LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
At the end of the 2012 Communist Party Congress in Beijing, Xi Jinping assumes the post of chief of the Communist Party of China. He also assumes the post of head of the Central Military Commission, which makes him head of the armed forces of China. Li Keqiang, the incoming prime minister, is the only member of the party Politburo Standing Committee selected by current president Hu Jintao. Jinping is supported by Jiang Zemin, former president. Four of the other five members are older party leaders placed in these positions by former president Jiang Zemin, who succeeded Deng Xiaoping and started China's three decade long modernization. The seven member Standing Committee governs China by consensus. This will limit the room for change, especially as the other five members are in their mid 60-s and favor the status quo. Xi Jinping is 59, Li Keqiang is 57. Xi becomes president in the spring of 2013, and Li becomes prime minister to run the government ministries. The optimism for Li who is the best educated of China's leaders, holding a doctorate in economics from Peking University, and an early interest in constitutional law, is restrained by the institutional arrrangements that favor the status quo. Some experts in China see the new leaders likely to make major changes only if confronted by a crisis. In his live television acceptance speech Xi focussed on China's "rejuvenation," with improvements in the party bureaucracy, tackling corruption, and improving the lives of ordinary people, for better schooling, jobs, incomes, health care, better housing conditions, social security and the environment. From the rush to modernize and build infrastructure attention is now shifting to creating better conditions for the Chinese people....

LyrArc Article Gist
Economist Lawrence Lindsey says the Fed has boxed itself and has little choice but to keep interest rates low. Borrowing at the more normal interest rates of 5.7%- which is what it was over the last three decades- and not at the current 2.5%, would mean an increase in borrowing costs for the U.S. government of $800 billion in 2021, says Lindsay. Lindsay bases this on the U.S. debt growing from $14 trillion in 2011 to $25 trillion by 2021, and interest rates going back to normal levels by 2021. Just to put this in perspective Lindsay says it would require all the cuts Republicans and Rep. Ryan are asking for just to pay for the added interest, not even about reducing the size of the U.S. debt. This would be a disaster for the U.S. Treasury, so we're stuck with really low rates. The term used by economists is "financial repression." Savers and retirees will have to put up with low returns. Lowering unemployment is only one aspect of U.S. Fed policy, the other aspect is in the constraints Bernake faces....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reasons why the U.S. Stimulus spending failed to give the economy the boost it needed.

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT fails to see the importance of delivering on infrastructure building in scale, reshoring, wages and jobs for workers, and climate change action that president Biden is achieving to build a better America. NYT looks at the 2023 and the midterm elections and points out a well known fact that women (and men) in the suburbs care about legalized abortion rights for women, and this extends to states that vote Republican in the south. No attention is given to the importance of infrastructure building, increasing wages and jobs for working class and middle class Americans, bringing factories and investment back to the US, three issues that brought Mr. Trump into office in 2016 coming out of nowhere. Mr. Biden is old is the refrain. Yet it is president Biden who has delivered on infrastructure where Mr. Trump merely talked about it -Building America Better- as Biden pointed out in the State of the Union address in 2023. Biden has delivered in support for wage increases for workers, even joining the picket line at the UAW auto workers strike in Detroit. He was able to do this because he has spent more years in Congress than any other senator, and like Lyndon Johnson for the Great Society programs and desegregation in the 1960's was able to win support from moderate Republicans. Being older, having the wisdom and experience was and is indispensable in the American project started by Washington and sustained by Lincoln, who nurtured wisdom, experience, fully comprehending the people's problems, and mindfulness in the way Mr. Biden does. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Leonhardt on the policy errors of the Obama administration in managing the economy. Why he asks did the Obama administration not take the risks it took for "undeserving" recipients in the auto industry to provide significant help to GM and Chrysler and at the same not provide large scale and situation changing help to millions of mortgage holders who were under water? The housing crisis with millons of foreclosures depressing home prices has played a significant part in the lagging economic recovery. He points out that Obama economic advisors had read Rogoff and Reinhart's book "This Time Its Different," about the longer times it takes for a economic recovery after a housing bubble, and still made the mistake of believing economists who suggested that the stimulus by itself would be sufficient and that recovery was underway in 2010. Others in the Democratic party had pointed to the lack of focus on unemployment by the Obama administration. Why were such voices not heard?

LyrArc Article Gist
Sweden gets a centre left government led by Stefan Lofven, who gets a second term in office. He managed to put together an alliance of centre left parties with the Green Party and Liberal paties after the elections gave 40% of the vote to centre left and centre right and proved inconclusive. Lofven governs without a majority in parliament because the minority government has support form other parties with 77 votes in parliament that abstained. Both centre right and centre left did not want to join with the far right anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. Lofven says Sweden chose a different path than other governments that sought to form governments with anti-immigrant parties. He said "in Sweden we stand up for democracy, for equality. Sweden has chosen a different path." To get Centre and Liberal parties support Lofven promised to cut taxes, reform the rental housing market, and relax strict employment laws.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Responding to criticism of the Clinton Foundation which has affected Hillary Clinton's ability to win voter support in her contest with Bernie Sanders, the Clinton family has decided to take action in August 2016. The Clinton Global Initiative will be discontinued in 2017. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will stop raising funds for the Clinton foundation. The Clinton Foundation will not accept funds from foreign donors. What started as a do-good effort to raise funds for worthy causes such as world health, poverty and hunger turned out -because of its very success in raising large amounts of money from corporate donors- into a distraction for the election campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016. It opened up Hillary Clinton to charges of having conflicts of interest from outsiders Sanders and Trump. Hillary Clinton discontinued her association as a board member of the foundation in 2015 when she began her campaign. Bill Clinton continued to give paid speeches and raised $2.6 million. All that fund raising appears to have been a big mistake and not even fair to the candidate, as it gave rise to misperceptions about the candidate going far beyond what the Clintons ever understood about was happening. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it, it gives rise to accusations of impropriety that may affect an election, without the voters getting a chance to evaluate the candidates on the basis of what each candidates program or agenda is. In this the Clinton family may have realized that in retrospect the entire foundation activity appears to be a small matter, when put next to the choices facing the U.S. and the world in 2016 for the next decade and beyond. The Clinton Foundation in future would be managed by people independent of the Clinton family and circle. The next step would be setting it up as a public foundation, a new board and professional staff. Was it all worth the problems it has created for voters being able to get a clear idea of what each candidate offered, an not acting as a huge and dangerous distraction which Hillary Clinton and the country and the world could do without, considering the significance of making good choices in a general election- very much so. The foundation and the fund raising made it possible for outsiders Sanders and Trump to turn this election into one of slogans and accusations, to which the Clintons were unprepared to respond, acting as a distraction  which was bad for the country and the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Most Congressmen are skeptical of Obama's plan to give the Fed new powers to meet the kind of emergency created by the glovabal economic crisis. Their concern is that the Fed may let the property bubble develop wihtout taking any action, and that the Fed failed as abank regulator. Congressman Ron Paul is co-sponsoring abill that would require Congressional audits of the Fed, which has the support of two thirds of the House.

LyrArc Article Gist
Proposals being considered by the Obama administration for overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One proposal being considered is to keep Fannie and Freddie in a reduced role with safeguards such as an insurance pool of money created by a fee the firms would charge mortgage lenders and banks. The insurance pool would act as a fund to cover losses before the government stepped in. Another safeguard would be to require the firms to hold adequate reserves to cover potential losses. The earlier preferential advantage for Fannie where it ony needed to keep a fraction of the reserves banks had to keep would be eliminated. Under this proposal both firms would shrink their mortgage portfolios over coming years. The White House says it wants to see a winding down of Fannie and Freddie and let private capital be at the heart of a new housing system.

LyrArc Article Gist
NHTSA and NASA conclude a 10 month investigation in Feb 2011, saying that "pedal misapplication" not faulty electronics were the likely cause of unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles.