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.


Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With the arrival of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, and John Bolton as National Security Adviser, president Trump finds support for his own instincts on foreign policy. On North Korea, Iran, and China, president Trump takes charge of foreign policy favoring strong bargaining pressure to achieve foreign policy  goals in trade, containing nuclear weapons and reducing conflicts. He sees the peace talks with North Korea as moving in the right direction with his efforts, and makes the decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 on May 8, 2018, as he leaves the door open for new negotiations with Iran for a better deal that achieves U.S. goals.

The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Leaders of North Korea and South Korea, Kim Jong-Un and Moon Jae-in meet on April 27, 2018, at the military demarcation line between North and South Korea.  After handshakes and Mr. Moon stepping onto North Korean soil for a few minutes, Kim Jong-Un visits Seoul for peace talks.  This is a historic moment for the two countries as this is the first time since the Korean War (1950-53) that a North Korean leader has visited the South. No peace treaty was signed after the Korean War. During the period of six decades that followed the Korean War, particularly the period after 1980, the South Korean economy recovered from the war and expanded following the Japanese export model with large conglomerates such as Samsung. The North Korean economy has struggled in the period and North Korea is one of the poorest countries isolated for most of this period like Burma from the rest of the world. The development of nuclear weapons was pursued to prevent any external threats to the government, and decades of sanctions followed with aborted efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. Recent ballistic nuclear tests and the installation of a new anti missile system in South Korea led to tighter sanctions with the cooperation of China. This heightened tensions, followed by the tighter sanctions. Kim Jong Un and the government are looking for ways to win approval in the international community, and find a way out of the tight sanctions. South Korea, Japan and the U.S. government are not sure whether this will lead to any results in denuclearization. The summit with Moon will be followed by a summit between president Trump and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. If a way can be found for the North Korean government and party leaders to transition to acceptance in the international community followed by integration of the North and South's economies over an extended period, there is a possibility that denuclearization could work, because it is to maintain the current government in North Korea that nuclear development was pursued in the North. Ideological conflict is now less of a factor in the conflict between North and South Korea as it was in the early days of the Korean War with the Cold War and Communism's advances in Eastern Europe and Asia the big issue at the time. Today China itself is more of a state run economy under the Communist Party following capitalism with Chinese characteristics than the old Communist model, and ideological conflict is not an issue between the U.S. and Communist run countries. This leaves open the possibility of a solution particularly as at some point just as in the case of Vietnam and the U.S., North Korea could see its future more allied with that of South Korea than with China. That leaves an opening for a timetable of transitional actions plus effective implementation stages, with incentives for the U.S. and Japan to negotiate a settlement. ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump announces the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015 signed by president Obama. He calls it a bad deal and "a one sided agreement, that "didn't bring, calm, didn't bring peace, and never will." Since the signing of the agreement the conflicts in the Middle East have increased and relations between the U.S. and Iran have deteriorated under the Trump administration. During the election campaign candidate Trump and Republicans had criticized the deal and deal never gained Republican support. It was also not initially supported by France which called for stronger safeguards on nuclear weapons development. The appointment of John Bolton as National Security Adviser, and Mike Pompeo as the new Secretary of State, who were strong critics of the Iran nuclear deal also influenced president Trump. He was also influenced say aides by the success of his policy with North Korea of imposing strong bargaining pressure with tough sanctions on North Korea including Chinese sanctions, which led to the talks between North and South Korean presidents and the planned Trump meeting with Kim Jong-Un of North Korea. Iran's president Rouhani says Iran will stay with the agreement as the EU countries Germany, France plan to support the agreement. This could also leave an opening for future talks with Iran on a new peace agreement as  president Trump talked about Iranian people deserving a better deal at the end of his 11 minute announcement. As Stephens points out in a op-ed in the NYT Iran's economy needs the removal of sanctions so that focus could shift to economic development, as the lifting of sanctions have yet to result in increasing living standards and building infrastructure neglected during the sanctions years. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve's role as backup lender increased with the pandemic. The U.S. central bank lent half a trillion dollars to counterparts overseas representing most of the emergency lending at the time in 2020. It eased a dollar shortage globally, helped stop a market selloff, and continues to support global markets in 2020. The Fed is now the global source of dollar funding, which builds the role of the U.S. currency a the dominant currency. Countries that benefit from the Fed are Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Britain, Japan and European Union countries. On March 31 the Fed launched a program that let 170 central banks around the world borrow dollars against their holdings of U.S. Treasurys adding confidence.  To understand the dollar's dominant role about 88% of 6.6 trillion dollars in currency trades taking place daily involve dollars according to BIS. By end of 2019 U.S. dollar denominated debt securities and cross border loans reached about $27 trillion up from about $17 trillion in 2010. All the talk of having another reserve currency by other central banks has not happened. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
One foreign policy expert says president Trump tried to reverse everything in Obama's foreign policy almost to the point of an obsession. He visits Saudi Arabia before visiting Mexico and Canada, close neighbors, as other presidents have done. The relationships with Mexico and Canada deteriorated. Yet Mr. Trump has a good personal connection with Trudeau of Canada and Macron of France.  Taking the advice of advisers including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, president Trump despite tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement, takes a moderate approach on NAFTA renegotiation. Trump also softens some of the rhetoric on China as he seeks Chinese help to restrain North Korea. An international coalition of states supported by the U.S. reverses gains by Islamic State, with Iraq and Iran gaining over Islamic State. President Obama's policy of not taking decisive action, reversed towards the end of the second term, had led to the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis in Europe as refugees left Syria and Iraq. NATO or the South Korean defense was not significantly weakened as feared at the beginning of the first year. Missile defense proceeded in South Korea with U.S. missile systems. The appointment of a senior senator from Texas, Kay Hutchinson, signaled that the NATO policy had not changed significantly. As a result it could be said that the year 2018 began with a bang about the risks internationally with president Trump's unconventional approach, and ended without some of the worst fears being realized. Relations between North and South Korea improved as Koreans decided to work together for peace in the peninsula- with North Korea agreeing to participate in the Winter Olympics in South Korea.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sanger and Broad report on the move by the Trump administration to go ahead with the overhaul of the U.S. nuclear deterrent,  with programs that were started in the Obama administration. With the more aggressive posture of Russia in Europe, the Trump administration is left with little scope for further advances in nuclear arms negotiations. A new technology based cruise missile system is now being built for $25 billion with contracts given to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Experts at Harvard's Belfer Center say that with the North Korean nuclear threat these programs to modernize the nuclear deterrent are getting the go ahead with little resistance. Another program modernizing the land based deterrent and replacing the Minuteman missile system is also expected to push forward at a cost of $100 billion. The Pentagon under Obama had pushed for these systems, yet there was discussion about ways to limit these programs in the hope that nuclear arms control talks could take place. The North Korean missile tests and Russia's posture have changed the discussion. By the end of the Obama's second term, a president who came into office in 2008 with hopes of nuclear weapons reduction had already lost much of the momentum he had in 2008. The situation changed with Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2015, and the North Korean long range missile test in 2017, to where the modernization of the nuclear deterrent was quietly accepted, without alternatives through negotiations. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Following president Trump's decision to increase tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods on May 9, 2019, the WSJ looks at the mistakes made by both sides in misjudging each other's negotiating position. Mr. Trump says he is willing to increase the pressure on China by imposing tariffs on all Chinese imports into the U.S. after what he sees as China reneging on its commitments on trade by deleting key sections on enforcement provisions and Chinese legislation for enforcement to take place in the 150 page agreement prepared for both presidents to sign.  Early on in the negotiations between Liu He and Mr. Lighthizer, China misread the thinking on the U.S. side. Chinese thinking was that president Trump's urging for the Federal Reserve to lower rates was a perception sign of the weakening U.S. economy. It also may have misread the extent to which Mr. Trump trusts Mr. Robert Lighthizer, who Mr. Trump respects for winning a good deal with the Japanese in similar situation of Japanese rejection of U.S. demands. Mr. Trump also thinks the U.S. has a strong economy, is the largest world producer of oil, strong economic growth in the last quarter of 2018, is also negotiating better deals with other countries including the ones with Mexico, Canada and South Korea. It is also much less dependent on exports to China, giving it a stronger position with more experienced negotiators. China has whole sectors of its economy dependent on exports to the U.S., and crucial numbers of jobs at stake.  China also misread the signals from its stronger than expected economic growth from stimulus efforts in the last quarter, leading to it staking out a tougher position than the U.S. would accept. The U.S. position was set after decades of waiting for China to change and was unlikely to be affected by any temporary considerations.  As a result the U.S. not anticipating the Chinese response of deleting key sections agreed to in advance from the 150 page written agreement gave a strong response. Mr. Mnuchin who accompanied Lighthizer in talks says Mr. Lighthizer "read them the riot act" to the Chinese side. For the Chinese side the effort now shifted to continuing good faith talks without appearing to back down. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post interviews Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak on June 20, 2012. On the negotiations of the P5+1 countries with Iran in Baghdad, Istanbul and Moscow, Barak says the Iranians are simply buying time, hoping that by being a little forthcoming they can delay giving up nuclear weapons programs capabilities and see if the situation changes with a new President in office in the U.S.. The Iranians are trying to reach a "zone of immunity," the way Pakistan and N. Korea did, and it will take a resolute determination on the part of the U.S. the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese to prevent a nuclear Iran and nuclear proliferation. By the third meeting in Moscow it should be clear whether the Iranians are willing to give up capabilities that lead to nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Khamanei is the person in charge in Iran, but decisions are made collectively with the moderate Ayatollahs still ayatollahs, says Barak. The addition of the Khadima party to the coalition government of prime minister Netanyahu increases Israel's desire for dialogue and seeking progress on a peace with the Palestinian Authority- if not a peace arrangement then even unilateral steps towards peace by both sides. The way forward in Syria is for the U.S. to talk with the Russians about a new government. The important thing is for the removal of the Assad family, the entire Syrian state does not need to be dismantled as happened with the Baath party in Iraq. Israel continues to build a fence in the Sinai facing Egypt, as it fears infiltration during the period of civil strife in Egypt. Israel views Egypt from the standpoint of any future Egyptian government honoring its treaty committments with Israel, otherwise says Barak it is upto Egypt to decide its future government....
ZEIT ONLINE Original article ›
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. ...
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Bruce Reidel, Obama administration advisor on the war in Afghanistan, conducted a policy review in 2009. He says a policy of engagement he advised in 2009 now needs reshaping. He points to recent events that show the Pakistani ISI and the military who run Pakistan are in direct conflict with U.S. policy in the region. Especially after the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and the killing of a former Afghan president who was expected to lead peace talks. Reidel says this requires a reshaping of U.S. policy and a policy of containment which would reduce military assistance to Pakistan, and at the same time shape policies that would help the people of Pakistan, such as reducing tariffs on textiles.

Pakistan: Hard road ahead

Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and Britain, has edited a collection of essays in a new book titled- Pakistan: Beyond the "Crisis State." It tries to form a new construct to move the debate on Pakistan into a future in which Pakistan can exist as a "normal country" free of a paranoia about India that affects its outlook, and free from the military connections that have shifted the focus from development that a friendly neighborly coexistence with India would provide. Intriguing essays include one by Saadat Hasa Manto who goes back to 1951, when the Cold War was at its peak and the U.S. formed a relationship with Pakistan based on military assistance, with only small fraction of aid going into development programs. Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad puts it directly: Pakistan needs to become a normal state and the only way to to do this is for the rivalry and obsession with India to be resolved and put behind it. As it now stands the U.S., India and Pakistan all stand to gain tremendously in such an outcome- the U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan and the Taliban because at its core the Taliban issue goes back to the Pakistan rivalry with India, Pakistan and India because it puts the focus on development, infrastructure building, and economic gains....
Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The constructive contribution made by the G-20 meetings of leaders towards building agreement on economic and other policies for peace and progress in the global economy. The meetings were especially useful for coordinating policy and addressing issues arising in the global economy after the 2008 financial crisis. Here Li Baodong, China's vice minister for international organizations and conferences, international economic affairs, describes the path ahead: IMF reforms implementation, better coordination of macroeconomic policies, pursuing the anti-protectionist and free trade policies with further support to the WTO and ministerial MC9 meeting in Bali in Dec. 2013, and infrastructure financing proposals for developing countries on the agenda at the St Petersburg, Russia, G-2- meeting in Sept. 2013. Baodong says the mechanism called the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth as part of the G-20 meetings is a major achievement. Each G-20 economy submits it macroeconomic policy plan for a Mutual Assessment Process under this arrangement. The progress from the Bretton Woods financial architecture to the new arrangement- from the G-6 to the G-20 to include developing countries from India to Mexico and Brazil- is another major achievement, not fully recognized by the public, says Baodong. Interestingly Baodong makes particular mention to global rebalancing, rather than pushing what he calls the impossible task of increasing demand to get growth. This is a realization coming to China's economic policymakers under the new Jinping-Keqiang administration after the overly aggressive effort to stimulate demand in the 2009-2011 Stimulus, and the ensuing financial problems in the banking and credit system. It is indicative of the policy shift and its implementation underway in China in 2013-2015....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
China's current account surplus has declined to 2.8% of GDP for 2011 from about 10% in 2007, and will be around 2.3% of GDP in 2012, according to IMF estimates. The U.S. current account deficit is down to 3.1% of GDP from 5.1%. By controlling the exchange rate China was able to keep the competitiveness of its exports, resulting in a five fold increase in exports from 2000 to 2010, according to the IMF. The decline could be temporary say experts, as the the recession in Europe and the U.S. resulted in slowing exports, with its infrastructure buildup sucking in imports of machinery and other goods from the western countries at an accelerated pace with its 2009 stimulus measures. Another reason is that in the last decade China has developed its own high tech and other companies which will now increase exports. IMF forecasts show a pickup in China's trade surplus to 4.25% by 2017. This could be lower if the renminbi is allowed to appreciate. Estimates of appreciation of the renminbi are 8 percent in nominal terms since June 2010 against the dollar. Including inflation, which is higher in China, the renminbi has appreciated by 13% since June 2010. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
China surpassed Germany as the world's No. 1 exporter in the first 10 months of 2009, with $957 billion in exports compared to Germany's $917 billion, according to customs data compiled by Global Trade Information Services, a Geneva based firm. With the global financial crisis China's exports fell 20.4% in the first 10 months of 2009 compared to 27.4% for Germany and 21% for the USA. Global consumer spending has fallen more than the capital goods and machinery exported by Germany. Yet these numbers suggest that there has been no significant change to the export models of the two countries even after the global economc crisis revealed cracks in the export model.
Unknown Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chandrasekeran looks back on the troop surge ordered by President Obama on the advice of General Petraeus and General McChrystal in Afghanistan, and the results in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdraws troops in 2012-2013.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....

Americans Sour on Trade

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted in September 2010 shows a big change in public opinion in the US towards outsourcing of production and on free trade agreements. Poll respondents were asked "Do you think free-trade agreements have helped or hurt the US?" The response in 1999 was close to 30% for those who said hurt and those saying helped. By 2005 the curves diverged seriously with more people saying that it hurt and fewer saying it helped. In 2010 this swing is sharp with about 50% saying it hurts the US and only about 10% saying it helps. When asked "Do you agree or disagree that outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people are not being hired?" the response is overwhelmingly agreeing that this is bad for the U.S. job situation. The answers are the same across party affiliation, in fact higher for Republicans than Democrats 90% to 84%, higher by income level with 93% for those making over $75,000 agreeing and 86% for those making less than 75,000 agreeing, 93% of professionals and managers agree compared to 89% white collar and 83% blue collar agreeing. This shows all segments of society agree that that the manner in which free trade and outsourcing of production is taking place is not helping the U.S., and this time the highly educated segments are leading the way. Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who helped do the survey points to the big change in the way well educated and upper income people perceive free trade agreements. In 1999 only 24% of this group making over $75,000 said free trade hurt the U.S., now 50% of this group says it hurts the US. This is sure to lead to big changes in U.S. trade and currency issues with China and other countries. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.

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