LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India is storing as much oil as it can at today's low oil prices of about $20-$30 per barrel in May 2020. With India asking the U.S. to store oil from U.S. shale producers at its strategic petroleum reserve storage facilities in the U.S. Already its existing storage facilities of 5.3 million tonnes (39 million barrels) are full, and the storage capacity will be more than doubled with an additional 6.5 million tonnes (48 million barrels) to be built quickly. About 8.5 million tonnes (62 million barrrels)  are in ships on oceans around the world. Demand is only 20% during the lockdown but is expected to reach levels of 2019 by June 2020. Only about 20% of oil consumption comes from existing storage.   That Indian oil capacity is 39 million barrels of storage shows how little was done over succeeding administrations without national aspirations for a growing country with hundreds of million of young people, when the oil storage capacity today of 39 million barrels compares with over 500 million barrels for Japan and for China. A huge Indian government aid package of $280 billion for the economy can be offset by gains in other areas such as low oil price oil storage, and gains in supply chain manufacturing, increasing the size of the domestic market for local manufacturers with incentives and loans, and new rules for stressing local manufacturing for a self-reliant economy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What this Editorial board opinion in the Indian Express is saying is that India should concentrate its efforts on modernizing its economy on a scale that is similar or surpasses that of China because of its access to the latest technologies. Just as China capitalized on the opportunity presented by its entry in the World Trade Organization in 2001, through an economy wide effort to build a manufacturing and export logistics base. India is presented with the opportunity of building its own manufacturing and export logistics base as supply chains are being redesigned in 2023. This requires a longer term plan with clear thinking and concentrated effort with the entire resources of the nation. What looks like a small or gradual shift in supply chain with the US and EU adding India and Vietnam to their Chinese manufacturing base is going to change with every change in world events, as the US concentration of manufacturing in China becomes a situation that is impossible to to maintain. The only logical way for the US and following the US the EU to create a proper balance in its political relationship with China is to change fully its lopsided concentration of manufacturing in China. Biden is only making the initial moves, the EU is only waking up to the need to make its own changes to reduce this concentration. How much distance does the US need to cover to reduce its concentration in China? By a large amount because the shift of manufacturing was excessive and ill advised done as companies in the US raced in a competition to shift outside over 2 decades and simply outdid themselves and performed a disservice to the workers and families of America whom they served. Just for the US to get workers and families to benefit from return of good manufacturing jobs to the US and restore its manufacturing base that has shriveled, it will have to be a massive enterprise, where day by day it becomes more evident that more and more needs to be and accomplished in an accelerated way. What this also means where appropriate to leave a progressively year after a year larger base in India, and also Vietnam, much larger than is envisaged today. This situation is even more acutely felt in Japan which to bring a proper balance in its political relationship with China needs to even more urgently reduce its concentration of manufacturing in China. It must be the task of the Modi government to have a clear view of the road ahead- build the needed logistical base for exports using the latest technologies and set higher and higher targets for manufacturing.  If you look at the map of Asia this is the Global South- India is 60-70% of the Global South with its population of 1.4 billion people mostly young with aspirations for a modern economy like that of the US and Germany. Add to that Indonesia and Vietnam, and other nations already in the redesigned supply chain in 2023 and you have 2 billion people in Asia. Concentrate on this for the next 2 decades for a complete transformation of India, that is what the younger generation demands of its government. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Following president Trump's decision to increase tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods on May 9, 2019, the WSJ looks at the mistakes made by both sides in misjudging each other's negotiating position. Mr. Trump says he is willing to increase the pressure on China by imposing tariffs on all Chinese imports into the U.S. after what he sees as China reneging on its commitments on trade by deleting key sections on enforcement provisions and Chinese legislation for enforcement to take place in the 150 page agreement prepared for both presidents to sign.  Early on in the negotiations between Liu He and Mr. Lighthizer, China misread the thinking on the U.S. side. Chinese thinking was that president Trump's urging for the Federal Reserve to lower rates was a perception sign of the weakening U.S. economy. It also may have misread the extent to which Mr. Trump trusts Mr. Robert Lighthizer, who Mr. Trump respects for winning a good deal with the Japanese in similar situation of Japanese rejection of U.S. demands. Mr. Trump also thinks the U.S. has a strong economy, is the largest world producer of oil, strong economic growth in the last quarter of 2018, is also negotiating better deals with other countries including the ones with Mexico, Canada and South Korea. It is also much less dependent on exports to China, giving it a stronger position with more experienced negotiators. China has whole sectors of its economy dependent on exports to the U.S., and crucial numbers of jobs at stake.  China also misread the signals from its stronger than expected economic growth from stimulus efforts in the last quarter, leading to it staking out a tougher position than the U.S. would accept. The U.S. position was set after decades of waiting for China to change and was unlikely to be affected by any temporary considerations.  As a result the U.S. not anticipating the Chinese response of deleting key sections agreed to in advance from the 150 page written agreement gave a strong response. Mr. Mnuchin who accompanied Lighthizer in talks says Mr. Lighthizer "read them the riot act" to the Chinese side. For the Chinese side the effort now shifted to continuing good faith talks without appearing to back down. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Orlik cites a 2011 survey from China's South Western University of Finance and Economics, which surveyed 8000 households and found that 55% of Chinese households had little or no savings for that year. 10% of households control 86% of wealth and 56% of household income. Surveys in 1995 and 2002 showed 10% of households controlled 31% and 41% of wealth. In the U.S. top 10% of households control 74% of the wealth, according to the Federal Reserve figures. What this means, says Orlik, is that before China can shift to consumption based growth the low incomes of the majority of households have to go up, requiring a major policy shift. Under current policies and even with movement in the direction of the DRC/World Bank policy report for China for a gradual shift away from state owned enterprises, there is little prospect for rebalancing the world economy.

LyrArc Article Gist
What will China look like in the future depends on Li Qiang as well as Xi Jinping. Li Qiang is a close associate of Xi Jinping, as his chief of staff in the early 2000's in Zhejiang province. At that time he interfaced with Chinese companies on investment and economic policies. This WSJ report looks at Li Qiang and how he could be a moderating influence on Xi and provide another perspective for business and economic policy in China. He is seen as having his own instincts on policy, believing in competition, yet deferring to president Xi on broader policy issues for the CCP and China. He replaces Li Keqiang who was sidelined by Mr. Xi as Xi formed his own team from his early days in the provincial governments in China. Some of these connections date back to the early days under Xi's father, Xi Zhongxun, who was one of the leaders in Yenan in the war against the Japanese and the encirclement efforts of the Nationalists against the Communist party local governments in the north during the 1930's. Xi's father was later one of the leaders in the 80's shaping the opening up of China to a market economy under premier Deng- a role not tackled by hardly any of China's leaders from the 1930's. In this sense both Xi's having taken on difficult roles in shaping China's recent history, with the younger Xi building his own team to chart a new path for China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's new foreign policy team under the Jinping-Keqiang administration. Foreign minister Yang Jiechi, becomes state councilor, and senior official on the team. The new foreign minister Wang Yi, was China's ambassador to Japan 2004-2007. The new ambassador to the U.S. is Cui Tiankai, a diplomat who graduated from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in the U.S. Cui was ambassador to Japan 2007-2009. Managing the China-Japan and China-U.S. relationships is critical for China because China depends on U.S. and Japanese companies for investment and new technology, for continued economic progress. The relationship has been affected by the territorial disputes with Japan in the East China Sea. Germany as an advanced technology manufacturer and commodity exporters Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil depend on the Chinese market for exports, creating an interwoven economic dynamic that is likely to be the dominant factor in relations. This is also the perception of Li Keqiang who told a press conference in Beijing that the competition with the U.S. has been overemphasized, that he "does not believe conflicts between great powers are inevitable." Foreign affairs remains subordinate to domestic policy and priorities in China, as China tackles the problem of reorienting its economy to give an important place to the private sector and consumers. Itself not an easy task, as prime minister Keqiang pointed out at his first press conference: "Talking the talk is not as good as walking the walk." One of Keqiang's main allies in this effort is Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank, who helped put together with China's DRC, the report "China: 2030," outlining these priorities....

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a policy unchanged since 1950's women in China retire at age 50 and men at age 60 years. China is aging faster than the US and it's population that is over 60 years is 20% of the population. Over the 5 years to 2025 about 40 million people will retire, about the size of the population of Canada. There will be 36 million fewer people in the working age population ages 16-59 to support them. Chinese migrant workers and families work longer hours than white collar workers making it difficult to raise the retirement age to European levels in a short time. The government's approach is to get public support by creating awareness about the problem and change the retirement age gradually over a longer period. The first step will be bringing the retirement age of women to the level of men. The 10 year gap in retirement age of men and women is not found in any advanced economy.

LyrArc Article Gist
With China's economy slowing, fewer jobs for college graduates in the cities, what is president Xi- who is visiting San Francisco this week- doing to tackle this problem? Even in Guangdong province with cities like Shenzen, it is very, very, very rural says Brian Spegele in this WSJ discussion. He talks about widespreard rural poverty. From his own experience spending time in the countryside in the impressionable years Xi has put this task to revitalize the rural areas to young people. In Guangdong alone about 300,000 youngsters will be given the opportunity to improve their credentials for future government work by going to the rural areas to bring talent that was drained from the 20 years of free market hypergrowth and urbanization. China is about 40% rural in 2023 and these regions have suffered badly, and Xi's efforts to revitalize come at a time after the pandemic when it makes little sense to continue urbanization as the only solution to problems. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Modi refers to an ecosystem that continuously shrinks the pool of capital from government revenues, revenues intended to fund development roads, bridges and other infrastructure illegally siphoned away, that stalled and suffocated rapid development in India for 75 years. Without foreign investment there can be no rapid development in India. Without strong and efficient institutions foreign investment has not come to India in the last 30 years in the way it has come to China. These institutions of good governance that prevent such siphoning away of revenues enable 100% of every dollar or rupee of taxes to go into development essential for funding infrastructure, climate infrastructure, logistics and the other inputs of capital, labor, energy and land to build manufacturing capabilities. An ever widening pool of the inputs of capital, labor and land year after year- a process that Japan, then South Korea, then China has accomplished is possible. I It is only now taking place in India. What Mohandas Gandhi, Nehru and Sardar Patel failed to grasp in the 30's, 40's and 50's is that it was possible to have an independent India and still remain a backward undeveloped nation for a staggering period of 75 years or almost half of the period the British ruled India. What Mao failed to grasp in China and which was corrected by other leaders to make China an advanced economy able to fulfill the aspirations of the Chinese people, is also the situation that prevailed in India. Post independence leaders in China and India both isolated their economies, both limited human potential, both let institutions fail in good governance.  It is only now moving India into the process of developing an advanced developed economy by 2040, able to fulfill the aspirations of a youthful population of 1.2 billion people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT says DJT would use tariffs "as a economic sledgehammer to nations that refuse to meet his demands" and claims not to know what they are. Saying further that DJT has been far less clear about what those demands were. NYT has clearly not followed what DJT has said time and again. It is OK to use economic power when Canada and Mexico, and China have not taken the action they could have taken a long time back that they are now taking, and will take, after years of acting as if they could not see the fentanyl flows across its borders destroying America. These countries two land neighbors of the US and the last a country which from the open door policy against European colonial Empires and through the Joe Stillwell years in the War against Japanese colonialism in China, and in the years of China's building its economy in the 1990-2010 period, offered a helping hand. It makes the victim -and one that had reversed TR's advice about carrying big stick and speaking softly to its bitter regret- the bully, in the words of the NYT.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's central bank, the People's Bank of China, reduces the capital reserve requirement ratio for the largest banks by 1% to 18.5%, on April 19, 2015. This move is expected to free up $200 billion for new lending by banks. China's securities regulator also acted to curb margin financing, the using of borrowed money to invest in the stock market which faces bubble conditions. China's economy is reported to be slowing making it uncertain whether the 7% annual growth target can be met.

LyrArc Article Gist
Zero covid lockdowns have added to the sentiment seeing China as a less attractive location for foreign investment. American companies are seeing staff resign due the lockdowns and zero covid policy. About a fourth of companies in a US Chamber of Commerce survey see a 20% drop in sales in 2022. A similar situation is being seen for European companies in China. The other area of growth from property sector is not working anymore as there is a 59% drop in demand for new property units. Investors in the property sector fear  another situation like that of property developer Evergrande's collapse.  Similar to Japan by 2000 a lot of the government infrastructure for roads and rail and automobiles has already been built leaving less room for this sector to kick in. Investments are possible in AI, renewables, electric cars, and advanced technologies, with limited potential to tackle loss of jobs in other sectors such as construction and government financed infrastructure spending and in retail stores. Retail sales are hit by inflation and high gas prices. The result is that China's GDP may fall by 1% according to one estimate for this quarter from the previous year. For growth and foreign investment look to India where a surge in government financed infrastructure in construction of roads and rapid transit, fast rail, construction of housing, and rapid increase in use of mobile phones, automobiles, and appliances is taking place. A new logistics system is being built with a Master plan for the whole economy under Gati Shakti creating a whole new place for foreign investment in a country of 1.3 billion. With Indonesia and Bangladesh closely related to India this is a market of 1.8 billion people far surpassing China and built on values of democracy ingrained over 100 years since the experiments under the British of elected state assemblies. This happened under limited Hind Swaraj since 1930's when India was led by Mohandas Gandhi in these early experiments with democracy. Germany, France and the US have a lot in common with India and the ground is being prepared with improvements for extensive German, US foreign investment by the Modi administration.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announces the details of the $280 billion (20 lakh crore) economic package and action being taken to help (MSME) small and medium size enterprises in India. About 3 lakh crore or about $40 billion will be for support of the MSME enterprises. The MSME sector in India cover millions of micro, small and medium size businesses that support the economy. By increasing the size of the market by 2000 crores rupees through avoiding foreign tenders the government wants to give more scope for growth and investment to this sector. Some imports from China and other countries could now be manufactured in India as part of the push to be local and self reliant, as well as provide room for robust growth in the future after the blow from coronavirus.

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a price for a socialist state run society adopting capitalism without understanding it. Russia experienced this in the 1990's as the Soviet system collapsed and the capitalist system took its place by 1990 with flagrant abuses. Only to be stabilized in the Putin years till the war in Ukraine affected the Russian economy. China avoided this fate by continuing its accelerated path to industrialization till the 2009 financial crisis. But hidden in its seemingly successful modernization effort was the role of LGFV's and selling of land to support the LGFV's. Local governments did not take on debt themselves, they passed on the debt to Local Government Financing Vehicles LGFV's- about 8 trillion dollars of debt 80%-90% not serviceable for interest payments, zombie status requiring borrowing for annual spending.  Most city councils or mayors did not understand these vehicles were debt and some even asked "do we have to pay it back?" LGFV's were not understood by mayors and city councils brought up under a socialist state run economy. They used it to follow the central government in Beijing's orders to come up with projects to boost growth year after year to rates of growth of 10% in the 1990's and 2000's, heedless of the risks because they never really understood the capitalist system and its pitfalls.  As long as land could be sold there was some revenue for local governments and room for shifting $8 trillion in debt to other LGFV's. Once the construction industry collapsed and companies went bankrupt their were few buyers for land. The central government cannot take on some of this $8 trillion in debt. As a result China is now facing what the Russians faced - a crisis from lack of grasp of the severe pitfalls of capitalism when its risks are not understood for economies that were in the 20th century experiencing upheavals, wars and then socialist state run economies. What this means is that the Chinese economy will slow, has no choice but to slow down for the next decade to find solutions to this debt overhang over its economy and industrial plans. It also means China's support for Russia in the Ukraine conflict is also problematic for China's internal growth to meet the aspirations of its people. As long as the administration in the US continues to pursue its own economic policies for growth as Biden has done by investing in the American economy, it will have the opportunity to lead the free world and be able to hold out hope for aspirations of countries and regions such as India, Africa and Latin America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Autor at MIT authored some of the first detailed studies about the severe disruption in U.S. communities from the trade with China following China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. The sheer size of the impact now appears to have been underestimated by economists and other experts. It was believed says Hilsenrath and Davis, that the U.S. having absorbed the impact of trade with Japan in the seventies and eighties, and with Mexico following NAFTA, could do the same with China. That turns out to be false. Much of 2016 election season has been spent seeing the rise of anti-trade movements led by Trump and Sanders, and reveals a deep discontent with job shifting overseas, and disruption of communities across America by trade patterns. What happened? In 2015 China's exports to the U.S. reached 2.7% of U.S. GDP. Hilsenrath and Davis say it was about 1% less with Japan and Mexico when their exports surged. The rapidity of the impact is another problem. It took 12 years following Japan's emergence as a major supplier, to reach the same level of impact that China had only 4 years after China's entry into the WTO in 2001. A similiar situation of 12 years happened with Mexico after NAFTA. Another problem is that Japan's exports impacted mostly steel and autos, China's exports impacted a whole range of industries. The speed with which China's planners sought to change and modernize their manufacturing  base is unprecedented in history, and has an impact not only on the U.S. as a recipient of low cost exports, but also on China as it struggles with bad debts and job losses today, that are a legacy of that too rapid move. This was part of the drive to urbanize China rapidly by shifting agricultural workers to factories in the cities, at a pace unprecedented in history. Another factor not mentioned is the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 that hurt U.S. manufacturing in the auto and other industries, and the wide impact this had in loss of jobs and decline in wages. By 2010 the tide of public opinion had shifted. The WSJ/NBC poll of September 2010, cited in detail in WSJ 10/2/2010 under "Americans Sour on Foreign Trade" shows over 80% consistently for all levels of income, over $75,000 and under $75,000, Republicans and Democrats, working class Americans or well educated Americans, saying that Americans were struggling and there was less hiring, because of how trade had impacted their communities. Lyrarc covered this in considerable detail since 2006. All political parties, business leaders, ignored the implications of this huge change, the media covered it but assumed it would take care of itself as trade with Japan had done previously, and it was left to Trump and Sanders as outsiders to call it like they saw it 5 years later.  Economic inequality has widened in China to the point of it becoming unrecognizable as a former socialist economy. Now both countries are faced with the job of picking up, chastened by the experience, and hoping to limit the political fallout to achieve economic recovery. The very open trading system that had generated prosperity since World War II was being put at risk by a lack of awareness that trade brings with it changes, winners and losers, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas on a scale and speed unprecedented in history, was something that no one could cope with. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bradsher, Tankersley and Cohen say in this NYT report- US industrial policy under president Biden corrects the failures of the past. Chinese experts in Hong Kong say the US and Europe deindustrialized their economies with pursuing of policies called "neo-liberal" but basically Reagan era policies that Democratic presidents Clinton-Obama imitated. As they deindustrialized it created disaffection among the struggling lower and middle income classes making $35,000-$106,000 that were big losers in the process, creating threats to democracy as financial and tech, plus pharmaceutical sectors took control of the economy. China's success comes from three decades of mastering the ways of practicing industrial policy that it can support private companies with low cost land, additional subsidies that reduce the cost of production and provide a buffer to absorb losses so that it could dominate key industries. Policies where textbooks and economists trained in the US failed utterly and completely leading to dangers to US democracy that we see as opportunities for good paying jobs in manufacturing disappeared for middle and lower income households from 1980 to 2020. These economists trained in the US always said see lower cost Chinese made goods means lower and middle income people pay less, never saying that this means all opportunities for better paying jobs in manufacturing will be lost for these classes in society. The tech and financial sectors had close ties to the new arrangement that turned manufacturing over to China from the Reagan era to the Obama and Trump era. Apple and Tesla and many industries benefitted from manufacturing mostly outsourced to China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Even though volatility is high in stock markets, the U.S. stock market has rebounded to levels in August 2019. The level on March 10, 2020 after effects of the coronavirus on the global economy was for the DJIA average in the U.S. to be at the level it was on August 14, 2019, as shown on the graph in the WSJ, in the neighborhood of 25,000. In the last quarter of 2019 there were steep gains in the Dow Jones averages that could not be fully explained, these gains have disappeared. Considering the suddenness of the crisis from the coronavirus in China, and the double whammy of impact on global manufacturing supply chains of first the tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S., followed by the coronavirus, the impact on stock markets seen in this overall context is comprehensible. Particularly the sharp gains in the last quarter of 2019 which now appear to be muted. There is also some good news for economies such as China and India, which are large oil importing countries, and the rest of Asia, in the sharp drop in oil prices that helps cushion some of its impact on the global economy. For the U.S. this also happens at a time when the economy is in much stronger shape than at any time in the last ten years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Savings for China and Japan by increasing oil imports at low prices could amount to about 1% of the economy for each country. Japan imports of oil are one tenth of total imports, and amount to $75 billion. At prices half of what they were before coronavirus the savings are about $40 billion a year. This will offset some of the drop in economic growth of about 3% in the year ending March 2021.

For countries where the coronavirus has been relatively controlled with manufacturing and infrastructure projects ready to go ahead the benefit is greatest. China expects to see about 7% decline in GDP in the first quarter resulting in minimal growth for the year as long as export markets in the U.S. and Europe remain weak. For India it depends on how long the lockdown continues and how quickly economic activity can resume under new conditions. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Even China has not campaigned the way Canada, Mexico and British, American media have against DJT Tariffs because China knows it is basically about getting an even playing field when it is the only country with $1 trillion in trade in its favor in 2024, 12 times the Japanese high of $82 billion trade surplus in 2007. But why should China campaign when the American and British, German media are going to do the job for China? A simple quiz to K-12 would ask school children when is the last time a country has a $1 trillion trade surplus? Answer: Never. Greg Ip has written a few years back that the devastation of China outshoring of American factories and jobs was unlike the 1980's Japan trade invasion because of first China's size, second by the speed with which it happened at 10-14% Chinese GDP growth. There is a third Japan was an ally needing US for security and backed down, China's case is different it is challenging the US for control of the world economy and will fight this one over the long haul. Greg Ip of WSJ on the 53 countries asking to negotiate US Liberation Day April 2, 2025 Tariffs. These countries include Allies of the US in full support asking to negotiate Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India Allies of the US in partial support asking to negotiate Britain Allies of the US not in full support asking to negotiate Germany, France Allies of the US in the past campaigning against the US, asking to negotiate Canada, Mexico Not Allies of the US, not in full support, not campaigning against the US China A look at his list tells one only one thing, mostly all trading partners except for the $146 billion exports of the US which represents exports to China are the exports that are at risk if things don't work out on tariffs. This is what the media today WSJ added this last week to the NYT, Wash. Post and the BBC, Guardian of UK, German media will not tell the reader.  The DJT Tariffs and Tariff negotiations are Lighthizer Tariff negotiations which won the fight with Japan in the 1980's over unfair trade and gaining a level playing field. Lighthizer as Deputy US Trade Representative conducted the tough negotiations with Japan. He was USTR in 2016-2020 and his Deputy Jamieson is now USTR in 2025       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US and Japan are coordinating efforts to limit transfer of sensitive technology to China and increase trade and cooperation within the G-7 in high technology sectors. Efforts are being coordinated with South Korea. Janet Yellen says the IMF has overblown the effects on the world economy from the US decoupling from China. IMF reports have also in addition presented India incorrectly as a non aligned country, when it is a close partner of the US. In 2023 US is the largest trade partner of India.The US position is to limit flows of technology in sectors considered vital, and continue world trade in other areas with China. US is committed to friendshoring to India, Vietnam and other countries. Germany's three parties CDU, Greens and SPD are reversing close trade and technology links with China. This is also the policy of the Modi administration which seeks close trade and technology ties to US and EU. The shift is in response to what is really an overconcentration of the supply chain in China that happened as business in the US and EU and the Merkel and the Bush-Obama-Trump administrations failed to see the risks of overconcentration. And carried out misguided policies in trade and investment that are now being reversed by US president Biden, Kishida in Japan, and Modi in India. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mercedes is seeing signifcant sales growth in China. It is Mercedes's third biggest market with sales of 100,000 cars compared to 67,000 in 2009. Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche says that given no downturn in the world economy Mercedes-Benz cars should reach its target for return on sales of 10% by the second half of 2012. He predicted EBIT of 2.5-3 billion euros for 2010, and plans to boost expenditures for R&D in fuel efficient technology and capital investments in new vehicle models in the second half of 2010. Analyst Warburton at Sanford and Bernstein, writes that Mercedes is likely to pass 7% margins in the first half of 2010, and will get a boost from a weaker euro plus strong sales in China. The only question is, as Dieter Zetsche noted, prospects depend on no downturn in the global economy. China's economy is growing too fast to be sustainable growth and a property bubble is developing, and its not certain how long strong sales in China will last. There are other signs of a slowdown in the global economy. See global economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Barton Swaim editorial page writer of the WSJ on Vladimir Putin Weekend Interview with Beatrice de Graaf of Utrecht Uiversity and Niels Drost of Clingendael Institute in The Hague, Netherlands - how Western World missed Czar Peter the Great's World View and its shaping Putin's World View creating vast misconceptions when US thinks Russia thinks like western norms.  Could the US have missed a key component of the thinking of Russian leaders in putting themselves in the line of Russian kings (Czars) since the Enlightenment with belief in nationality, autocracy and Empire of the Enlightenment. “Of course he (Putin) also refers to the Second World War, and he does refer to Stalin—but not that much. Far more often he talks about the great Russian czars.” And the great Czars that was important to Putin, de Graaf counts 3000 statues built in Russia to these role models for Putin. In the early years says de Graaf Putin talked incessantly about the modernization of Russia, Russia joining the Modern World in the years of the Enlightenment, Russia fighting off Napoleon and under the Soviets Nazi Germans. Graaf says he talked about- “Peter the Great and European interests, of Catherine the Great and literacy and the Enlightenment. He spoke of Alexander I and Europe joining to defeat Napoleon." Deep down Putin felt in these talks 11,000 of them on the Putin site which puts up his speeches and talks over a 20 year period, which Niels Grost with his fluency in Russian has looked at. Of these 3000 talks and speeches are in this reference to the great Czars. Even before Ukraine there was a sense of hurt that considering the vast expanse that Russia occupies in Europe Russia had by restoring the old Russia by 2000 found itself in a odd predicament. As de Graaf and Swain point out the US market based economy based on GDP, the US presidents such as Bush and Obama saw Russia as a  middle power based on its exports and imports, its trade, its commerce which was the only way they could see the world. This led to a special kind of shortsightedness says this interview in the WSJ. Putin's key adviser says of Russia's goal - to be seen as a Northern European Power (from WSJ) in 2025.Putin sees Russia as looking for "respect," as a goal.  This is where US business may have got it all wrong- the authors say about China and India- and the US, seeing themselves as Empires not in today's Modern World as with imperialist ambitions, but with a historic sense of regional presence across Asia and North America with their rapid modernization. DJT's talk of Canada as a 51st state, one finds US business as accepting the idea that Canada is part of the US regional influence. And under the Monroe Doctrine of 1824 revived by no less than Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, in its cooperation form by JFK in 1960, the regional influence of the United States in the Western Hemisphere is also accepted by US business and the American public. It is this context that the authors say offer an alternative view of the Russian leader and his policies. Beatrice de Graaf and Niels Drost are the author of "Putin's Czarist Dream" At that point there is in addition to nationality, autocracy and Empire of the czars the ideas embedded in Eastern Orthodox Christianity which are different says de Graaf of Utrecht University in Netherlands, from Western Christianity. This Eastern Orthodox Christian idea is a bit different from St. Augustine's just war and discussion of what constitutes a just war, and the definition of that being given under Russian tradition by Russian Czars or leaders who Putin identifies himself with such as Peter the Great. Peter the Great  created the beginnings of Russia as a modern European state in St. Petersburg during the years of the Enlightenment. In the Eastern Asian tradition the Bhagavad Gita also has a discussion of what constitutes a just war so that it extends to different regions of the world not just European. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China GDP growth forecast at 5% in 2025 and first half actuals at 5.3% with frontloading. The frontloading is because of surge in exporting before tariffs hit by May.  China is waiting to put fiscal stimulus as it fears tariffs will lower growth and increase unemployment. The housing sector is in deep slump. At this point fiscal stimulus is determined in Washington DC. The actual growth in 2025 may turn out to be much lower than 5% considering the weakness in the economy and the issues of tariffs and tough trade negotiations with the US and a changed environment for trade with the European Union.