LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton attacks Trump's policies in an address in Warren, Michigan, saying this was another version of failed trickle down economics. She called Trump's idea of taxing pass through entities such as small business reporting business income on individual tax returns at 15%, as a "Trump loophole." On trade policy Hillary Clinton said she would oppose the TPP or Trans- Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement that president Obama has supported. She put it flatly- " I oppose it now. I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president." And pointed out that too many companies have moved jobs overseas and "moved operations overseas and sold back into the U.S." after pushing for trade deals. The answer she said 'is not to rant and rave- or to cut us off from the world," in reference to protectionist policies Trump has supported. 

LyrArc Article Gist
 Donald trumps economic plan would worsen the country's economy through extravagant borrowing and lower economic growth in the long run. Because it lowers taxes by 15 percent without any paired cuts Trump's plan would worsen the deficit, so that large debt would hurt the economy in the long run. Clinton's plan would increase taxes by 4  percent largely on high incomes so as not to hurt consumer spending, with paired spending to help lower income households. Because Trump's tax cuts benefits go disproportionately to higher incomes the benefits in terms of consumer spending are slight or insignificant. In the current state of weak income gains of the last ten years it would take some time for the middle and working class to recover. Clinton's plan carefully nudges that recovery forward without aggravating the debt, so that as incomes and net worth recovers across broad parts of the population, the U.S. is poised to go forward with strong growth as in the postwar years. Trump's plan frontloads tax benefits to higher incomes at the expense of worsening debt and enlarging future debt. In the process it worsens income disparities already aggravated by the 2008 financial crisis. Reducing the chances of a broad based recovery for all parts of the population, necessary for a strong recovery.                       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A survey of 414 National Association of Business Economics (NABE) economists shows Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson with 15%, overtaking Trump at 14% on who would best manage the economy. On protectionist views only 9% support this. 15% said they have no opinion and 55% said Hillary Clinton would do the best job of managing the economy. About 62% say the election uncertainty is holding back growth. Some aspects of Hillary Clinton's economic plan are the $275 billion infrastructure investment over 10 years, taking action against companies that ship jobs overseas, a capital gains tax paln that encourages long term investments, supporting $15 minimum wage, making upward mobility a top priority, providing government financed access to public colleges for working class and lower income groups. Donald Trump's plan has suffered form lack of specifics, shifting comments, lack of careful study, and excessive use of slogans. Both candidates oppose trade agreements that shift jobs overseas. Trump's plan also suffers from lack of credibility overseas as this is important in a global business structure, with fears of protectionism increasing. and reminding people of the protectionism under Smoot-Hawley that increased the damage from the depression of the thirties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Asked about it yesterday January 16 DJT tells the press outside the White House after a meeting announcing his Great Healthcare Plan, it is a good thing that Canada has signed a trade deal with China. It reflects the new view not clearly understood or told in the press what US trade policy is about. US trade policy in 2026 is about bringing investment and jobs back to the US to rebuild communities and towns across 51 states- once destroyed by the foolish trade policies of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama 3 destructive policy decades. Supplementing this with the investment favorable policy of instant depreciation for investments in plant and equipment in the Big Beautiful Bill of 2025. Using tariffs to level the playing field and ensure fairness in business practices by industries and nations towards America after over 3 decades all else has failed. All the time protecting Rural America, and communities and towns across the US devastated by outshoring. Using Tariffs to make certain that drug and migrant trafficking, and hostile unelected governments in the western Hemisphere cannot take place with direct and  indirect intervention in the western hemisphere by foreign powers. To do this with the Monroe Doctrine Corollary set by Teddy Rooosevelt in his Annual Message to Congress of 1905- "A great free people owes it to itself and to all mankind not to sink into helplessness before the powers of evil." Under such a policy Canada can pursue trade deals with China as the US has done. The clear rationale for the US policy is nowhere evident in the press today, how trade and domestic policy and foreign policy converge to protect all Americans, even though this was something that was pursued under the Biden administration with mistakes made in handing the Border management to Mayorkas and Harris incompetence. In the use of Tariffs doing this in such a way that US economic interest, investments, capital and stock markets are protected by carving out areas of exemptions in the policy. This has given the US an highly advantageous use of Tariff policy in ways not reflected in the press version of Tariffs. As TR pointed out, as Lincoln pointed out over a century ago, the interests of both Labor and of Capital are both legitimate and vital for the Nation. It is time to see this as one whole and not separate to rebuild America.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides an excellent summary of the positions of the candidates in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 on key issues, education, healthcare, immigration, taxes, national debt, infrastructure spending, and economic growth. Clinton is clear on specifics, Trump has not made clear the details of policies and talks in general terms. On immigration the 2 candidates are far apart, on issues of infrastructure Clinton plans a $275 billion effort to repair the country's infrastructure and Trump says he would make a big effort. On taxes Clinton plans to pay for spending with higher taxes on the rich. Trump says he would provide huge tax cuts, yet make large infrastructure spending without clarifying how this would be done with sharply lower taxes. Both candidates oppose the TPP and oppose trade agreements that lead to loss of U.S. jobs.

LyrArc Article Gist
Trump says he supports the House Republican tax plan for three brackets 12%, 25% and 33%. In his earlier proposal Trump has supported a top rate of 25%. He made these comments, including support for deducting childcare costs, in a speech at the Economic Club of Detroit. Trump did not repeat a call for repealing Dodd-Frank bank supervision legislation. Clinton was critical of Trump's economic team of business people from hedge funds and the real estate industry, saying this was another example of "trickle down economics,"  for giving  "super big tax breaks to large corporations." Michigan has not voted Republican since 1988, and the auto industry rescue was organized by president Obama, a point heavily advertised in the 2012 presidential campaign. Romney had opposed the rescue effort, and during the 2012 campaign the WSJ reports say  Trump called the bailout of automakers a mistake because of expansion overseas.

LyrArc Article Gist
Miller compares the situation president Clinton faced in 1995, with Republican calls to balance the budget in 7 years, to the situation president Obama faces with Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's plan in 2013 for a balanced budget in 10 years. Clinton decided to ignore his economc advisors and go with a balanced budget plan leading to the economic recovery that followed.

LyrArc Article Gist
One commentator in Norway says "an entire state apparatus has played bankrupt" with Norway's international reputation. British and Norwegian Royals Sarah Ferguson divorced wife of Prince Andrew,  Princess Mette-Marit of Norway, and the Epstein Files showing messages exchanged with Epstein even after much of his history was known, show a lack of judgement that reflects badly on Britain's establishment, on Norway's establishment. There are media reports of Mandelson, Starmer's UK ambassador to US of having sent messages to Epstein on matters relating to confidential plans of the government to sell state assets and about policy influence under a previous Labour administration.This suggests to people in Britain that Labour has failed to appoint people of integrity to important positions. Before Rutte of the Netherlands took over as head of NATO, the head of NATO Stoltenberg for 10 years was from Norway. The total population of Norway of 5.5 million is less than the population of the Houston region. Should it exercise such an important role in the affairs of Europe much less of the world? It was under Stoltenberg's appointment in 2014 as head of NATO after losing an election in Norway, with Merkel and Obama's support, that gradually changed the perception of NATO as too close to Russia's borders so that by 2019 when Covid took place the situation deteriorated in Europe beyond recognition. Russia and China joined together and Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 with Stoltenberg in a role in NATO that reflected more the British view of NATO than how DJT and other Republican leaders perceived NATO. As America turns this chapter of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years of failed politics in which US lost control in its own backyard to drug trafficking gangs in Mexico and Venezuela, conducted wars in remote deserts and mountains in the Middle East, and lost its economic position to China, turned over NATO to  politicians who followed a British view of hostility to Russia that did not reflect the American view of working in cooperation with Russia, China and other major powers, this appointment of Stoltenberg a figure in the Norway establishment may be seen as another failure of the Merkel/Obama years. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Trade is just one aspect of the Biden Economic plan. It covers US manufacturing and jobs, Climate Change Action and Renewable Energy, Cost of Living and Wages for workers, Interest rates and inflation, and Capital Allocation with government partnering with the private sector in key industries such as electric cars, solar panels. It has the overwhelming support of most Americans- seven out of 10 Americans favor it polls show. What is described here in the Washington Post as a change from decades of trade policy since Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Obama, is also a response to the loss of key midwestern states by Democrats to Trump in thepresidential election of 2016, and the upheavals for democracy that Biden calls the struggle for the soul of the nation on the White House website. Biden is simply saying that the old policies were a mistake, a huge mistake, and Biden is correcting the Trump response which was loud but lacked the substance that is in the Biden plan through capital allocation in size and government actions to back this up. In this move he now has the support of both Democrats and Republicans. As Greg Ip has pointed out in the WSj no one during the Clinton administration when it engaged China with the World Trade Organization on trade imagined China would replace America as the dominant nation in manufacturing, the size and th scale also affected the climate, the environment in China, and created huge inequalities in the US and China that both nations are trying to correct, Biden in the US and Xi in China. It could even be said these policies were a failure because the size and scale simply overwhelmed everything else with growth rates in China of 12-14%, and the fallout in the near collapse of the economy in the years ahead from hypergrowth.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides a fact check of Trump statements on crime, debt, and taxes. Trump says he is looking at a new plan for taxes not the $10 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years reducing tax collection by 22%, but something about a third of the size. No details are available on the plan. WSJ disputes Trump's statement that the U.S. is "one of the highest taxed nations in the world." WSJ points out that the U.S. in 2014 for federal, state and local government taxes collected 26% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared to average of 34% for about 30 countries, according to OECD. Debt to GDP ratio is about 75% that is high, but because of low interest rates the budget deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is close to the long run average. For this reason economists say the government should invest in infrastructure and R&D that supports long run economic growth. On crime the record is mixed with increase in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, but decreases in Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Police shootings were 67 in 2016 compared to 62 in July 2015, and the high being 280 officers in 1974 when Nixon was President. Crime was an issue in the 1968 Republican National Convention during the Vietnam era protests, police shootings and terror incidents attracted attention in July 2016, yet the situation today is very different from the war protests of the Vietnam era. On terrorism fact checks by the NYT and in Lyrarc shows Clinton at State Department and Panetta at Defense Department taking hawkish stands only to hit a barrier from President Obama for taking action needed in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Panetta's new book calls for robust action where needed. A Clinton administration would take action with allies in the Middle East. Even Hollande and Obama who pulled the U.S. and France out of following up in the French-British Sarkozy-Cameron led intervention in Libya, have changed policy, with Obama calling it his biggest mistake. France under Hollande with the U.S. is now actively engaged in the Middle East, having changed policy. It is highly unlikely that a Trump led policy which alienates most allies in the Middle East- Iran, Iraq and Saudis- is likely to work better than a determined Clinton-Panetta led effort which has support of the local countries on the ground actually currently on both sides because of complexities of Middle Eastern politics.  On trade a new administration will still have to work with China, India, the European Union, and other countries, as global trade supply chains are not likely to evolve overnight. Lessons will have been learned by Clinton about the need to bring back jobs and ensure the strength of U.S. manufacturing. Economic and jobs growth will require prudence in strengthening U.S. manufacturing coupled with global cooperation, which a Trump administration that alienates trading partners without the possibility of making any serious immediate gains in jobs, is highly unlikely to do better.      ...

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
During the primaries Trump appealed to blue collar voters of a white working class that felt neglected by leaders and policies of both parties that did not seem to work for ordinary people. Having caught onto this early long before Republican candidates, Trump registered a series of wins in the Republican primaries. He continued this theme in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016, saying- "The forgotten men and women of our country- people who work but no longer have a voice: I am your voice." The idea was to couple this with the theme of law and order and put perception of Hillary Clinton as part of the rigged system of the past that Trump would change, with Clinton's legacy described in terms of "death, destruction, terrorism and weakness." As a change agent Trump described his entering the political arena in terms of coming into this election only to help blue collar people "so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves." The two themes for the rest of the election season- law and order, and blue collar lives- and who can best defend them a traditional Democratic politician with a fighting spirit for traditional Democratic values, or a blustery newcomer adept with slogans and the public mood and ironically representing the Democratic values of representing the working class to become the  Republican nominee, with the law and order theme thrown in. The voter or independent listening in to all this will hopefully ask what all this means. As the WSJ, July 19, 2016, pointed out in a recent look at economc policies under the two candidates- on Glass Steagall Act being reinstated to increase safety of the banking system that caused many of today's problems through the 2008 financial crisis both Trump and Clinton are similiar, on opposing trade agreements similiar except that Trump's bluster is a riskier approach, on infrastructure building similiar with Clinton's $275 billion plan spelled out out for source of financing and Trump's unclear as to source of financing. On immigration the candidates are different, on the minimum wage which impacts low income people Clinton supports $15 minimum wage and Trump has not taken a stand. On ISIS and the Middle East Clinton is in reality a hawk and not much difference in the candidates, on law and order more chance of divisions in the country with Trump than Clinton. Overall for the working class and blue collar voter his life will take a decade or more to rebuild, with both candidates commiting to go in that direction. And the bluster and ads to come- just that.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernie Sanders with 46% of the delegates, 13.4 million votes, 22 states, and many of the young people in the U.S. behind him, told a news reporter at his home in the final sprint two weeks before the election- he plans to see the major planks of the Democratic platform implemented. He said Clinton is progressive on a number of issues, but the platform is more progressive with upward mobility a critical concern. Sanders played a critical role in shaping the platform. He says he opposes someone from Wall Street in positions of Treasury Secretary, Trade Representative, and will make known his views who would be best in these positions, including Attorney General. Sanders is supported in the Senate by Senators Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, and Elizabeth Warren. Warren has campaigned with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and both support minimum wage, women's rights. WIth a win for Democrats in the Senate Sanders will become either the chairman of the Budget Committee, or with his preference chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. His main goal now is to see key economic Cabinet positions that affect upward mobility, intergenerational mobility, which is damaged today for the middle and working class, go to persons who would do the most to improve it.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Did U.S. Treaury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, ignore a key request by President Obama to present plans for the restructuring of Citigroup after the government bailout of Citigroup? Ron Suskind says this is what happened in his book on the Obama administration and how the White House operated to make key decisions. Ron Suskind, intervewed key members of the Obama White House economic policy team, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag. In all Suskind conducted 700 hours of interviews for his new book in Sept 2011: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President." According to the book, in early 2009 after Obama authorized a series of stress tests for banks he told Geithner to develop a plan for restructuring Citigroup. A month later at a meeting not attended by Geithner Obama raised a question about the status of the plan. He was told by Romer that no restructuring plan had been developed for Citi. Suskind says Geithner disagreed about a plan to restructure Citi and decided to ignore the request. Geithner and the Treasury Department say Obama asked Geithner to develop a backup plan to overhaul banks if the government was forced to keep a big ownership stake in the companies, and "there was fortunately never a need to put them in place." Geithner told Suskind that he doesn't slow-walk the President on any matter. Other aspects of the operation of the economic policy team that Suskind covers are a series of memos from top aide Pete Rouse raising questions that ongoing communication between some members of the economic team and Summers was giving Summers power to shape policy. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, is shown as trying to keep out the views of Romer and budget director Orszag from reaching the President without going through him. When Orszag gives a private report to the president on the deficit, Summers objects saying that this was immoral. Obama lacked the fresh ideas needed to tackle the problems created by the mortgage and banking crisis of 2008, when he used the Clinton administration economic policy team of the 1990's- Rubin, Bernanke, Summers and Geithner. Fresh approaches were needed two decades after Clinton's election in 1992, and the Bush administration that followed, as many of the problems developed during this period. The similiar embedded thinking was shared during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the economic advisors about dealings with the banking sector, but the situation for deficits, unemployment, housing, and the economy had completely changed requiring fresh approaches. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden signs a broad executive order on July 9, that is directed at promoting competitive behaviour in the American economy, and taking action against companies that have anti competitive behaviours. It also aims to limit corporate dominance that then can lead to anti competitive behaviours. These types of behaviours puts consumers, workers and small compoanies at a disadvantage. The Biden plan stretches from the smaller items such as hearing aids and baggage fees, to the task of putting in place the first antitrust regulation on tech companies Apple, Google, Amazon and others. Industries Biden sees as needing help are agriculture, healthcare, shipping, transportation, technology, and labor practices that limit wages and mobility. In making the executive order the White House says it "will lower prices for families, increase wages for workers and promote innovation and even faster economic growth." As each step is taken by the Biden administration to help workers, families, women and children, the situation is a reminder of the actions taken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt at another period of crisis in the nation's history. The July 9 executive order will create a Competition Council as proposed by Tim Wu, special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy in the White House National Economic Council. The Compeititon Council task will be to get federal agencies to take action to promote competitive behaviours for the first time since the 1980's when Republican presidents Reagan, Bush, and Democratic presidents Clinton, Obama, allowed such behaviours in some industries to get entrenched. In Biden's own words "the rise of monopolies weaken labor." In each industry agencies will now have the task of pushing back against anti-competitive behaviours already put in place by companies. In agriculture it will help small farmers, in pharmaceutical sector it will help the American people deal with a problem that has no end in sight of high drug prices and practices that support this. In all areas of the economy the Biden plan is for a new coordinated effort across all the agencies of the government and under the leadership of the president, to restore the vibrant economy to what it was before the long deterioration through anti-competitive behaviours. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial on the sliding scale with lower capital gains taxes for investments held for a longer time frame proposed by Hillary Clinton, says there is no economic theory that shows one or two year investments are worse than longer term investments, and says investors who invest in startups and cash in after a year or two can then invest in other startups increasing investment capital. It points out that new startups are fostered better in an environment where capital gains taxes do not promote holding investments for a longer term. Hillary Clinton is calling for higher capital gains taxes on shorter term investments. The current rate is similiar to the 20% rate under Bill Clinton. George Bush lowered it to 15%, and president Obama increased this to 20% for couples earning more than $484,851 a year, and added a surcharge of 3.8%. Under Reagan it was initally 20% in 1981 and in 1987 as part of tax reform cutting the top income tax rate to 28%, it was 28%. Hillary Clinton's plan is for it to be based on how long investors hold their investment discouraging 1-3 year investment horizons- Year 2- 43.4%, Year 3- 39.8%, Year 4- 35.8%, Year 6- 23.8% or the current rate for the highest income bracket. Investments in infrastructure and long term research projects leading to new technologies and products require a longer horizon encouraging such investments. The Clinton plan appears to be a response to the tech bubble with investments in small tech changes and software improvements that have led to surging investment in startups in social media and other areas which have not yielded the productivity gains needed to support increase in wages- resulting in low productivity and low wage gains in the last decade....

LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton's estate tax plan would increase the estate taxes on the largest estates from 40% today and her proposed 45% to the higher figure of 65% proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders. Compared to the current $5.45 million exemption only the first $3.5 million would be exempt from estate tax for individuals ($7 million for a married couple). The top rate of 65% would apply to individuals with over $500 million. Beyond $10 million a 50% rate, and beyond $50 million a 55% rate.

The latest proposal adds $260 billion over 10 years adequate to pay for simplified small business taxes, and for expanding child tax credit.  Over 10 years Clinton would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion to pay for expanded education assistance, paid family leave and other programs. She would increase federal revenue by 4% and have the burden fall on only a small portion of households.

LyrArc Article Gist
Much of the information Friedman says comes from Ruchir Sharma could be seen through simple observation. By the time it is written about so much has already happened. For example Tech firms crowding out innovative new firms starting from scratch is happening since 2000, from the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. By the time the concept makes it into the economics textbooks many years later it is obsolete. In economics textbooks of the eighties crowding out referred to governments crowding out private firms in the competition for capital. Concepts of comparitive advantage in economics textbooks were similarly obsolete when Japanese and Chinese competition in the last three decades brought into play a very different model of competition of subsidized private and state run companies focussed on dominating key industries that never made it into textbook economics and theories of experts. Comparitive advantage theory in textbooks were too simplistic not able to account for real life situations in which a determined national competitor could move up the ladder every few years in sophistication and technology to compete in products at many levels. The old textbooks simply said Portugal would make wine because it had some advantages and America with its advantages in steel production would make steel. This kind of theory put many people to sleep as other nations took over American markets- first steel, then electronics, then telecom, and then renewable energy. To protect American workers Robert Lighthizer and other American negotiators of trade with China, Japan, South Korea, used their own head and observation of what was happening. This was a better guide to the best response to protect American workers. Doing what makes sense, doing what works for final delivery point to the intended beneficiary, the American worker, or European worker, or Indian worker, provides a better way to get things done.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winning economist points out an astonishing fact about the 2016 U.S. presidential election- U.S. television networks nightly news devoted only 32 minutes in 2016 to all policy issues combined. And these networks devoted 100 minutes to Clinton emails. He calls this "disgraceful."  For weeks at a time in September and October the main television networks lacked the integrity and courage to ask questions and persist on the major questions facing the country of the economy, correcting income distribution that has been skewed away from the middle and working class, infrastructure rebuilding, education and healthcare, and what the policy proposals of each candidate would do for the country. Krugman does not mention this but the media devoted hardly any time to the economic plan devised by Trump that respected economists and economic analysis showed would increase the deficit by $5.3 trillion, and lead to a short term temporary increase in growth followed by a sharp decline. The worst thing that could happen to middle and working class families struggling to recover from the blow to their finances from the last recession.  The cyber hacking of a U.S. presidential election by a foreign power never received the unanimous rejection that it deserved from the television networks, not just Fox News as Krugman points out, but by all the networks. The future landscape of the media needs assessment to bring in new ideas and new entrants to bring constructive improvements, and for older media organizations to rebuild after the loss of confidence among young people. Only about a quarter of young people in the U.S. have confidence in the large media organizations news coverage according to surveys done recently. There are other pressures coming from the tech world that make it imperative to do this. Many experts point to the destructive effect of social media in spreading rumors or information disguised as facts, which are spread instantly by Twitter and Facebook, without any obligation to check the facts. This is also dangerous with a public that is now divided between better educated and less educated along political lines, older more settled in their views people, and younger people quicker in looking for the facts and checking things out before believing them. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...