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
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
William Burns, a former Deputy Secretary of State, and a former ambassador to Russia 2005-2008, looks at the U.S. and European Union relationship with Russia following the expulsion of Russian spies in 2018. He says the U.S. and the European Union should take strong action, yet hopes this is a passing phase so that a healthier relationship can be built with Russia in the long run through diplomatic channels. Expressing views expressed by former president Obama and other experts, Burns says Russia lacks the alliances and broader support that the U.S. and European Union have, and is much smaller than the larger economies of the Western alliance. Under Putin a strong interventionist position has made Russia look better at home but may not be the best for Russia in the long run, says Burns.   Burns calls for stronger sanctions on the economic elite and business leaders under president Putin. Yet the sanctions have not deterred president Putin and a long run solution needs to be found, including issues such as Ukraine and issues that affect the Russian economy so that the change in relations since 2014 can be reversed. After the Berlin Wall collapsed hopes for integration of the Russian economy into the West were raised yet were not realized for Russia in the years following the Yeltsin government and the Russian economy suffered, first during that period and then during emerging market crises. Russian disillusionment with the West was followed by a more inward looking economy under Putin to help stabilize the Russian economy, accepting devaluation of the ruble to make the Russian economy more competitive in a period of low oil prices. Foreign investment collapsed following the Ukraine crisis but the Russian economy adapted to the shock from oil prices. This was followed by efforts to preserve these gains with an interventionist policy that made the Putin administration look better at home and win popular support with strong action in Crimea and Ukraine. This interventionist policy has played out too far with the meddling in U.S. and European elections creating a backlash that is now taking place. With the European Union, having a traditional policy of restraint and good relations with Russia, openly questioning Russian policy under Putin. Much of that period when Russia responded first to the collapse of the Berlin Wall with the collapse of the Russian economy, and in the following decade facing emerging market crises and collapse of foreign investment -which created a more inward looking Russia under Putin in his third term- is shown in Lyrarc.com. In some ways the Russian response in Ukraine, the effort to bolster popular support at home in elections, and the interventionist approach are linked to the efforts to find a Russian response to the economic crises Russia faced since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Seen in this way a shift to better relations is still possible as a broader perspective is gained.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Gerson offers his assessment of president Obama's 7 years in office, saying that after this period the public has lost faith in American liberalism, that Obama held it all together through a self-centredness that is now replaced by public rage that has brought out other self-centred politicians in the Republican party, such as Donald Trump. Deutsche Welle summed up its view from Europe of the Obama presidency as a period that was little more than a transitional presidency. Gero Schliess writing in DW.com, says one of the tragedies of this presidency is that the much talked about change would come about only under a successor, in a best case scenario under a Democratic successor. Yet if Gerson is right Americans are losing faith in American liberalism after the Obama years, with the setbacks suffered by the white working class and the middle class in these years, and the political deadlock that has prevented action to help them. Speaker Paul Ryan recently convened a conference on this subject. In October 2014 Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen described the problem at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference on economic opportunity and inequality, questioning whether the trends were "compatible with the values rooted in our nation's history, and the high value Americans tend to place on equality of opportunity."...
DW.COM Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Russians vote in 2021 parliamentary elections. With 30% of votes cast the United Russia party of Mr. Putin wins 45% of votes cast, followed by the Communist party of the Russian Federation with 22%, and the Liberal Democratic party getting 8%. Russia has mixed voting system with half the seats directly elected from party lists, and the other half assigned to individual candidates. United Russia had 334 seats out of total 450 seats in the outgoing parliament. Putin will need over 300 seats in the new parliament to get the two thirds majority to enact changes to the constitution. Putin needs this to extend his current term which ends in 2024.  Putin draws most of his support from the older part of the population that has seen the hardships imposed following the collapse of Communism around 1990. This led to collapse of the ruble currency, increase in poverty, an effort by oligarchs to capture state enterprises, and a chaotic period for law and order. Shockingly during that period even life spans of Russians declined as reported in the WSJ. Liberals who supported the shift to democracy had not anticipated all the ill effects of introducing capitalist free market systems in such a sudden and free fall way. Such sudden shifts to free markets are now better understood and seen as the wrong way, as western capital markets fail without inbuilt protections, safety net for workers and retired people, and are subject to serious distortions if no vigilant authority exists. This is in reality not a free market but a market captured by the few, in the interests of the few. Once this was clear retired people, pensioners, military, law enforcement, and liberals realizing what had happened shifted support to United Russia founded by Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin faces the typical situation faced by incumbents over long periods where there is a sense of the need for change. Yet the pandemic and other economic crises that could happen in the event of mismanaged economy are never really too distant for countries such as Russia, China, India that are developed but yet have not the strong industrial base of US, Germany, France. Such economic crises including the ruble currency and Russian energy companies were better managed under Putin than under the chaotic period following the collapse of communism and the introduction of so called "free markets" that were anything but. During the recentfree fall in oil prices Putin was able to manage a transition period with the help of president Trump who negotiated a price for oil with the Saudis to protect US shale oil workers and companies, as well as Russian workers and oil companies. As a result Russians particularly young people look for alternative places to vote for opposition parties such as Liberals, Communist party, and other parties. But the majority of Russians including those working for state energy and other state companies tend to stay with Putin's choices for state, regional and federal administration and for parliament. Nationalist spirit also provides additional support as Putin has restored Russia's status as one of the important nations in the world. Some missteps such as interference in US elections have led to a loss of some of this international influence, yet even president Biden understands the situation in Russia and is willing to work with Putin with new rules of conduct Under the Russian system about 70% of the laws are not made by parliament but are done by the government and the administration of the president and then go through parliament. In addition to parliamentary vote there are 6 governor races and three races for heads of regional republics. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial is critical of Donald Trump's statements that it is fine if South Korea and Japan develop nuclear weapons, as this only sets up a nuclear arms race with China, and would upset the peace in East Asia that was maintained for decades with the American nuclear umbrella for both nations. It also points to Mr Trump's singular lack of the facts that Japan pays $2 billion and South Korea $900 million for the U.S. to station the modest level of troops and bases it has in the two countries. Mr. Trump's lack of grasp of the larger issues and lack of knowledge of facts is a problem in the campaign, but never so greatly as it is in issues relating to nuclear weapons and proliferation.
Washington Post Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Did a major U.S. chip maker Advance Micro Devices give away advanced computer chip technology in deals that saved the company as it faced a downturn in business. In Jun 2019 the U.S. Commerce Department issued an order that bars several Chinese companies from getting American technology. In the meantime Chinese versions of AMD chips are rolling off production lines in China, according to this report in the WSJ. It shows that AMD's partner in China, a military contractor, already used those chips to build what could be the world's fastest supercomputer. The AMD deals gave China access to state  of the art x86 chips made only by AMD and Intel Corp. Here the WSJ says AMD's CEO in October 2014 Lis Su, faced AMD's financial difficulties when she joined, with lack of cash, large debt, and declining revenues. Some analysts predicting bankruptcy protection. The deal for China's company Sugon to manufacture the x86 chips included $293 million in licensing fees, and $371 million for selling an 85% stake in its two factories in China and Malaysia to China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Co, a state backed financier. The U.S defense Department tried but failed to get AMD to submit the deals to Cfius, the committee on foreign investment in the U.S. that has people from Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Justice and Energy. The Treasury Department ruled in AMD's favor in the closing months of the Obama administration. Defense Department officials say the deals were structured to sidestep U.S. regulations through two interlinked joint ventures. The first venture focusses on R&D and production controlled by AMD, the second on design and sale controlled by AMD's Chinese partner. The second company venture enables China to show that the resulting product was developed locally in China. In another development Sugon publicly announced that it was using the AMD x86 chip to advance China's chip technology advancement just as it had done for high speed trains. Making indigenous an imported technology, designing it at home, absorbing it, and then innovating to make China a leader. By mid 2017 this information reached General Spalding at the Trump White House. Lawmakers wanted to give Cfius committee new powers. By August 2018 Defense department submitted the Sugon deal for review a second time. After the Defense Department's deputy undersecretary for Research and Engineering criticized the whole deal publicly in front of industry executives, Commerce Department stepped in and on June 21 it asked for the unwinding of the deal with Sugon,  imposing new export restrictions to limit access to U.S. technologies. For AMD the cash infusion from China enabled it to get back from near bankruptcy. China gained x86 technology in its bid to make the fastest supercomputer, the U.S. faced with another loss in technological edge, and AMD shares jumped 80% to $30 per share recently. Brian Spegele, Kate O'Keefe, and Yang Jie in Beijing, covered this story for the Wall Street Journal. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This may be the most important work of the DJT administration by 2027 into 2028 elections.  WSJ calls it the soda wars, when it is the slow destruction of America. As JFK and RFK well knew when they made fitness a goal for America in 1960- health is not built on sodas. Today with such high obesity, sodas and its likes, it is about the slow destruction of America.  MALA make America Live Again starts here. “When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children, who perhaps need something more nutritious?” Right now it is the biggest item for schools in most states for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan. Passed by Congress in 1964 the original bill for SNAP excluded sodas and luxury drinks, but had Sodas added back in by the Senate. By lobbyists even in 1964? SNAP schools program falls under the Agriculture Department. Democrats as well as Republicans appointed Agriculture Secretaries and not one took the action to get sodas excluded, to let states request sodas be excluded and approve it, not the Democrat a Carter, a Clinton, or an Obama, or a Republican a Reagan, a Bush, or a Trump (first term) took the necessary action. In 2025 Brooke Rollins is Agriculture Department Secretary. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee has seen the damage sodas can cause in her family. Rollins on her first day in office has finally acted- after 61 years when the original intentions of the SNAP bill's creators were confounded in the Senate.  On her first full day in office, urging them to propose pilot programs testing changes to food aid. Rollins sent governors a letter to ask for the removal of sodas from schools food aid program.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Joseph Rago, a member of the WSJ editorial board, reports from Exeter, New Hampshire, in the days before the Republican primary. Here he cites Ted Cruz's comments before crowds in Rye, Exeter, Hollis and Manchester, about how the Republican party is now under the control of lobbyists and special interests and does not represent the people. And Cruz's efforts to start a Reagan style grass roots movement that bypasses the establishment Republicans.
New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
It is not a story that most people grasp or understand- the long term effects of the US immigration surge of 2023 and its source mostly from Venezuela. The  US Congressional Budget Office says labor force in 2033 ten years from now will be larger by 5.2 million people and younger as a result of the immigration surge in 2023 from about 1 million immigrants each year in the 2010's to 3.3 million. About 2.5 million crossed the southwestern border in 2023. Much of it the result of the collapse of the Venezuelan economy and its middle and upper classes leaving the country. This was worsened by the US sanctions on the Maduro government including under president Trump, say experts in an adjoining NYT article on the 7 million people who left Venezuela to go to Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile since 2012, then making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Something that could have happened under a Republican president if the US Congress could not reach bipartisan agreement on correcting asylum and parole policy. As a result of this surge US Gross Domestic Product  in 2033 will be 3% larger. When the large Asian economies are seeing a aging workforce, Japan for the last decade and China now following Japan, the US labor force will be younger than it would be without this unusual surge in immigration of the last 2 years. The federal deficit will be smaller at 6.4% instead of 7.3% in 2033 as immigrants will pay taxes on income. Another aspect of this larger infusion of immigrants is that after the pandemic shut down immigration entirely there were severe shortages in the hospitality and restaurant, construction, healthcare industries. And with the trillions of dollars in investment that the Biden administration is making with more factories - this will absorb most of the immigrant surge by 2033. With some positive effects in the competition with rising Asian economies China and India. Particularly consider with the younger demographic India of 1.4 billion people. It will mean more factories can be built in the US and there will be workers for these factories in the US at wages that keep the US economy competitive years from now in 2033. This is a sobering aspect of the current situation viewed from what will be seen by America's younger generation. And under the bipartisan compromise in Congress correcting asylum and parole policy that was shut down by the former president, Republican senators understood very well that the immigration surge of 2023 would have some constructive effects for the long term, while its effects on the short term would be mitigated by Biden's commitment to close the border in 2024. This did not happen, yet the future for America's younger generation is bright under the Biden plan for massive investment in manufacturing and jobs in the US, and with the millions of immigrants needed to fill the jobs that investment will create by 2033. It will make America with a younger work force than Europe or China, only India having a younger workforce in 2033. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ report sees Angela Merkel as leaving an international legacy of cooling relations with America. It says Angela Merkel turned down US president Biden's first call after his election as president because she was going to her cottage in the country that weekend. This report says after 4 terms Merkel is to be seen as dramatically increasing her country's economic dependence on China, pushing through a energy deal with Russia, joining France in challenging US political influence in Europe, rejecting American requests on economic policy and setting Berlin's openness to Chinese technology.  What happened with her youthful fascination with America during the years growing up in East Germany asks the WSJ? It also says of the Bush years of unregulated banking leading to the 2009 US banking crisis- that left her with a distaste for Anglo-Saxon banks and Wall Street lobbying. Of the Obama years it says Merkel found Obama unsteady, verbose, and sometimes meddling, with the spying on Merkel's phone also giving her a sense of disrespect to Germany. The result was that Merkel increasingly was fascinated by the Chinese experiment in development, visiting China 13 times while in office, studying Chinese history, politics and economics.  Merkel over this period met with the Dalai Lama and had questions about one party rule by CCP. Yet she became more and more resigned to Germany as a country of 80 million, not the EU and Europe as one group united in vision with a population of about 500 million, larger than America that could be a force for good in its own right. She said "we can be as hardworking, awesome,  as super as we like, but as a country of 80 million we won't be able to prevail if China ever decided that it no longer wants to have good relations with Germany." She ignored the experience of Sweden and Scandinavian countries in their relations with China. In saying this she ignored the potential of India and its neighbors in south-east Asia that make up about 2 billion people or about twice the population of China. She also seemed unaware of the role Woodrow Wilson, FDR, have played in realizing the democratic vision of the German revolutionaries of 1948 who failed to bring democratic government to Germany. And she had forgotten of the role Harry Truman, the commoner president of the US, who played a major role in establishing German democracy and its dignity during the Berlin Crisis after the blockade of Berlin by the Soviets in 1948. The mediocrity of presidents from Bush to Trump has bothered Merkel. Yet it may very well be that there is nothing mediocre about Mr. Biden and America's vision about its future as it grapples with the social and economic problems of the last three decades, as it has done before in its history and come through. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip tells India's story, piped water for hundreds of millions of Indians, massive increases in road and rail, rapid development of infrastructure, aviation, ports logistics. WSJ graph shows country growth of economies for Japan, China, India, Germany in 2000 and 2020. By 2000 Japan had grown its economy to become about half the size of the US economy with two decades of rapid growth since 1980. China repeated this process with two decades of hyper growth since 2000 to become about 75% of the US economy by 2020. The graphs also show Japanese growth tailing off so rapidly after 2000 in relation to the US economy that it is now only about 25% of the US economy. China is likely to follow the same path as growth slows and with an aging population to become about 35-40% of the US economy by 2040 from 75%. India following the process that happened in Japan and in China is likely to become close to 35-40% of the US economy by 2040 from about 18% today, with the fastest growth over the next two decades for the most populous country in the world. Greg Ip points out what has been achieved since 2014 with the Modi government. Good governance without leakages of public funds dedicated to infrastructure, ease of living, GST one India one tax so that growing pool of funds from taxes fund rapid development with no leakages to corrupt officials,  Swacch Bharat or Clean India, clean water from taps, electricity and cooking gas for the whole population of India with dates for completion. All this Ip calls removal of the shackles that existed for far too long even past 2000 and 2010 when China had vastly surpassed India from its low point in 1980 after Mao and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. India today is in as much a pace of development as China in the 1990's and Japan in the 1960's, except that it now has the benefit of grasping how development can be done in a way that does not affect climate and health in adverse ways as happened with China's hyper growth -which also led to the tragic loss of manufacturing for workers and communities in the US and Europe due to the economic theories of laissez faire of the Reagan era. Reagan theory for governments not working with industry that were applied indiscriminately during the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump presidencies for three decades led to shipping manufacturing overseas with no regard for the risks and dangers. What Greg Ip fails to mention is the uniqueness of India that is united by Vedanta, Hinduism and Buddhism for thousands of years, and which keeps the fabric of society together when it is divided by 13 language groups. These 13 language groups are: Hindi 43% of the population, Bengali 8%, Marathi 7%, Telugu 7%, Tamil 6%, Gujarati 5%, Urdu 4%, Kannada 4%, Odia 3%, Malayalam 3%, Punjabi 3%, Assamese 1%, English 1%. It was the vision of the early leaders Vivekananda, Gokhale, Mohandas Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel, that united a diverse country with many languages and cultural variation. And it is this vision of Vivekananda that is creating the Good Governance under Sab ka Vikas, Sab ka Viswas, Sab ke Saath, Sab ka Prayas of today- development for all, with the confidence of all, with the support of all, the efforts of all. Without a disciplined direction based on hard work India could not make it this far or fulfill the aspirations of its youthful population by 2040. ...
The White House Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
"To Invest (at home), To Align (with allies), To Compete (with the world)" sums up the approach of president Biden with China. It also sums up the approach at home and overseas. Biden senior adviser, Jake Sullivan at Council of Foreign Relations sets out the framework and path for managing US-China relations into the future for many decades. Here at the Council of Foreign Relations he shows how- through careful study of the relationship's history, the changes in the relationship, and where it is today in 2024. Having participated in previous administrations Jake understood how it has evolved, where mistakes were made by both China and the US, where misperceptions took hold and need for clarification, for action. The old Strategic Dialogue followed by Paulsen under Bush 2000-2008 allowed the relationship to be guided by business interests, -without any clear strategy or idea where it was going except maximizing interests of business on both sides- was continued by Kerry under Obama 2008-2016. Sullivan, Blinken and Biden have built a Strategic Economic Cooperation Framework that has clear goals on the American side and goals on the Chinese side, and work between the two presidents and their cabinet ministers. Trump 2016-2020 rejected the earlier Strategic Dialogue but was not able to set up a sound framework that would guide future relations for decades. Sullivan helped set up a new framework around three principles- To Invest, To Align, and To Compete.   Here he describes how the plan to invest trillions in infrastructure in the US was part of this plan's principle To Invest. On Align it was to derisk not decouple by reducing the excessive concentration of supply chains in China, that was revealed as a problem in the pandemic years. Building up manufacturing at home and in India, Vietnam and Japan. Align also was to have allies Japan, South Korea and India to be aligned with the US policy. It also meant that all three countries would follow the same framework for their economies To Invest, To Align, To Compete.  By combining the strengths of the 2 largest economic centers Seoul/Tokyo with New Delhi/Sydney in Indo-Pacific the leveraging effect of US strength could be felt to support its position. And third to compete on level field so that America retained control of its technologies and implementing exports controls. And sharing this in  open communication with China that the US was protecting its technology and interests the way China has done in the past for its interests. The benefit of open communication even where there are differences had the advantage of not turning this into open rhetoric that damaged relations as had happened under previous administrations. Wang Yi on China's side having seen and approached it with careful study and reflection had similar goals to stabilize and put the relationship on a sound footing. Sullivan met extensively with Wang Yi in meetings in several locations around the world. Ministers Yellen, Raimondo, Blinken, Kerry, were sent to China for extensive discussions as part of this strategy in 2023 leading to remarkable change in the mood and confidence in US- China relations after tumult in 2016-2020 and uncertainty in previous administrations. Much credit goes to president Biden and Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, and also to Wang Yi and Jinping in no way diminishing their own initiative, so that for the first time in decades the US China relationship is now on a stable footing. Both countries faced common challenges around counter narcotics, around climate change, and other issues. These are being addressed. Competition is managed carefully and no rhetoric is taking place so that the largest two economies and about 1.7 billion in US and China and 2 billion people who are allies in India/Indonesia/Vietnam/ Korea/Japan living on the same planet earth can have economic and other cooperation  with different cultures, economic structures and systems of government. The result of such a framework also gives the basis for cooperation with America's allies to invest in Africa and Latin America and in the people of these two continents as another level of alignment and investment for a safer better world. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
http://www.hindustantimes.com/ Original article ›
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican presidential debate with Chris Christie former governor of New Jersey, Nikki Haley former governor of North Carolina and UN Representative, Senator Rick Scott, Ron DeSantis governor of Florida. Mr. Trump with his lead in the polls chose not to participate. Nikki Haley comes out on top with her experience at the UN and in foreign policy.  Absent in the debate discussion of cost of living issues or issues about wages of workers, climate change, reshoring, or any of the major issues confronting the American people today.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rosa Ines Rivera, a cook at the cafeteria for the Y.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, with 2 small children, describes the protests over the increase by Harvard administration of the premiums charged on health insurance that now take up over 10% of the income. She says she lives in public housing with her parents as she lost her apartment because she is behind on the rent, and now cannot afford to pay the increase in premiums. About 750 workers at Harvard are on strike on this issue. She says dining hall workers want the current pay of $31,193  a year increased to $35,000 to provide a living wage that helps them afford medical care, because of the high cost of living in Boston.  To get some idea of the plight of workers who provide the kind of nutritious meals that a lot of students depend on for healthy living- Rivera says she takes in about $450 a week after taxes, or about $1800, rent is $1150, which leaves $650 for herself and two children for all food, and expenses in Boston. The $4000 in premiums for health insurance would be about 330 per month, leaving her about $320 for food and living expenses with 2 children. Why the need to bring up children in poverty in America, for generation after generation, after putting in a full day of work? ...

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