LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....

LyrArc Article Gist
Laurence Kotlikoff is a Boston University economist who calls the Obama administration's plans for fixing the financial system akin to "putting a Band-Aid on cancer." He outlines his own proposal in a book just out with the title: Jimmy Stewart is Dead. It calls for taking the risk out of the nation's financial system with "too-big-to-fail" banks, which threaten America's financial system, and may cost huge amounts of taxpayer money approaching by one estimate the entire unfunded liabilities of the Social Security System. He writes in the book that "the problem is the leveraging of the taxpayer by people with no formal training in finance or economics, no personal downside, an assortment of Napoleonic complexes, the money to buy ratings in New York and policy in Washington, and the ability to run circles around regulators." His proposal is to turn banks - intermediaries taking deposits and making loans- into institutions that connect borrowers and depositors with very safe mutual funds created for this reason. Each deposit would be pooled with other deposits in the new kind of mutual fund with all the money held in cash. These mutual funds would supply loans. This strips banks of their risk-taking function. It has attracted attention and support of Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs and University of Chicago's Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas. Most recently Bank of England's Governor mentioned Kotlikoff three times in a speech to Parliament as ideas worth looking at. With bankssstripped of risk-taking only one single Federal Financial Authority as the national regulator would be needed, instead of the myriad regulators in the current system that have failed in crises. MIT's Simon Johnson agrees that some strong action is needed and compares the need for action with what Theodore Roosevelt had to do to break up the once impregnable Standard Oil. By 1911 the Supreme Court had broken up Standard Oil into 34 companies....

LyrArc Article Gist
The decision to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal and to have Lt. Gen David Rodriguez as his deputy, was made by Defense Secretary Gates and Jt Chiefs chairman Mullen, after thinking about this during the transition to the new Obama administration. The failing war effort in Afghanistan with the Karzai government controlling only pockets of Afghanistan and Kabul and leaving the countryside to the Taliban has alot to do with this. Gates feeling is "we can and must do better." That it took so long, with the Taliban only 50 miles from Islamabad, Pakistan, and the question of Paksitan's nuclear weapons falling into thier hands vexing the adminstration, shows that things slowed down with the transition and the economic crisis. The decision was not adifficult one considering that McKiernan had little to show for his efforts, and the rapidly deteriorating situation by all accounts. McKiernan was a senior officer who spent his entire military career commanding conventional forces, serving in the Balkans and the Iraq war in 2003, and has the wrong midset and background for counterinsurgency warfare. McChrystal has experiences suited to counterinsurgency warfare, having commanded commando teams that took out leading insurgents. He is also director of the Joint chiefs of staff, so known to Mullen for his abilities. Rodriguez commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in eastern Afghanistan, is seen as aleading expert in counterinsurgency warfare. He is also Gates's senior military advisor so known to Gates for his abilities. The new strategy is to go with counterinsurgency warfare to turn this thing around. This puts 2 commanders with this kind of experience in Kabul, and close communication with Gates and Mullen because they worked together before. With additional troops, and shift in resource acquisition at the Pentagon that Gates is trying to secure for this kind of warfare, this creates the kind of combination that could help the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and achieve more modest goals. See the links to Gates's and Petraeus's more modest goals....

LyrArc Article Gist
The last thing we want to do is to bring back the images of the 1953 American sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh and returned Shah Pahlavi to power, says Senator John Kerry in an op-ed article in the NYT. He cautions America getting involved in Iran, letting Iranians decide on their own, as the CIA supported coup that overthrew Mossadegh's elected government and put a king in his place because he would be more friendly to American oil and other interests in the region, may arouse bitter memories of America's influence in avery negative way in an earlier period. Most Americans may not remember the American sponsored coup. Mossadegh was a socialist during the Cold War and wnated to nationalize the oil industry run by foreign companies in the country. During those days the interests of American oil companies, the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and British-French colonial era interests in the Middle and Africa and Asia, were all intertwined. The Korean war had just ended, Suez crisis of 1956 with the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt, was a few years away, the French were fighting to keep their colonial empire in Vietnam, and America was supporting Pakistan with Sabre fighter jets bringing a version of the cold war to the Indian subcontinent even though India was the largest democracy in Asia. Partly because its leader Jawaharlal Nehru, was an independent minded socialist, who avoided joining the cold war with his non-alignment policies. Adlai Stevenson, Democratic candidate for President against Eisenhower was very enthusiastic about Nehru in his speeches, but Republican Secretary of State Dulles saw things differently, just as today there are huge differences between the way a Rumsfeld and an Obama see the world. Many of the problems today in places like Pakistan Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq had their beginning during this period....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman puts it best when he says in the NYT that he's got a sick feeling in the pit of his stomach. Its just that the Republican challenge of not a single vote in the House for the $789 billion Stimulus bill just makes it harder to go back for more money which most definitely will be needed. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that over the next 3 years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and will actually produce. $789 billion won't be enough, and more so because the weightage shifted in the direction of tax cuts from the original version. And considering the accelerating nature of the crisis on the housing front and in layoffs and consumption, the absence of a clear action plan with specifics to deal with the bad debt in the banking system, is what gives this sick feeling in the stomach. Because as is stated on these same pages by experts from Japan on February 12, NYT, see the link, Japan went through this same soul searching, public anger, controversy, and political leaders were afraid to take strong action for years from the mid 1990's till 2003 after Koizumi's election. Each action or set of actions each year during that period before 2003 was behind the curve, and did not match what was needed. For the USA this has happened already for 2007, 2008 and is heading in that direction for 2009, with a lack of consensus for the strong action needed. Would 4 million new jobs be generated by the current stimulus if that is a measure of success, as Obama indicated at his first press conference? With less going into spending for education, infrastructure, energy and other green projects, in favor of tax cuts and the AMT, and the feeling that going to Congress for more money will be harder and a partisan affair, will this become difficult to achieve? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Having 12 million human beings caught in a net of fear and apprehension, living life in the shadows, even in abad economy, no, especially in a bad economy, makes no sense, says the NYT editorial. These immigrants can become productive citizens, some of the most hard working who did the backbreaking work in factories and construction, who send money to keep families in Mexico and other parts of Latin Ameica from falling into poverty. In doing so and working on the books instead of off the books, they earn more, spend more, pay more taxes. and have the ability to ensure that there are fewer abuses in the workplace. This way they also get better education for themseves to improve job prospects, and better education for their children who can become part of the next generation of productive citizens. It also clears the path for focus on how to handle better border enforcement focussing resources on fighting crime, drugs, violence, and have a future flow of workers that is in line with the economy's needs. It createss decent workplaces, where people's workplace rights are not violated by unscruplous employers. In this case the fair thing to do, is also the most beneficial thing to do in the larger sense for the economy. In this context the agreement of labor unions, the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win (a rival federation that includes auto service employees, Teamsters and carpenters), to agree that an independent national commission would figure out the size of temporary workers depending on the needs of the economy, higher if it was growing, lower if it wasn't, basing it on conditions in the labor markets, is a good things says NYT. It takes necessary courage for unions, Obama to do the needed fight to protect these future citizens and build a better America with their help, rather than wish the impossible of putting them all on the boat back. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reasons why class identification and party identification are not the same thing. Other factors besides income go into determining voter preferences, which can change in different periods and situations.

LyrArc Article Gist
Romney says his 47% remarks were "just completely wrong." Adding "My life has shown that I care about 100%, and that's been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100%."

LyrArc Article Gist
The trade adjustment assistance bill failed to win passage in the U.S. House of Representatives with 86 Republicans and 40 Democrats in favor, and 303 members voting against it. The Republican leadership passed a bill that gives the president trade negotiating authority without the trade adjustment assistance legislation and this passed the House in 219 to 211 vote. The Senate earlier passed legislation with the trade adjustment assistance included in fast track trade negotiating authority, making it necessary for the Senate to pass a new bill similiar to the House excluding trade adjustment assistance.

LyrArc Article Gist
A Washington Post-ABC News survey conducted in mid April 2011, shows 49 percent of respondents saying they disapprove of Obama's handling of the war- only 44% said they approved. Of self-identified independents 53% said they disapproved of Obama's handling of the war. A survey conducted in March 2011 showed about two thirds of Americans think the war is not worth fighting,

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial on June 26, 2015, says the arguments of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Affordable Care Act were specious, based as they were on a reading of four words phrase in the Act leaving ambiguity about what exchanges were covered by health care subsidies. It says the plaintiffs with strong emotions on the subject decided to pull their argument out of thin air. That only one Justice acted as the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, shows the Supreme Court like the rest of the nation is not above emotion- Justice Scalia called the 6-4 decision based on "jiggery-pokery" and not "honest jurisprudence"- and needed Chief Justice Roberts to provide the larger view in 2015 as he did in 2012.