World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


WSJ Original article ›
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.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In a 50-50 Senate to pass president Biden's $3.6 trillion Families and Workers plan requires the vote of Kyrsten Simema, Democrat of Arizona. Simema is the lone holdout in the plan to raise $540 billion by increasing corporate tax rates to pay for part of the plan. Tax rate increases on capital gains would raise nearly $300 billion. A law passed by president Trump lowered corporate tax rates to 21% which would go up to 26.5% under the Biden plan. The top individual rate lowered to 37% would go up to 39.6% and capital gains rate from 23.8% to 28.8% under the Biden plan. Democrats say these new rates are fair considering how much wealth distribution is skewed and how much workers and families have failed to benefit in the policies pursued by different administrations since Reagan, through Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump.

WSJ Original article ›
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.                       ...
WSJ Original article ›
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. ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In the third and final debate of the 2016 U.S. presidential election Hillary Clinton shows she has mastered the techniques used by Trump to use short jabs and comments to unsettle her opponent, yet doing it in a meaningful way to make a point about how she is better qualified and her program helps the middle and working class.

On taxes she added to her plan about not increasing taxes for people making more than $250,000, with the comment that it would increase her and Trump's taxes provided she said Trump hasn't "figured out how to get out of it." It also was meant to draw Trump's response about not revealing his tax returns and plans to give hugely disproportionate tax cuts to higher income people. Trump called her "a nasty women," in response, which was a point cited by media reports as a negative for women voters.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
For the approaching US midterm elections president Biden seeks to draw a sharp contrast with Republican Senator Rick Scott's Plan which he says would worsen inflation and increase taxes on working class families. Mr. Scott's plan is for sunset on all federal legislation and president Biden says this would include Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Scott also wants all Americans to pay some income tax to have skin in the game. At this time about half of all Americans pay no taxes says Mr. Scott. Former US president Trump continues to lead the Republican party in 2022  yet he faces a very different Democratic party under president Biden. Mr. Biden's focus is on his $2 trillion plan for Workers and Families, rebuilding American manufacturing and renewing supply chains, unlike Hillary Clinton whose lacked such a focus. Leading to Mr. Trump's appeal with working class families and disdain for traditional Republican policies that secured him the presidency in 2018 by defeating Hillary Clinton. The changes with president Biden's focus on workers and families are happening also in the European Union. Scholz and the Greens in Germany, Macron in France with potentially Melenchon as prime minister, and similar changes in Denmark and other EU countries suggest that there is a renewed focus on infrastructure, rebuilding manufacturing and supply chain renewal, rebuilding incomes and lives of workers and families, in Europe and the US. ...
WSJ Original article ›
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.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sorkin discusses the speech made by Hillary Clinton at NYU's Stern School of Business on her capital gains tax plan to encourage long term investing by giving the current tax break of 23.8% tax on capital gains for the highest tax bracket only in year 6 following the investment. Black Rock CEO Fink is one of the supporters of delaying the current capital gains tax - his proposal was to treat capital gains favorably only after 3 years, and then decrease the tax rate on a sliding scale for each year following. Sorkin says the Clinton and Fink proposals come at a time when a useful discussion can take place on this issue to provide the right kind of incentives to investors, CEO's and their boards of directors. Hillary Clinton was clear about her proposal's intent- to support "outside investors who want ot build companies," and to disincentivize "cut-and-run shareholders."
WSJ Original article ›
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.      ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The two front runners among Democrats in the campaign for President in the U.S. are building their lead on the basis of programs to reduce inequality and build the social fabric. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren support a program of Medicare For All. This program is a single payer program run by the government so that medical costs can be cut by the government directly negotiating cuts, which would reduce some of the cost.The WSJ looks at the ways this can be financed at a cost of between $11 trillion over a decade. Programs of less extensive coverage  in Medicare for All excluding undocumented workers and having individuals share some costs would cost this much, according to some experts.The gap would be financed by taxes such as that on Medicare currently. Sanders additional tax premium would be 7.5% paid by employers and 4% by employees. About $1 trillion is generated by each percentage point of taxes over a decade says CBO, so that a combined 11.5%  tax would cover Medicare for All. Alternatives or some combination would include this with taxes on the wealthy. Tax hikes on wealth, income and financial transactions would generate $11 trillion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget. Currently a majority favors a Medicare for All plan, and this support could grow as people understand that it would be progressive and reduce the burden on the middle class by shifting some of the burden to the wealthier in society in today's economy, where much of the increase in wealth over the last 3 decades has gone to upper income people. Much more so in the U.S. than in Europe creating a tear in the social fabric and disaffection with Democrats, who in earlier administrations from Clinton to Obama failed to maintain the gains made under FDR, Truman and Kennedy. This has led to a Republican administration under president Trump that won over disaffected Democrats but hope to merley to maintain the status quo. Warren is trying to change this with bold social programs that fit today's needs and circumstances. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Matt Miller, a former Clinton aide, says both U.S. parties have failed to do serious problem solving. The reason is that both are looking primarily for election advantage and are not interested in blending the best of liberal and conservative thinking. He even goes so far as to say both parties don't trust the public enough to lay out all the facts openly and explain what action needs to be taken. This is clearly true in one of many examples- the way Clinton advisor Bowles and Republican Senator Simpson took up the job of coming up with a deficit reduction plan looking at things from all angles, and laying out all the facts. Contrast that with the way a Democratic president Obama shied away from openly discussing Bowles-Simpson's closing of most tax expenditures as a key a part of a new action plan. Republican leaders Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, instead of seriously challenging the Democrats to take up the Bowles-Simpson or Rivlin-Domenici proposals, focussed their attention on defunding the government unless certain conditions were met. Serious debates and discussion that should have taken place to arrive at a consensus never took place, eroding the credibility of politicians of both parties, as Miller points out. The failure of leadership brings America back to its roots in community organizing through independent intitiative at all levels for crucial problem-solving discussion. This is the way to arrive at a consensus of what needs to be done for renewing America....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's 2017 budget is an effort to reshape spending priorities by the Republican party. Apart from Medicare and Social Security all other entitlement programs from the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are subject to cuts. Deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, including introducing work requirements. The philosophy behind it is that compassion will now be measured not by how large these programs are but by how much the government can get people "off these programs and back in charge of their lives,"  according to Budget Director Mulvaney.  The cuts are $616 billion to Medicaid and Children's Health programs, $193 billion in cuts to Food Stamps, $143 billion in student loans, $72 billion in disability programs. The overhaul of the Affordable Health Care Act is part of this change. The reallocation would put more money into infrastructure for $200 billion, and in tax cuts, $19 billion in a parental leave program and $29 billion for veterans programs, plus added spending on the military. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Republican who worked on budget issues says it will be politically difficult as the cuts to lower income groups come with tax cuts for small businesses and higher income individuals.  Beyond the policy priorities there is an area where both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical of the budget. This is how it impacts the U.S. debt. Under Congressional Budget Office estimates the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP which rose to about 75% after the Great Recession starting in 2008, is projected to grow to about 85%. In sharp contrast the Trump administration estimates of the Office of Management and Budget are for it to drop to 65% based on rosier estimates of 2% inflation, 3% growth for the decade ahead. Experts say this is unlikely once the Fed raises interest rates and the unemployment rate currently at 4.4% leads to rising inflation, undercutting growth which has remained below 2% for a long period. These concerns are also voiced by Hilsenrath in the WSJ based on the experience of other countries such a Britain that cut corporate taxes without seeing an uptick in economic growth. ...
WSJ Original article ›
BBC News Original article ›
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Five US Treasury Secretaries talk about their plan to fix tax evasion- no questions answered why they did not fix it when they were in office going back in the years of presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton. These were lost decades for American infrastructure and neglected American manufacturing supply chains. It will take years to repair that damage.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ cautions about thinking that the GDP growth of 3% is likely to be achieved with the Trump plan for a corporate tax rate of 15%. He says evidence from Britain and Canada- Britain reducing the tax rate from 30% in 2007 to 19% today, and Canada from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2004- is disappointing. In Britain the increase in GDP averaged about 0.1% a year. Business investment increases with cut in corporate taxes, and the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than other advanced countries such as Germany, yet GDP growth includes other factors, such as the business cycle, demographics, productivity growth, aging, technology, regulation, says Ip. It is better if the tax cuts are spread broadly over the population, and tax cuts are offset to a greater extent by savings in other areas, and that tax cuts promote productivity boosting investment, to create enough of a surge in growth above 2%.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Bernie Sanders tells his supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia that "immediately right now, we have got to defeat Donald Trump, and we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine." He says this campaign was not about just electing a president but about transforming the country. And for this he was planning to back about 100 candidates with similiar thinking across the U.S. He called on supporters to continue the campaign for social, economic, racial and environmental justice. Voters for Sanders were offended by the information shown in DNC email leaks of the bias against Sanders shown by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has since resigned.

The New York Times Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This may be the most important work of the DJT administration by 2027 into 2028 elections.  WSJ calls it the soda wars, when it is the slow destruction of America. As JFK and RFK well knew when they made fitness a goal for America in 1960- health is not built on sodas. Today with such high obesity, sodas and its likes, it is about the slow destruction of America.  MALA make America Live Again starts here. “When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children, who perhaps need something more nutritious?” Right now it is the biggest item for schools in most states for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan. Passed by Congress in 1964 the original bill for SNAP excluded sodas and luxury drinks, but had Sodas added back in by the Senate. By lobbyists even in 1964? SNAP schools program falls under the Agriculture Department. Democrats as well as Republicans appointed Agriculture Secretaries and not one took the action to get sodas excluded, to let states request sodas be excluded and approve it, not the Democrat a Carter, a Clinton, or an Obama, or a Republican a Reagan, a Bush, or a Trump (first term) took the necessary action. In 2025 Brooke Rollins is Agriculture Department Secretary. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee has seen the damage sodas can cause in her family. Rollins on her first day in office has finally acted- after 61 years when the original intentions of the SNAP bill's creators were confounded in the Senate.  On her first full day in office, urging them to propose pilot programs testing changes to food aid. Rollins sent governors a letter to ask for the removal of sodas from schools food aid program.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff under President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, former senator from Wyoming, say the U.S. Supercommittee members should remember that their personal priorities and the common good are not at odds. The authors of the Bowles-Simpson Presidents Commission for deficit reduction say there is growing discontent among voters with politicians who are obsessed with gaining partisan advantage. Using issues of national importance that require a common approach from all parties as a way to score political points will only backfire on these politicians. Personal priorities of members of Congress are now no longer at odds with the common good, they are converging. It is upto the Congress, members of both parties, to push back against the special interests and partisan politics, and show leadership on the deficit. The eurozone crisis has shown the dire consequences of any sluggishness or procrastination. The failure of the political class and leadership in Italy and Greece, and in other nations of the EU, has put the fate of these countries in the hands of markets, which have relentlessly pushed up the borrowing rates of Greece, Italy, Spain and other countries, and taken future direction out of the hands of politicians. Erskine and Bowles say don't wait for a fiscal crisis to take action because it will be disastrous economically and politically, with everyone as losers and no winners. Timidity is not an option, leadership is required to take action that is big and broad, tackling tax expenditures, entitlement expenditures, defense, across the board....
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us