LyrArc Article Gist
Lakhdar Brahimi who was special representative of the UN secretary general for Afghainistan from October 2001 to December 2004 and was present when under UN auspices Afghan political representatives met to build anew after the US defeated the Taliban. He says it was a mistake then no to try to atract those in the Taliban movement and other political groups in Afhanistan that could have been brought into the new political setup and administration to build a broader base of support. And the Taliban did not surrender to anyone when it was defeated so the same mebers of that movement could simply resurface. Also no peace can be achieved in Afghanistan without the cooperation and support of Pakistan its neighbor and with tribes. sharing land on both sides of the border. Brahimi says he bitterly regrets not having advocated more strongly 2 suggestions made by the UN in early 2002. The first to reach out to those members of the Taliban who were willing to join the political process and second to deploy the ISAF outside of Kabul with increased strength. He also believes the war that happened in Iraq after the Afghan peace effort may have falso fundamentally altered the views of people in the countryside and in border areas of neigboring Pakistan about perceptions of the US and NATO....

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Asian officials and scholars that it was not the savings glut that originated in Asia that caused the economic crisis in the U.S. The idea of a"savings glut" that caused low rates for along time and set up conditions for a housing bubble was presented by Ben Bernanke in 2005 before he was governor of the Fed. It was considered acontributing factor in the crisis. Mr Panitchpakdi, head of the UN Confreence on Trade and Development says that Asians did not borrow heavily for consumption and Americans did. Consumption levels he says are normal in Asia and average 40% of GDP. Household consumption in China is 36% but thats because growth in investment and exports has been very strong, npot because consumption has been weak. Speaking at the same conference Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan sais Chinese consumption needs to rise and saving rate fall but micro factors like regulation played an overwhelming part. Zhou says the increase in the savings rate in recent years comes not from households but from corporate savings as retained profits. Lawrence Lau, another economist, says China's trade surplus was at 2% for many years till 2005 when it jumped to 5% of GDP. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT report that provides details on what Iran agreed to in the deal reached in Geneva on November 23, 2013 with western nations and the P5+1 that includes Russia and China. It provides a 6 month period in which additional steps to secure that Iran's program is limited to peaceful uses can be achieved. It also slows the Iranian nuclear weapons program by about one month according to this report, and gives additional warning if Iran moves in that direction. Not enough to dismantle Iran's nuclear enrichment program which is what Israel, Saudi Arabia want to see. France has called for tougher steps to limit the nuclear program in prior negotiating sessions. U.S. president Obama has looked for a compromise which would provide the opportunity to do this at a later stage, possibly through a series of smaller agreements. The sticking point is Iran's insistence that it has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes like other signatories to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. This may be the only agreement that could be reached at this time, leaving tougher negotiations for a later stage when more trust and credibility is achieved, without the risk of jeopardizing a future agreement that goes further and seriously tackles the problem....

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the NYT looks at the support for the AfD stalled at about 11% nationwide but closer to twice that in East Germany where years of neglect have led to voters shifting to far right parties. The view is presented that there is a core hard right of 10%. Yet it ignores or prefers to overlook what happened in the east which provides the real clues to what happened, so that future policy could be designed to address social goals in a way that never happened in Germany. This is in line with developments in China where president Xi is addressing social goals after years of tech and infrastructure expansion that neglected rural areas and urban poor. It is in line also with the same action taken to address social goals in US president Biden's $3.5 trillion workers and families plan. Social Democrats under Mr. Scholz and a younger generation represented by the Greens have the same challenges facing them to come up with the plans to correct these problems in Germany and with a plan designed for the neglected eastern part of the country. Helmut Kohl pushed for reunification of Germany. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall the momentum was set for this to happen. Yet looking back over that period since 1990, German chancellors and administrations for three decades from both CDU and SPD have failed to invest and create opportunities in eastern part of Germany. It makes German reunification an empty concept looked at from outside. The previous administrations including Kohl and Merkel relied too much on market capitalism to do what it has been shown not capable of doing- tackling social goals and economic crises, much less  political storms such as creation of GDR following Soviet army entering Berlinin 1945. Much commentary on the issues in east Germany show people there left to themselves after mass migration out of the east to the west leaving older people and pensioners in the east, and a sense of being ignored or forgotten. US president Biden said today in ther UN General Assembly- "Our shared grief is a poignant reminder that our collective future will hinge on our ability to recognize our common humanity and to act together." And he went on to say the next ten years to 2030 "will quite literally determine our futures."  The Social Democrats under Scholz and the Greens under Baerbock and Habeck have to come up with plans and programs that will increase ease of living and opportunities for a thriving eastern part of Germany, after the failures of market capitalism in its unregulated form during the Merkel years and predecessor administrations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Clinton campaign based on incremental cautious change does not resonate as well with younger people including unmarried women. Sanders lead with unmarried women was 10 points in Iowa's caucuses. This is a worrisome trend for the Clinton campaign, as well as the pace of fundraising of the Sanders campaign which raised $20 million in Jan. 2016, and is picking up pace after Sanders virtual tie with Clinton in Iowa.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's GDP growth rate slowed to 7% in the 1st quarter of 2015, compared to 7.3% in the 4th quarter of 2014. China's Office of National Statistics reported industrial production growth at 5.65% year over year in March 2015, and fixed asset investment in the 1st quarter at 13.5%. The statistics agency reported unemployment at stable level of 5.1% for the 1st quarter 2015. Experts say the low unemployment is the one positive sign in the economy, easing pressures on economic policymakers to take action considering the high debt levels in the economy. As a result China can pursue selective monetary easing efforts and smaller, selective, better targeted stimulus.

LyrArc Article Gist
Young people in India express their rising expectations for the next government- for better infrastructure, for jobs and better incomes and a better vision for the future. Narendra Modi, leader of the BJP party and chief minister of Gujarat state, gives the development and high growth rates in his state as an example for what can be achieved in the the rest of India.

LyrArc Article Gist
The story of Eiji Toyoda is largely the story of the modern Toyota company. He guided the company as president from 1967 to 1982 and following that as chairman and senior advisor, a service that spans the entire period from the formation of Toyota during the 1930's by Sakichi Toyoda and his son Kiichiro Toyoda till today. Eiji was Sakichi Toyoda's nephew, and 18 years younger than Kiichiro. He worked in the company's textile loom business in the early days before the formation of the company to manufacture automobiles as an entrepreneurial venture by Sakichi and Kiichiro. An auobiography by Eiji Toyoda pubished by Kodansha in 1985 tells the story- Toyota- Fifty Years In Motion. Most of the prewar period was spent manufacturing buses and motorized vehicles for the military. It was after visits to Ford's Rouge automobile plant in Detroit in the fifties that Eiji first picked up the ideas for a suggestion system and getting workers to provide ideas and make improvements that later became kaizen. Eiji was born in 1913 before the beginning of the first world war and passed away at the age of 100 in 2013. He lived a remarkable life that witnessed most of the events of the twentieth century, the transition from a militaristic to a peace loving nation, and technological progress in many fields. The technological evolution continues with the development of electric cars. In the early days of the automobile Sakichi had imported a German electric car which was limited by the short battery charge, a limitation Toyota and other companies are still tackling to this day, showing the technological challenges still ahead. The story of Toyota shows pioneering efforts and progress is continuous, as Toyota picked up the ideas from Ford and added new ones of its own for better products. Family companies with dedicated service spanning a century are rare and Toyota is one of these companies. When the recall crisis of 2011 brought the young CEO, Akio Toyoda, Kiichiro's grandson, to the verge of tears at a public event, the memories of a generation of leaders and the need to live up to their ideals and the work that preceded him must have gone through his mind....

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Elliott Abrams quotes former President George Bush from November 2003 when he asked the question: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?" Abrams, former deputy natonal security advisor for President Bush, says the autocratic regimes and dictators of the Middle East have offered a false choice to the US- its us or the Islamists. Roger Cohen also points this out in a recent article in the New York Times. For Tunisia he says this was never defensible. It is a largely secular nation with a literacy rate of 75% and per capita GDP of $9,500, and Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia, jailed moderates, human rights advocates, editors, anyone who represented hope and change. Abrams says Mubarak has done the same in Egypt. And he warns that if you make moderate politics impossible as Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia have done, then you make extremism more likely. Ruling by emergency decree for decades creates a real emergency, as has happened in Egypt. Bush made that speech at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, and he reminded Americans that "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accomodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." He admits that the Bush administration did not always conduct US diplomacy in this vein, but the President took the lead and the Obama administration's abandonment of that mindset is nothing short of a tragedy. Obama's policy of "engagement" actually endangers the US position as a supporter of liberty and freedom wherever it is stifled or muffled, because it turned a blind eye to the people themselves as it engaged with the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world and other countries. When the elections in Iran were stolen the Obama administration hesitated, waffled in its committment to liberty, fearing that it would affect nuclear negotiations. Obama did not -as of late Friday night Jan 28, 2011- call for free elections or clearly demand democracy. The law school analytical processes that Obama brings to the presidency and the demands of geopolitical diplomacy are impervious to the loud voices demanding freedom in countries denied liberty. Obama has forgotten the very same voices he passionately heard when he wrote in his first book that in the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident" he could hear the spirit of Douglas and Delaney, as well as Jefferson and Lincoln, the struggles of Martin and Malcolm and unheralded marchers to bring the words to life. He could hear the words of interned Japanese families, the voices of Russian Jews in lower East side sweatshops, of dust bowl farmers during the depression, all these voices clamoring for recognition and asking the question about what is community and how it can be reconciled with freedom. This failure to recognize these voices clamoring for freedom and economic opportunity is all the more striking because it was vision and a bold sense of purpose that energized the Obama campaign and both the vision and the bold sense have eluded the administration. Abrams calls for a clear unequivocal committment by the US government in favor of freedom and peaceful efforts to achieve it in the Middle East, because he says that as the demonstrators are telling the world outside supporting freedom is the best policy of all. ...