LyrArc Article Gist
The broken world economy has hurt the American people, in small communities and towns across the US whose societal fabric was destroyed by a system of world trade with abuses done by China. Japan, European Union, Canada and Mexico since 2000. Shortsighted American leaders and economists allowed this to happen. Robert Lighthizer on the New World Order a new system of world trade that replaces the old in 2026. The old trading system was one in which lip service was made to free trade while all the time the system was used by Japan, Germany, China, Canada, Mexico and other nations to build non tariff barriers and other policies to support their industry  at the expense of the United States leading to disillusionment in the US. The facts are mind boggling- the loss of 5 million jobs, many small communities across the US decimated with loss of jobs. About 20 trillion in wealth transfers to China and other countries over 2000-2020, with foreigners owning $27 trillion more of US assets than the US owns of theirs. US Trade Deficits that went up by 40% in 4 years of the Biden administration from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. Economists and weak leaders got it all wrong allowing this to happen from Geoge W. Bush to Clinton Bush and Obama. Lighthizer says "shortsighted leaders aided and abetted this process," from 1990 to early 2010. Consider that US had 17.3 million  people in manufacturing, in factories all over the US in 1970, in 1999 we had the same number of jobs, even though there were changes in technology and productivity- the US held its own with the rest of the world. The Bush, Obama years were the worst for the US industry - by 2026 we have 12.6 million - loss of 4.7 million jobs since 1999. And real median household income took a big hit growing from $72,000 to $84,000 about 17% in the last 25 years, compared to twice that in the period 1975-2000 prior quarter century. The result is the fracturing of American society- and dire consequences for healthcare as communities suffered from loss of jobs leading to drug overdoses, alcohol abuse and suicides, which are common in post industrial American communities. Think of this fact: two thirds of America's workforce that does not have a college degree, that is working class people, lives 8 fewer years than college graduates, a gap that was only 2.5  years in 1992. The wars carried on by Bush and continued by Obama in the Middle East also wracked these same communities till Biden and DJT pulled out. One has only to drive across America to see this with one's own eyes. Trade may be an abstract topic for economists and politicians- there is nothing abstract about this. And the economic growth of the US has suffered with the unfair trading system with China, European Union, Japan, Canada and Mexico. From 1945 to 2000 American growth was 3.2% a year. Since 2000 only 2 years of growth over 3%. US has not seen historically normal growth for the last 19 years and at this rate (if we continued along this path) the Congressional Budget Office says 1.8% growth for 2027-2035. There are other factors yet the the major driver of this is our trade deficit of $1.2 trillion dollars a year. It is a story of remarkable persistence in the Nation's interest through 2 adminstrations- this Lighthizer story. Lighthizer fought Japanese commercial interests as Deputy Trade Representative under Ronald Reagan, and as US Trade Representative under DJT in the first DJT administration in 2016-2020. His Deputy at the time is Jamieson Greer who is now the US Trade Representative in the second DJT adminstration in 2025. For 30 years this brave American patriot has fought to reverse the bad actions of presidents and economists that have led to devastating losses in the American countryside. He says any new trading system must be perceived as fair to working people. It will survive only if working people think it is good for them. It cannot and must entrench a small, permanent elite. The benefits going to labour must be at least as great as those going to capital. It should create fulfilling high paying jobs for the vast majority of the American people. This is America's new promise to its people, its new compact with its people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is no surprise what we see in the US today- the loss of the middle class, the unaffordability crisis for education, healthcare, childcare, and poor, broken infrastructure. Over 10 years the US trade deficit with China has led to loss of about 25 million jobs and $250 billion in taxes that support local infrastructure and public services. Where 20% of the people do 80% of the spending, 80% of the people only 20% of spending (Moody's Analytics). This is how the uneven trade led to the destruction of manufacturing centers and communities across the 51 states in America, devastating families and young people. This is no longer Washington's, Lincon's or FDR's land of opportunity. Each $1 billion in additional imports to the US costs 4252 jobs. (CPA) This can be read as how many jobs are being lost in the additional trade of goods when one side is exporting more than the other.  There are three levels of losses. There is also an indirect job loss in the number of jobs created by that one job in manufacturing to serve the needs of these factory families in communities. This can be estimated at 1 job that depends on 1 manufacturing job. Together this means 8500 jobs lost for every $1 billion of goods in a trade deficit. US trade deficit of $295 billion in 2024 with China translates into about 2.5 million jobs lost every year. Over 10 years this is about 20-25 million jobs, enough to decimate America's entire manufacturing capabilities and manufacturing infrastructure, whole communities and towns disappearing or suffering destruction across the country.  With the loss of these jobs comes a third cost, the taxes paid that maintain small town infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers where these factories are located. At $10,000 in taxes lost per job, for 8500 jobs lost per $1 billion in uneven trade there is a loss of $85 million.  For the $295 billion deficit the US has with China this loss adds up to $25 billion per year. Over 10 years this means taking out this much in local infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers worth $250 billion.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Hear this America- Calling something that is all around us a hoax is not like telling a lie on media. Calling a thing a hoax when it is a growing Threat has Big, Big, Big consequences that you might not even want to think about. Project 2025 and "Drill Baby Drill" would create billions of tons more of carbon pollution and destroy any climate change action that would help control climate change- causing even bigger fires and sudden floods all over the world. The cost says think tank Energy Innovation is 2.7 billion tons of carbon pollution- what India emits in 1 year- and 1.7 million job losses by 2030 from jobs lost in renewable energy including small offset from fossil fuels. The cost would be at the minimum over $1 trillion dollars to repair by 2028- the cost of not taking action on climate change for four years, of additional floods and fires larger than ones before,  and of tackling the additional damage to the climate, the loss of the technological advances needed over next 4 years, the investments needed to tackle a much larger problem than it is now. It would require larger deficits to tackle and risk the health and well being of future generations. For the US compared to China the consequence will be a severe loss of technological advantage in the technologies for renewable energy that no longer, no longer have the support of the government as they do in China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT was asked if China's celebration of Victory Day with Russia recently in Tianjin had any message for the US. He said he did not see it that way, that US has good relations with China. In this context the Smithsonian Museum exhibit on military history of the US shows a real aspect of the World War II in loss of life- Russia 17 million dead, China 11 million dead, Germany 10 million dead, Poland 5 million dead, Japan 2.5 million dead, US 1 million dead, UK 800,000 dead. Russian and Chinese losses of 28 million dead are 15 times the losses of US and UK combined of 1.8 million dead. With the scale of losses of such magnitude Victory Day celebrations in Tianjin can be seen in the context of this shared history and major losses overcome as much of the world knows with US help. A sobering view is that the colonial powers Imperial Japanese Army, French and British policies caused famines in World War II leading to 6-7 million deaths in India, Indonesia and Vietnam which is 4 times the 1.7 million US and UK deaths. Views of China in the Context of the Ukraine War and Russia are very different in US than in France and Europe and are widening in differences in 2025. In the US as in this report in the WSJ China is seen as a trade partner and competitor with certain issues, many of China's university leaders and experts question the prospect of a long term alliance with Russia, and for DJT Russia is a nuclear power with which US seeks good relations and a political settlement of the Ukraine War. In France as shown in the article in Le Monde adjacent to this the European attitudes towards Russia throughout European history since 1700 of regional rivalry between France and Russia, Germany and Russia since 1900, Britain and Russia since 1700. FDR led the alliance with Russia against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese in the 1930's and 1940's. Herbert Hoover led the effort to bring relief supplies and aid to Russian in the period of the Civil War after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. With China America kept the government in China functioning as it retreated from the invasion by the Imperial Japanese Army in the 1930's and 1940's and the only hope with Gen. Joe Stilwell in China alongside Chinese leaders. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Autor at MIT authored some of the first detailed studies about the severe disruption in U.S. communities from the trade with China following China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. The sheer size of the impact now appears to have been underestimated by economists and other experts. It was believed says Hilsenrath and Davis, that the U.S. having absorbed the impact of trade with Japan in the seventies and eighties, and with Mexico following NAFTA, could do the same with China. That turns out to be false. Much of 2016 election season has been spent seeing the rise of anti-trade movements led by Trump and Sanders, and reveals a deep discontent with job shifting overseas, and disruption of communities across America by trade patterns. What happened? In 2015 China's exports to the U.S. reached 2.7% of U.S. GDP. Hilsenrath and Davis say it was about 1% less with Japan and Mexico when their exports surged. The rapidity of the impact is another problem. It took 12 years following Japan's emergence as a major supplier, to reach the same level of impact that China had only 4 years after China's entry into the WTO in 2001. A similiar situation of 12 years happened with Mexico after NAFTA. Another problem is that Japan's exports impacted mostly steel and autos, China's exports impacted a whole range of industries. The speed with which China's planners sought to change and modernize their manufacturing  base is unprecedented in history, and has an impact not only on the U.S. as a recipient of low cost exports, but also on China as it struggles with bad debts and job losses today, that are a legacy of that too rapid move. This was part of the drive to urbanize China rapidly by shifting agricultural workers to factories in the cities, at a pace unprecedented in history. Another factor not mentioned is the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 that hurt U.S. manufacturing in the auto and other industries, and the wide impact this had in loss of jobs and decline in wages. By 2010 the tide of public opinion had shifted. The WSJ/NBC poll of September 2010, cited in detail in WSJ 10/2/2010 under "Americans Sour on Foreign Trade" shows over 80% consistently for all levels of income, over $75,000 and under $75,000, Republicans and Democrats, working class Americans or well educated Americans, saying that Americans were struggling and there was less hiring, because of how trade had impacted their communities. Lyrarc covered this in considerable detail since 2006. All political parties, business leaders, ignored the implications of this huge change, the media covered it but assumed it would take care of itself as trade with Japan had done previously, and it was left to Trump and Sanders as outsiders to call it like they saw it 5 years later.  Economic inequality has widened in China to the point of it becoming unrecognizable as a former socialist economy. Now both countries are faced with the job of picking up, chastened by the experience, and hoping to limit the political fallout to achieve economic recovery. The very open trading system that had generated prosperity since World War II was being put at risk by a lack of awareness that trade brings with it changes, winners and losers, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas on a scale and speed unprecedented in history, was something that no one could cope with. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ is still calling the president's stop fentanyl flows tariffs on CMC Canada Mexico and China economic tariffs in this editorial board opinion. It is incomprehensible that little or no mention is made in most of the media of the magnitude of injury to the US, the 490,000 deaths in America over 12 years as the result of Canada, Mexico and China not taking the needed action to stop fentanyl flows into the US. There is also the added factor of lack of a level playing field in trade which has resulted in the same communities in many cases having suffered from in the case of China loss of 25 million jobs over the last 10 years and loss of $250 billion in infrastructure and public services for schools, libraries, childcare, and health care clinics that were lost from losses in taxes for local communities in the US. This has decimated life in these communities and in small towns across America.  In the case of Mexico the illegal migrant flows that were not stopped at the border have put an added burden on already underfunded and strained public services in local communities in the US. This is the reason for much of the frustration and anger that has built up over time in these communities with the response from the DJT administration to find solutions. CMC countries could have taken action on their own, yet the US had waited too long for this action. Reciprocal in reciprocal tariffs is about fairness, a level playing field, something that China had agreed to in the spirit of the WTO entry in 1994 and American desire to aid China industrialize build a modern economy. Instead US business was coopted by China during the industrialization process 1995-2010, 2010-2020, including in the first term of the DJT administration even when tariffs were imposed. This happened with transfer of technologies happening late into the first term of the DJT administration 2016-2020, which has led to a much of the pent up frustration and action in the first 100 days of DJT in 2025.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. is keen on rebuilding its manufacturing now that the pandemic has exposed the weakness in depending on outside sources of manufacturing. After decades of job losses that hurt millions of workers and ripped apart the social fabric of America, this also left America bereft of the very ideals of opportunity for all on which the country was founded. This story by Asa Fitch and Luis Santiago in WSJ shows how America which produced 75% of the world's chips in 1990 when China's participation was negligible or non existent, made only 12% of the world's chips and semiconductors that power computers and smartphones in 2020. China's ascent only began as recently  in 2010 under a state model that targeted particular industries as Taiwan and South Korea had done before. America's failure to protect its technology led to the situation today. As this report points out Intel is the major American manufacturer of chips and it has a role to play in bringing back production and technology base to the U.S. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China decides to go ahead with a reception honoring the 40th anniversary of the setting up of diplomatic ties with Japan in 1972. Hu Shuli, editor in chief of Caixin Media, economic journalist, says job losses for Chinese working in Japaneses owned companies will hurt China. China received $12.6 billion of Japanese investment in 2011, in comparison the U.S. received $14.7 billion, according to Japan's External Trade Organization.

LyrArc Article Gist
Bradsher, Tankersley and Cohen say in this NYT report- US industrial policy under president Biden corrects the failures of the past. Chinese experts in Hong Kong say the US and Europe deindustrialized their economies with pursuing of policies called "neo-liberal" but basically Reagan era policies that Democratic presidents Clinton-Obama imitated. As they deindustrialized it created disaffection among the struggling lower and middle income classes making $35,000-$106,000 that were big losers in the process, creating threats to democracy as financial and tech, plus pharmaceutical sectors took control of the economy. China's success comes from three decades of mastering the ways of practicing industrial policy that it can support private companies with low cost land, additional subsidies that reduce the cost of production and provide a buffer to absorb losses so that it could dominate key industries. Policies where textbooks and economists trained in the US failed utterly and completely leading to dangers to US democracy that we see as opportunities for good paying jobs in manufacturing disappeared for middle and lower income households from 1980 to 2020. These economists trained in the US always said see lower cost Chinese made goods means lower and middle income people pay less, never saying that this means all opportunities for better paying jobs in manufacturing will be lost for these classes in society. The tech and financial sectors had close ties to the new arrangement that turned manufacturing over to China from the Reagan era to the Obama and Trump era. Apple and Tesla and many industries benefitted from manufacturing mostly outsourced to China. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Trump has decisively changed the Republican party. Most Republicans support Mr. Trump personally, less the Republican party. Mr. Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina, says of the Republican party before Trump that it had become a bit staid, that we looked like the banker next door who may foreclose on your house. Mr. Romney epitomized that in his view. Gone are the views on deficits, on wars, and on imports and transfer of technology to China as being acceptable.  Five years from 2015 when Mr. Trump came into prominence with his new style taking on the establishments of both parties with a fierce disdain for convention, both the Bushes and the Obamas and Clintons, the Republican party is completely transformed. Registered Republicans are now 60% non college educated in 2020 compared to 50% non college educated in 2016. The Trump policies on trade putting American workers first and America first have a resounding popularity with this audience- this should be no surprise after decades of job losses and factories shipped overseas under the previous administrations for 2 decades. Most of these workers are not college educated and are white and had enjoyed a good standard of living with a high school education in American factories till the shift of American manufacturing to China destroyed good paying jobs and impoverished the American working class.  Only 30% of college educated people are registered Republicans in 2020 compared to 40% in 2016. Overwhelmingly about 90% of registered Republicans are white.  They are majority male and older but there is a significant about 40% female and 40% young population under 40 years of age. This might resemble the party put together by Missouri Congressman Harry Truman as he led the Democratic Party in 1948 with a majority of non college educated Democrats, fighting for American workers and America first in the cold war with Russia. Truman also had a rough Missouri farm language and accent comparable to Mr. Trump's rough style and language disdainful of the old establishment and new tech establishment. Both were heavily disliked by the media and both did not let this bother them in any way. Both liked facing large crowds as Truman showed in campaigning by train across the country and Trump has shown in campaign rallies run in his own way. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Researchers David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, in independent research, studied the impact of trade on 722 clusters of interrelated counties in the U.S. They focussed on the surge in Chinese imports and found a pattern. Counties with higher exposure to Chinese import growth showed higher unemployment and higher expenditures by the government for unemployment benefits, food stamps and disability benefits. Their calculations show the increased government payments amount to one to two thirds of the gains from trade with China. This does not include the losses suffered by people losing jobs who deplete savings as they look for new jobs. Hanson studied the effects of trade and Chinese imports in the 1990's and found the effects were relatively small. This time the effects are large and show counties that lacked local investments in industrial machinery and technologies in which China was still playing catchup such as Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, and Boeing in Everett, Washington, were most susceptible to higher jobless rates and in need of government support payments. Autor and Hanson found that from 2000-2007, communities in the 75th percentile- ones with greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities- saw a manufacturing jobless rate of about one-third more than communities in the 25th percentile. The government payments mean higher taxes or larger deficits are needed to support these communities, and long periods of unemployment reduce the incentive to work. Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist from New York University, says the world has never seen such a rapid pace of growth as China experienced between 2000-2011, with rates approaching 12% in some years, making past experience and prevailing theories on trade an insufficient guide to what is happening....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Andy Grove makes this passionate plea for the dignity of workers in America in 2010. It is worth reading in 2020 what this founder of Intel Corp and pioneering spirit of Silicon Valley has to say. Andy Grove of Intel says there is something seriously wrong when the unemployment rate in the Bay Area is higher than the 9.7% national average for the USA. American companies have added jobs like crazy in Asia, but things are sputtering back home. Hon Hai has 800,000 employees and makes most of the electronic and computer products for American companies. Grove says startups are not the answer, unless they scale up and create jobs the way Intel did starting back in 1968, with a $3 million capital infusion by investors. The move from the first production model to mass production is critical, as companies hire thousands of people. Innovation and scaling up have to go together. He makes his point clearly by pointing out that Apple has 25,000 employees. For every Apple employee there are 10 employees in China working on Apple iMacs, iPods, iPhones. And he adds that the same 10 to 1 relationship applies to other U.S. tech companies. And here Grove asks the tough question by first posing an answer. He says it sounds like- no big deal, we keep the high paying jobs, we keep most of the profits, but what kind of society are we going to have with highly paid professional workers and lots of people unemployed? And he doesn't mention that there are a lot more young people unemployed. He says the US has become very inefficient at creating tech jobs, and it would be a great mistake not to act decisively early on. And adds that the investments in such areas as solar power and electric car batteries have to be made early on to maintain leadership in these areas. Grove faults academics like Alan Blinder and others who say loss of manufacturing jobs and whole industries was no big deal. The U.S. has forgotten the value of manufacturing jobs. He wants to see America focus on jobs and rebuild its industrial base. And less of transferring engineering knowhow and new technologies overseas, technology that can help bring innovation and scaling up of factories at home. In his view individual companies doing their own thing, in a misguided fashion that jobs don't matter, is not the answer to the situation we face. The industrial economies of Asia, China at the present day, have focussed on jobs and technology, and scaled up. Grove reminds readers of the situation in America in 1932, when jobless veterans demonstrating outside the White House in large numbers were dispersed by soldiers with live ammunition and fixed bayonets. This makes him shudder at the very thought of it, and brings back memories of his early years in Hungary, as a young man in 1956. Are we listening? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's $38.6 billon loan program using Stimulus funds was intended to create 65,000 jobs. Two years into this program, with half the money disbursed, the program has created a mere 3,545 new permanent jobs according to Energy Department figures. The Energy Department claims its $5.9 billion loan guarantees to Ford Motor Company to produce energy efficient vehicles by upgrading plants in 5 states saved 33,000 jobs. Brookings Institution analyst, Mark Muro, says the administration appears to be counting all the workers at these plants and not the jobs saved. 33,000 is close to half the Ford hourly and salaried U.S. employees. Harvard Business School professor, Josh Lerner, says there is a tendency to do a lot of fuzzy math in these figures. Muro points to the need to set large expectations for short term political calculations. The Energy Department's own figures show 20 "green tech"companies won loans so far under this project by negotiating with the Energy Department. If these companies hire the people they agreed to they would hire 8,050 new permanent workers. Only 10 of these companies have created or saved jobs so far. Of the other 10 some won loan approval only recently. The whole process is time consuming. Even if the Energy Department were to create the 60,000 jobs under the revised estimate, each job saved or created would come at a cost of 640,000 dollars in loan guarantees. Using the figure of $19.3 billion disbursed 2 years into this program (half of the $38.6 billion) and 8,050 jobs created, would give a cost of $2.4 million in loan guarantees for each job created- an astoundingly high figure. Other factors to consider are the additional jobs created downstream by suppliers to these companies as the administration states, and the cost of loans if as in the case of Solyndra a company goes bankrupt. Solyndra received a loan of over $500 million and represents 3% of loan guarantees. The administration and Congress assumed a failure rate of 5-10% for this program. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Galston of the Brookings Institution says globalization has hurt workers in manufacturing with job losses and declining incomes. It has produced outcomes that have favored some industries such as tech, and not others such as automobiles which in the past helped create the broad middle class by offering good paying jobs to people with less than a college education. Immigration has created an issue that political leaders outside of the main parties have appealed to in France, the U.S. and Britain. The result is a polarization in the voters that has rarely been seen to this extent before. The middle class in the period from the 1950's to the 1980's is not the middle class that we see today in Europe and the U.S. The 2008 financial crisis added to the problems with the slow and uncertain recovery for some groups such as white men, the less educated, students, and people on minimum wage. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Krueger and Posner, eminent economists, say the reason wages have stagnated in the U.S. with wages not having budged much over a decade 2008-2018, is not only because of globalization and automation as long term trends. They attribute this stagnation in wages to "monopsony power," or power American corporations have over workers because of their stronger bargaining position and because workers have few alternatives.  For most of this period 2008-2018 high unemployment as reflected by the people out of work and taking part time jobs or having stopped looking for work, shifted bargaining power to companies. The Economist magazine pointed out that workers have not shared in the profit and gains corporations made during this period. Here Krueger and Posner show additional factors such as non compete clauses in worker agreements that have depressed wages. Half of franchise agreements prohibit competition for labor. Outsourcing work to other companies that hire workers means these outsourcing companies have more power over workers than the original companies using the labor. Unions represent only 7 percent of private sector workers by 2017, compared to 35 percent in the 1950's, so that there are no mechanisms to counteract the greater bargaining power gained by companies vs. workers. The way workers have roots in the communities they live and the consolidation of employers into a few companies in a particular area, mean fewer options exist for workers.  Senators Warren and Booker and the anti-trust division of the U.S. Justice Department are in agreement on this issue of widespread use of noncompete agreements that is considered unlawful, says this report in the NYT, offering hope for a solution to bring a better balance between the rights of workers to fair wages and companies seeking profit for stakeholders. Issues about workers, lack of gains for workers, prevalent outsourcing, and the frustrations of labor with parties that had lost touch with their worker base- such as Labor in Britain, SPD in Germany, Socialist Party in France and the Democratic Party in the U.S. - have led to political upsets with support shifting to other parties. This has not led to significant change to improve bargaining power of workers to correct the imbalance that now exists between labor and companies, leading to calls for change. Eric Posner is a law professor at the University of Chicago law school and co-author of a new book "Radical Markets: uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society." This book turns the popular notion on its head that free markets have produced the imbalances that hurt social cohesion and democracy, by saying it is precisely the suppression of free competition such as for labor that have created this unhealthy situation. This is true in other areas where monopoly power has developed in other parts of the U.S and European economies in 2008-2018, as also for distortions in capital allocation that hurt infrastructure and other public investment. Krueger is a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors in 2011 under Obama, showing that Democrats themselves failed to correct this imbalance leading to a shift to other parties and Mr. Trump, who also appear to lack ideas or solutions to this problem that affects social cohesion and democracy. This is contrary to the vision of American or European society of better opportunity for all shared by all Americans and Europeans for most of the twentieth century. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chancellor Merkel meets President Trump in a key summit in March 2017. The two leaders have different styles, one flamboyant the other reserved. Chancellor Merkel tells the German media "it is better to talk with each other than about each other." Trump called Merkel's refugee policy "catastrophic," Merkel has said that the Geneva convention requires countries to do this on humanitarian grounds. On trade German's Economy minister Brigitte Zypries says Germany would file a suit on any hike in import duties at the World Trade Organization, that WTO rules restrict import taxes to 2.5% on autos. Germany's BMW plant in the U.S. exports more autos than GM and Ford put together, and Merkel is likely to emphasize large German investment in the U.S.. The heads of BMW and Siemens and other industry executives are accompanying Merkel to the U.S. as trade will be a key topic.

LyrArc Article Gist
The recent appointment of fast food executive Andrew Puzder as Labor Secretary has caused great concern among union leaders. Puzder supports a $9 minimum wage compared to $15 supported by Democrats. Unions now represent 7% of the labor force, down from a high of 20% during Reagan's time when Reagan appointed a construction company executive as Labor Secretary and cut regulations.  Globalization has thinned the ranks of workers in unions. And the failure of Democratic administrations to stem the shift of factories overseas to China, Mexico and other places, as part of global supply chains focussed on cost, has weakened Democratic support among workers since the period of Bill Clinton. It eroded to the point where Obama won 65% of support among unions and Hillary Clinton won 56% in 2016. Interestingly the Republican Romney gained 33% versus 37% for Trump, showing voters were more inclined to move away from Democrats and only a smaller number willing to support Republicans, but the shift enough to give Republicans a win in 2016 for the presidency. The figures are from a Election Day survey of trade union AFL-CIO, and a larger proportion in midwestern states showed disaffection with policies from Clinton to Obama. In fact Obama spent years promoting another free trade agreement TPP that favored tech more than auto and older industries, just as Bill Clinton had promoted NAFTA, without giving thought to what this was doing to its worker base of support. A similar situation happened with Social Democrats in Germany as a SPD administration moved to the centre and handed Christian Democrats led by Merkel a win in parliamentary elections. As Democrats such as former Labor Secretary Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley who served under Bill Clinton, describe the problems of working class people their is less reflection on the impact of the changes from globalization and how Democrats handled or mishandled it, and more on the politics between the two parties.   ...