial maneouvring to avoid the worst effects of the crisis. It shows Trump's resilience, and also the nature of the risky business deals that led to the crises in Trump's business life.

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ makes the America centric thinking mistake of forgetting where China started from in assessing progress and China's new priorities. In 1960 the World Bank shows China per capita at $90 which does not change much till 1990 when it was $300, the Deng opening to western technology and capital pushed it up to $3000 the year 2000 (US $36,000) and $4500 in 2010 (US $50,000) when the global financial crisis hit. Since 2010 the Chinese economy was burdened by high local government debt and struggled to get to $10,000 in 2020 under Xi Jinping's first two terms as president. Yet it paid a huge price for this -the chance of Bo Xilai (2014) upsetting the twin banners of Science and Modernization of the May 4th 1919 movement that set the course of China for 100 years uninterrupted through the Nationalists, the Japanese occupation, the Maoist CCP, the Deng CCP opening and Jinping CCP pullback. The huge inequality was seen as an opportunity for Bo Xi Lai or some other leader to capitalize on moving China in an unknown direction that posed risks for the future of China. Even then the first preference of Xi would be to carry on with what had worked after Deng. Yet it was clear that working class votes were shifting the dynamics of elections after the Trump election and closing the doors to open access to western capital, technology, and investment. With Trump in erratic and uncertain ways, with Biden after the elections of 2020 consistent and with single minded determination to limit flows. Not just Xi, any other Chinese leader would have had to have the internal discussions about the need to shift back to a model China was familiar with and one that worked before- that of state intervention in the economy, that of reducing the inequalities that posed risks for the CCP's survival as forging a path for stability to carry out the twin banners of the May 4, 1919 Movement - Science and Modernization as China's salvation. Unlike the hysteria about China posing a challenge to the US these internal debates of Xi and the party may have concluded that the US with about half the population of China's as it grows with immigration in the future and multiple times the per capita GDP was a country that no other country was going to come close to. In this sense the supply chains are deceptive as these are likely to be completely redone under the Biden administration to bring most important manufacturing back to China. It is in this context that Xi had limited room to manoeuvre and decided to focus on stability for the long term to fulfill China's dream of the May 4, 1919 Movement of the last 100 years for Science and Modernization casting aside the risks associated for instability of the inequality that comes with more of the western type of growth, and with the climate change risks also associated with it. Lower growth gives China a chance to correct some of the flaws of the hyper growth that was partly of its own making and partly thrust upon it by investors from the outside, so that the new climate would best serve the goals of the May 4, 1919 Movement of keeping high the banners of Science and Modernization. This kind of rethinking is also going on in the US in the same manner about inequalities and hardships for workers and families, with some of the anger directed at China as internal political sentiment- hence the trillions of dollars moved by the Biden administration to address the flaws of growth under free markets and intervene in the economy where needed as in climate change to give firm sense of direction. In a sense the direction taken in different contexts the American and the Chinese are the same - address the problems of workers and families, of the people, as Lincoln had pointed out and striven so hard for, so that Labor is the more important than Capital, and workers and families vital to the nation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's executive order reversing parts of the Clean Power Plan of president Obama may extend the life of older coal powered plants, but overall it is unlikely to change the shift away from coal for the U.S. utility industry. It will do little to reverse the market forces that are leading to a shift to natural gas for the utility industry with the increasing availability of natural gas. In this WSJ report Cassandra Sweet cites Duke Energy Corp. CEO Lynn Good, who says natural gas for Duke will be the leading fuel followed by coal by 2026, and natural gas now makes up 28% of its mix with coal at 34%. He says a $11 billion ten year investment in natural gas and renewable energy will go through regardless of what the Trump administration does because of the economics- the declining price of renewables, the competitive price of natural gas. Companies are loath to base their long term plans on changes in administration as they see the economics dictated by advances in technology, and the general sense that cleaner energy is here to stay for the long run. Already in the U.S. 34% of total power supplies are from natural gas and 30% from coal for 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Department. This may change slightly as coal is used where it is economical and makes sense without the carbon rules, yet the long term trend is clearly towards natural gas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration sends an official notice to Congress that it intends to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty with Mexico and Canada. The new U.S. Trade Representative Mr. Lighthizer served as Deputy Trade Representative under president Reagan in 1983. He says the focus of the negotiation will to promote economic growth and jobs by making improvements to the treaty. The notice does not mention major modifications of the type that were hinted at by president Trump earlier. The leaders of Canada and Mexico had asked president Trump to renegotiate. Republicans in Congress and business in the U.S. favor improvements instead of the drastic changes. Mr. Lighthizer's approach is stated in his letter that said "NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and business has changed considerably in that period, NAFTA has not." New provisions will be needed said Lighthizer for intellectual property rights, state owned enterprises, labor and environmental areas, with effective enforcement.  Because of the rhetoric and language used in the election campaign, it is important to note that Lighthizer has in the past negotiated favorable terms for the U.S. steel industry to prevent dumping from overseas. His style is the opposite of the president. He has stated- "I am friendly when negotiating. I am not theatrical. The art of persuasion is knowing where the leverage is." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernie Sanders tells his supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia that "immediately right now, we have got to defeat Donald Trump, and we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine." He says this campaign was not about just electing a president but about transforming the country. And for this he was planning to back about 100 candidates with similiar thinking across the U.S. He called on supporters to continue the campaign for social, economic, racial and environmental justice. Voters for Sanders were offended by the information shown in DNC email leaks of the bias against Sanders shown by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has since resigned.

LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As in the US with Harris investment in America vs Trump cuts there is a distinct difference between the Tory spending plans that allowed capital spending investment in the economic future of Britain to decline from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP over 5 years to 2030. Rachel Reeves, Britain's finance minister, says the government will adopt a new rule that changes the way it measures debt- public sector net liabilities as a percentage of GDP is the new fiscal rule. What it does is free up 50 billion pounds Britain badly needs to invest in things like climate change action, education, and other needs of the economy that will brighten Britain's prospects in the future.  “If we continued on that path, we would be embracing a path of decline. The real debate now in British politics is whether you are on the side of investment or on the side of decline. I don’t want to see public sector net investment as a share of our economy decline in a way that is currently set out. Under our current fiscal rules, we would not be able to reverse that path.” The stability rule goes with this that says strictly this money will not be used for tax giveaways, and not for public sector pay deals or the day to day functioning of government. In addition th government will borrow 25 billion pounds to  keep 30 billion pounds of headroom so that debt will keep falling over the first term of this Labour government.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Automakers will have to ensure that 40 to 45% of a car's content is made by workers in the U.S. earning at least $16 per hour. If this is not met automakers pay a 2.5% tariff for cars brought in from Mexico. Mexico makes 2.3 million cars and Canada 1.8 million. Automakers invested tens of billions of dollars in Mexico turning it into a lower cost export hub. This has led to job loss in the U.S. Mr. Trump's efforts in the new trade deal with Mexico are designed to increase investment in the U.S. auto industry.

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Friedman of the NYT points out the three aces held by Donald Trump in the U.S. election campaign of 2016. He could move to the centre in a campaign against Hillary Clinton and voters could give him a pass saying he only meant to start a conversation on immigration with his comment on the wall, that his comments on Muslims read carefully only means he would tighten controls on some countries, that he was acting in the way he said in his book "The Art of the Deal." A terrorist attack could change the atmosphere in the election and benefit Trump. And he could set a barrage of ads against Hillary bringing anti-Hillary Republicans back to his side after the divisions in a Republican convention. On the opposite side of this is Trump's penchant for making wild statements that could lead to a break with his support base, especially women who are shifting away according to some recent polls in mid March. Another vulnerability says Friedman is the rough way in which minorities are treated at Trump rallies, which could backfire with a serious incident resulting in hugely negative media coverage....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Guardian's Greenhouse says the UAW sees the tariff action with 25% tariff on cars imported into the US starting April 2 2025, as a positive step.  Shawn Fain of the UAW who had the support of president Biden during his term 2020-2024 says DJT's actions match those taken by Biden to help working class Americans and the middle class. Supporting the president “for stepping up to end the free trade disaster that has devastated working-class communities for decades”. “Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today’s actions.” Greenhouse is concerned that the way it is being implemented can create problems with tariffs on one day and off the next. The reason for the on again off again action was to give Mexico, Canada, and China time to respond with action they have not taken on fentanyl flows into the US, and Mexico time to address migrant trafficking across its borders. The US International Trade Commission study in 2024 on the 25% tariff on US auto imports cited by BBC shows it would reduce imports by 75%, increase prices by a modest 5%, and increase revenues of auto makers in the US by 5%. Figures such as prices going up by $6000 may apply to BMW's that are imported from Germany and carry high price tags for a very small very affluent customer group unrepresentative of the US automobile market. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The rise of Japan was a major challenge for president Reagan in the 1980's in the way president Trump is confronting the rise of China. The Reagan administration obtained the concessions it needed from Japan. The negotiator for the U.S. side during the Reagan years - Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is using his experience in winning concessions from Japan in his role as top trade negotiator with China.  As the WSJ points out Japan ceased to be a threat to the U.S. faster than anyone thought possible. 

But there is one problem even if this happens the warning is that the imbalances with Japan simply transferred over time to China. The warning is for America's tendency to spend money it does not have, and for how long.

LyrArc Article Gist
Donald Trump's Style book would include things like, using a little hyperbole, exaggeration, like setting up a wall to stop immigration. It also includes attacks on opponents, the better with some publicity, good or bad, as his attacks on Carly Fiorina for looks, Jeb Bush for energy, and Megyn Kelly of Fox News show. Trump writes about this in his book written three decades ago- "The Art of the Deal." In the book he says that putting down the competition can help. And what about the deal itself? Its all for the joy of doing it, not much about what its about, or how it will all end up in helping people in their daily lives.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...