LyrArc Article Gist
India will allow automobile imports at 10% duty instead of 110%, allowing 250,000 EU automobiles into the Indian market, as part of the deal that benefits Germany. Tariff on European wines will go down from 150% to 20-40%. Duties on olive oil and processed food such as pasta and chocolates will go down to zero, which will benefit Italy, and Switzerland. A labor mobility agreement will let professional workers and seasonal workers from India into EU and EU to India. New talks will bring India into the EU's Horizon Research Programme.

It will double EU exports to India by 2032 over 6 years when it is implemented starting in 2027. An astonishing 97% of traded goods are included for cutting or eliminating tariffs. It will save EU 4 billion euros in duties, says the EU. Tariffs are cut on a vast arrayof industrial products- iron and steel (India benefits) chemicals, plastics, pharmaceuticals (India benefits) and machinery (Germany benefits).

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany realizes that it had some advantages in exporting automobiles and machinery to the US, and the EU understands advantages it has in pharmaceuticals exports from Ireland and other countries. EU officials rarely mention this lack of an even playing field with the US. In this report by DW.com German and Austrian research groups say it is best that the EU nor respond to tariffs placed on the EU by the US. Under the 90 day pause to allow time to start negotiations the EU tariff is at 10%, with separate tariff on steel and aluminium, and on car exports. It shows the EU makes loud protests about the US Tariffs, yet knows the need for an even playing field in 2025. The EU and Germany are likely to join other nations Japan, South Koreea, Taiwan, Italy, Britain and seek negotiations with the US for fairness in trade.

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a two week period before the 25% tariff on steel coming into the U.S. goes into effect. This gives time for Canada, Mexico, the EU, Japan and other countries to come up with offers to negotiate or as with the EU come up with its own plan to put tariffs on some American goods. An exemption for Canada is supported by the United Steel Workers Union, as many American companies make steel across the borders. Canada sends the most steel and aluminium to the U.S. With the departure of Gary Cohn as economic advisor, Mr. Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative who pushed for the tariff plan becomes a trusted advisor to the President. Lighthizer is to be seen in Lyrarc pages as having consistently supported fair trade and protecting U.S. workers in these situations since his work in the Reagan administration. The other advisors who are ascendent are Peter Navarro, a trade expert, and Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary. Ross is an experienced business veteran in consolidation of steel and auto parts companies, who pushed for a moderate position to renegotiate NAFTA and convinced president Trump to pursue renegotiation instead of rejecting NAFTA following calls from president Nieto of Mexico and Trudeau of Canada. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is important to understand the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration because of the many misleading headlines. The new tariffs placed by the Trump administration on a list of 1300 imported products from China are for about $50 billion and targeted at high tech products in flat screen televisions, medical devices, aircraft parts and batteries, other high tech products that China hopes to get an edge over the U.S. under its "Made in China 2025" plan. China still enjoys a huge surplus with the U.S. This plan is intended to better manage the next phase of the competition with China as China seeks to get an edge in high tech products. The steel tariffs were targeted at China's buildup of surplus steel capacity in the last 2 decades, with little to do with the next phase of the competition globally between the U.S., the E.U. and China. This is a carefully planned move showing American resolve to be competitive in the high tech industries of the future. It will be followed by a comment period during which the administration will get feedback on product choices. A public hearing is set for May 15 in Washington, and companies can file objections till May 22. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
GM and Ford US International Trade Commission report in 2024 sees only about a 5% increase in prices for a 25% tariff in car imports into the US from EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico and China. With US production GM at 60% Ford at 80%, both companies are better positioned to shift production to the US following 25% tariff on cars imported into the US. GM also has the financial strength to invest in new auto plants in the US. Given a period of transition US companies are in a position to tap the added demand as more cars are made in the US.  Stellantis Stellantis formed from the merger of Chrysler, Fiat and Peugeot makes many of its cars overseas in Mexico and in the EU, and has considerable exposure. Toyota Toyota sales in 2024 were 2.3 million cars, with about 60% of the production in the US. Hyundai and Kia, Nissan Hyundai makes about 80% of the 840,000 cars it sells in the US in US plants. Hyundai plans to invest $21 billion in the US to make cars in the US including $5.8 billion for a steel plant in Louisiana. Other companies may follow Hyundai to Make in the USA. VW VW had plans for an expansion to make 590,000 cars. It has current  sales of about 400,000 cars in the US. Expansion at the Chattanooga plant or putting in another plant could help it make most of its cars in the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EU Japan South Korea face serious negotiations ahead, regardless of ITT ruling on May 28, 2025 saying the president did not have emergency powers. The ruling does not apply to sector by sector action by DJT just not across the board tariff of 50%. And the ruling is being appealed.  Initial analysis is that this does nothing to affect the US president's other options to use other legal authorites and laws, conduct sector by sector investigations of harm done to the US in unfair trade, take action on sector by sector basis on steel, semiconductors, autos, pharmaceuticals.  Another factor is that all are allies, EU and India is dependent on US for security cooperation, and Japan, South Korea are entirely US dependent on security. Japan also has a past history of unfair trade practices and the prime minister senior officials both understand the US need to rebuild manufacturing, and support this. This is also true of the UK which has completed it's trade negotiations and deal with the US, and sees the ITT or other actions as an internal matter for the US people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A 2024 Study by the International Trade Commission predicted that a 25% tariff on imports would reduce imports by almost 75 percent while increasing average prices in the US by about 5 percent.  As US companies have about half of the US auto market this would mean US auto manufacturers now have access to an additional 37 percent of the market by investing in auto plants in the US. US steel and aluminium plants will get additional investment to build these cars in the US. There is nothing new about this the US makers built plants in China. Germans, Japanese and Koreans took the US for stupid by keeping US cars out of their markets and thinking this could go on while by destroying US manufacturing it was  destroying America's middle class. It also gives the Germans BMW and VW, Subaru, the Japanese Toyota and Honda, Nissan, the South Koreans Kia and Hyundai, Chinese makers of EV's the option to Make in the USA and build plants invest in US manufacturing.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an interview with Columbia University economic historian Adam Tooze about the international trade and economic issues brought about by globalization. The rapid emergence of China in manufacturing and overcapacity in steel has led to action on steel tariffs by president Trump. Tooze is typical of opinion that sees action by Trump not as limited action to level the playing field  as proposed by Trade Representative for the U.S., Robert Lighthizer, but as reckless move on trade.  Lyrarc.com shows articles from the WSJ and NYT showing how opinion got to this point in the U.S., on Robert Lighthizer's views that the U.S. was not facing a level playing field, and  on how trade has hurt communities across the U.S. a long distance away from Silicon Valley. President Trump's views reflect a different perspective that says the U.S. has to balance the favorable situation obtained by China and the European Union through moves of its own to protect U.S. interests. Political commentary that the U.S. was starting a trade war is not supported by the facts showing China's response as muted and a willingness by China to negotiate a balanced trading relationship as its trade surplus with the U.S. continues to grow. The trade surplus is so large that the Trump moves do not tell the real story. They are likely to be overshadowed by the increasing value of the U.S. dollar leading to a continued favorable situation for Chinese exports and a larger trade surplus in 2018, regardless of Mr. Trump's action.  Trump's moves are more significant in other areas- limiting China's access to advanced technologies, with the European Union also taking the same action. This is now the new field of competition for the major world economies. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Many of Germany's industry leaders see an escalation of the trade disputes with the U.S. as counterproductive. They suggest negotiating is the best approach and staying calm. Also rejected is reaching an agreement with president Trump at any cost.

LyrArc Article Gist
A shift in priorities away from focussing on high growth to lower sustainable growth was announced by China's premier Wen Jiabao at the National People's Congress, China's parliament, in March 2012. This shift will reduce investment in infrastructure, power generation and exports, which will affect the level of imports of commodities from commodity producing nations in the Middle East, Australia, Canada and Brazil. It should increase imports of software, computers, entertainment, tourism and high tech goods from the U.S. and Europe. Chinese leaders have said they would make this kind of shift for some years now but growth has consistently increased more than the target rate, and domestic consumption as a percentage of the economy has actually decreased in the last decade. Now 9-10% growth rates may be a thing of the past and the target of 7.5% set this year may be actually closer to the real figure. The Chinese leaders have belatedly realized the need to make these changes now because slowing markets in Europe -which is seeing declining growth and high unemployment- and in the U.S., make the issue impossible to avoid. Wen told the Congress: "Accelerating the transformation of the pattern of economc development... is both a long term task and our most pressing task at present... Domestically it has become more urgent but also more difficult... to alleviate the problem of unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable development." This is his way of saying that its unavoidable and better to start in earnest now, and at the same time recognizing the resistance to change from the stateowned companies and the other interests who have benefitted from surging growth, and now occupy a central role in the power structure. An opinion article in the People's Daily, China's official newspaper, said: "imperfect reforms are to be preferred to a crisis caused by no reforms." The World Bank's president Zoellick is respected by the Chinese leaders. He also urged them to make changes now. The recent report of the DRC, China's planning research arm, and the World Bank, also laid out the new direction away from a focus on infrastructure to domestic consumption. The fear is sudden deceleration in the absence of policy action. The impact of this will be negative for commodities over time, leading to slower growth in Australia, Brazil, and Canada. It should boost imports from Europe and the U.S. of high tech, consumer, pharmaceutical goods over time....

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...