LyrArc Article Gist
James Areddy explains why the Jinping administration in China was so keen on promoting gains in the equity markets. It was seen as a way to ease the debt overhang from the 2008 Stimulus of $586 billion. The Stimulus was put together in November 2008 to pay for infrastructure, construction and social spending, at a level that was 3 times the stimulus proposed in the European Union. Critics say that the initial signs of a crisis that might affect the government are magnified in China's authoritarian political structure, with one example being the size of this stimulus. With this kind of hasty spending a common problem is that not enough good projects can be found. One example of wasted spending is the $930 million spent to build the Shanghai West rail station from a older structure that had fallen into disuse. With three other stations serving Shanghai this station gets little traffic. The Jinping administration promoted the stock market as a way for companies to issue equity and reduce debt, and make less reliance on bank loans. The result was to push the Shanghai Composite Index up by 150% for the one year gain by June 12, 2015. The government also made it possible for individual investors to borrow money to invest in the market. About $354 billion of margin lending to finance stock purchases is estimated by Goldman Sachs, which now poses problems with a one third decline in stocks after June 12, 2015, leading to losses for individual investors. The loss of the boost from the stock market is likely to hurt GNP growth by 1% percentage point, according to Capital Economics. As China's real growth according to experts is closer to 4%, because of statistical errors and overestimates, according to experts, this could pose a serious problem for the economy. Countries dependent on commodity exports to China such as Australia, Chile and Brazil are likely to feel the effects of a decline in demand for iron ore, copper and other metals....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this interview with Alessandra Galloni of the WSJ following the June 28, 2012 European summit, Monti says Italian spreads with German bonds would be 1200 or something if the Berlusconi government were still in power. Monti later called Berlusconi to say he regretted the extrapolations on spreads mentioned in the intervew that could be seen as banal or abstract. This is taking the phrase out of the context as the comment was made in the context of a question by Galloni asking why Italian spreads were so high even after the actions taken by Monti to improve competitiveness including labor reforms. Monti's answer was that this was because markets are sensing that eurozone governance is weak, that though France has done less reform its spreads are low because people think Germany would never let France go. Monti makes the statement here that the agreement of Europe's political leaders that they would do whatever is necessary to save the euro after the eurozone June 2012 summit, including stabilizing the markets through EFSF/ESM instrument, gives the ECB the political and moral justification to engage in buying Italian and Spanish bonds to stabiize yields at acceptable levels. He just hopes the ECB does not wait till the night before the catastrophe (disintegration of the euro) before it acts, and does this slightly before that time. And his words to Merkel and Germany about the need for ECB interventions to stabilize yields are clearly stated- Merkel risks facing an Italian parliament that rejects Europe and the euro and is not a friend of Germany if the action is not taken.Throughout Monti remains committed to the idea of a economic and monetary union of Europe. To give up on the euro is to give up not just a currency but a civic culture. It is the most forceful statement of any European leader during the eurozone crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
A study group at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sends a public letter to U.S. president Obama on the Iran negotiations. It says the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran "may fall short of the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." It is signed by some of Mr. Obama's main advisors during the first term. Some of these officials told the NYT that the letter was the result of serious concern that Mr. Kerry and other negotiators were moving towards major concessions that would weaken the international inspections of Iran's facilities, back away from making Iran reveal suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian R&D to move ahead with making nuclear fuel once the accord expires. The five Obama advisors from the first term who signed the letter are: Dennis Ross, Middle East negotiator, David Petraeus, CIA director, Robert Einhorn, State Department proliferation expert, Gary Samore, chief advisor on nuclear policy, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff. Gary Samore is president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran. The letter was also signed by President Bush's national security advisor during his second term, Stephen Hadley. Such a large group of advisors to presidents Bush and Obama familiar with the details of Iran's development of nuclear technology and weapons capabilities could give Republicans support to kill any agreement that falls short on inspections during Congressional Review. On this key factor where only vague assurances are made by the Iranian side- such as signing an International Atomic Agency convention giving inspectors broad rights to visit suspicious sites, followed by Ayatollah Khamanei ruling out military sites- the letter is specific. Inspections it says " must include military (including Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country." Inspections work rigorously done is set as a precondition before any significant relief from economic sanctions on Iran....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bayer CEO, Marijn Dekkers, plans to divest its plastics business, called Material Science. The plastics division requires large investments with lower returns than can be made in health care or the agricultural crop science business. Crop Science generated earnings before interest and taxes of 1.81 billion euros in 2014, and Health Care helped by 5 new prescription drugs reported EBIT of 3.58 billion euros, compared to poor returns of 555 million euros on the polyurethane and polymers used for laptops to soccer balls in the Materials Science division. CEO Dekkers is a Dutch born executive who worked for 25 years in the U.S. Since taking over in 2010 he has brought a significant culture change to Bayer, by insisting on speed and agility from executives. Division heads with marketing backgrounds are preferred to science degrees, and the planning orientation of the company is being changed to one where the company executives are not afraid to take risks based on incomplete information. Dekkers prefers an IPO for the $10 billion plastics business to generate more cash and reduce the debt of 20 billion euros. He acquired the over the counter drug business of Merck for $14.2 billion, and has boosted drug sales with the introduction of Xarelto in partnership with J&J, eye treatment Eylea, cancer drugs Stivarga and Xofigo, pulmonary hypertension drug Adempas. Sales of these 5 drugs are expected to go up from 2.9 billion euros in 2014 to 4 billion euros in 2015, contributing significantly to Bayer's profits. Dekker's venture capitalist type focus on profit margins is showing results in share price performance- Bayer's share price has advanced 60% in 2015 mid-March price of 145.85 euros compared to the prior year month. In the small town of Leverkusen, Germany, where Bayer is located, there were initially fears that Dekkers was "too American" and too focussed on shareholder value to understand the need to respect tradition. Since then Germans have realized that Dekkers understands tradition and is only bringing necessary change- the transition to being a life sciences company makes sense to shareholders in Germany, for employee representatives on the supervisory board the guarantee of current level of 17,000 jobs in the plastics division for a few years shows his concern for job protection during the transition period. For Dekkers who left Holland in 1985, and has a U.S. passport with an American wife and kids who speak no Dutch or German, the important thing is to get the right balance- he says the system of 99-1 where 99% of the information had to be in before a decision could be made is making the change to 90-10 where only 90% of the information is now necessary to go ahead, even if he would like to see it at 80-20. Bayer still sponsors the local soccer team known as Bayer Leverkausen, and 26 other clubs. Dekkers steps down at the end of 2016....

LyrArc Article Gist
King Charles 3 day visit to Germany. It is the first state visit by a British monarch in 8 years and the first for Charles. There is a ceremonial welcome at the Brandenburg Gate, a first in Germany. In Hamburg he visits St. Nikolai Church, a ruined church kept in that way as a memory of the Allied bombing of the city in the war. It was designed by an English architect George Gilbert Scott. This is the serious kind of role the king might enjoy says the BBC. It is being compared to Queen Elizabeth's visit to post independence India in 1961 and her visit to post apartheid South Africa in 1995, Ireland in 2011. It brings the message of Britain through Charles showing its connection to Germany and to the European Union at a time when the US and the European Union are coming closer together with the shared values, and the common history, systems of representative democracy founded in Britain.

LyrArc Article Gist
The election strategies of the ruling Congress party and the opposition BJP party in India for the 2014 general elections.

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Xi Jinping, president of China says at the Davos Forum that world leaders should "join hands and rise to the challenge" from protectionism coming from the new U.S. administration. He called on world leaders to support the Paris climate accords- "to stick to it instead of walking away from it."

LyrArc Article Gist
French officals are pushing for a new eurozone architecture to address many of today's problems. This includes setting up a pathway that leads to the joint issuance of eurobonds. It also would include coordination of monetary policy with the budgets and fiscal situation in the eurozone. French officials see the lack of this as the cause of many of today's problems.

LyrArc Article Gist
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University economist, author of the well researched book on the 2008 financial crisis, "This Time Is Different," gives his thoughts on the economic prospects for the U.S under the new Trump administration. He says 4% GDP growth and 3% inflation is possible temporarily for a while with stimulus policies, less regulation, and increased private investment. After 8 years of not investing in much needed infrastructure because of concerns about the deficit, the timing is right for such investments, especially as the economic effects of the crisis of 2008 gradually fade.  This is about taking advantage of ultra low interest rates to invest in infrastructure. He says it helps that Trump policies are pro-business. He sees drawbacks as the stimulus program adds a 25% increase with extra debt, adding $5 trillion over 10 years, but adds that for many years Nobel prize winning economist Krugman and others have said that there is good reason to increase borrowing to invest, and this is now being tried. Inflation remains an uncertainty- if there are large quantities of underutilized and unemployed resources it would raise prices less than its effect to increase output. The reverse would apply if the U.S. economy is closer to full capacity. One factor that would help- increasing confidence for business and increasing investment. Against this what he calls optimistic view or spin, is the idea of mistakes under a Trump administration, errors made and a degree of incompetence which he says is a real possibility. Overall his view is that some risks are appropriate now, and from his deep study of financial crises sees the slow growth of the last 8 years a result of a financial crisis that now begins to fade, creating the possibility of higher growth under prudent policies.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Calls at the BRICS leaders New Delhi summit for a change in quotas for the World Bank and the IMF, and a more open merit based selection process for heads of the two financial institutions. According to the Economist Belgium has a larger quota than Brazil at the IMF.