LyrArc Article Gist
The US Federal Reserve Report on Economic Wellbeing of US Households 2024-May 2025 gives some insights into the well being of American households. It shows food insufficiency households the same in 2023-2025 at 7%. The situation for cost of living remains a concern in 2024 as well as 2025. Retirement savings have improved for many middle class Americans, as confirmed by reports from Fidelity and Vanguard. The people earning less than 25,000 are 19% and about the same in 2024 under Biden as under DJT in 2025. 39% make $100,000 or more and 26% make $50,000 -$100,000. Combining the 19% making less than $25,000 and the 16% making between $25,000 and $50,000 shows about one third of the population under $50,000 living paycheck to paycheck. It would appear that $2000 DJT rebate putting $160 billion out of $550 billion of tariff revenues for 2025-2026  in the hands of 79 million households that make less than $100,000 would go a long way to keep the situation stable with optimism and hope arising from the restructuring of world trade that would bring trillions of dollars of investment into the US from Europe and Asia. A this investment plus domestic investment should bring back jobs and higher incomes to US manufacturing in small towns across America. The rest of $550 billion tariff revenue of $390 billion would go to reducing the deficit which would improve prospects for the economy in 2027 and produce a more resilient economy in 2027-2028. As shown on this page the popular Democratic Governor of Michigan in her op-ed in Washington Post supports strategic tariffs, and supports using the revenue for a check to American workers of $2000 per worker or per worker household and offers to work with the opposite party to get a WIN-WIN for the American People.  In the whole process of trade tariffs it must be remembered when seeing the inconsistent cases of tariff use by this Republican administration that these were special reason situations not aberrations or whimsical. First, it should be borne in mind that behind the appearance of DJT making tariff decisions is a carefully thought out process that took ten years to form under Reagan era Trade Representative Lighthizer who negotiated with Japan, and his deputy Jamieson for 2016-2024, and the economic and capital markets experience of Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. The two cases of inconsistent application of tariffs relate to the 50% tariff on India and the reduction of tariffs on China agreement on rare earths, and the imposition of a large tarif on Japan and the EU. In the first instance with India it was intended to give Ukraine breathing room from Russian attacks as Germany steps up its military preparedness and assistance to Ukraine. With both countries it was about saving face important in Asian or any societies and it has achieved it's purpose. Reports show both Indian and Chinese refiners have quietly cut purchases of oil from Russia leading to Russian oil selling at about $20 discount to Brent crude oil. In the case of Japan the quick action to raise tariffs was intended not to get into long drawn negotiations and show serious intent- Japan is known for dragging out negotiations for years if not decades. The same is true for the European Union. With the Swiss it was about a certain disrespect of the US coming from attitudes that Swiss products were somehow superior. Not just in the long run, in 2026-2028 history will show that the effort done right - and it takes effort to get this right- to restructure world trade so that other nations are not siphoning off the benefits and leaving the US to lose its manufacturing and factories is the right one. And taken with courage and sincere desire to create a fair distribution of the benefits of world trade for too long distorted by egregious practices of competitors. It has nothing to do with 2 senators from the 1930's who were from places like the Mountain West in the US, having no concept of world trade, Smoot and Hawley, who under a irresponsible president Hoover got everything wrong. This is a carefully set out plan to evenly balance the benefits of world trade to all nations.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
USC Justices Roberts, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett questioning Solicitor General Sauer, and lawyer for the small business Katyal, on Tariffs by the US president DJT in November 2025. Coney Barrett says the whole thing is a big mess. Treasury Secretary Bessent who watched the proceedings in the Court benches says the issue of fentanyl is one of the reasons for tariffs on China which has played a uncooperative role on this issue of fentanyl sourced by drug trafficking gangs on America's borders. Bessent saying that it is a policy tool when unfriendly powers seek to hurt America. DJT says a SCOTUS ruling against the Tariffs would reduce America to Third World status. Most American themselves are being told by the media interests that the issue of young Americans dying from fentanyl is an issue like many others not that it is the heart of the issue that more Americans have died from fentanyl than the youth of America who died in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. The wine import company with 19 employees whose lawyer Katyal filed a petition to SCOTUS is a tiny part of the people harmed by tariffs. It could easily be compensated from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026 as could other businesses. How does the SCOTUS decide what policy the US is to use. With recalcitrant Asian nations Japan and China the only way is years of negotiations that lead nowhere on world trade. Is SCOTUS responsible or Congress to the American people when the supply chain disruptions caused by concentration of the supply chain in China led to huge price increases making life unaffordable for the low income earners,  including cost of automobiles? Large companies acting on the DJT signals are reducing this concentration in China actively, the trade deficit is coming down, the tariffs revenue is a fund to offset the cost to Americans mostly smaller businesses as large businesses increased their margins in 2022-2024 pricing moves so that today only about 30% of the tariff cost is borne by the average Americans, the rest by large businesses and some of it by exporters in China and Japan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Real tariffs are less than 12% of imports much lower than expected because of exemptions and tariffs announced and later dropped, CEO's have said that the impact of tariffs is much less than expected, and some say the worst is behind us. The administration of DJT and Treasury Secretary Bessent has shown much more flexibility and responded to the stock market declines in its tariffs posture. Bessent says the purpose of tariffs was not the revenues itself but getting other nations to play by the rules for fair play in world trade, rather than try to take the largest share of trade for their nations in the case of China, EU, Canada, Mexico and Japan which have all profited from unfair trade practices. The perception of tariffs is now changed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows it has collected $63 billion in tariffs over the preceding 12 months. Even though there is no agreement on trade with China, president Trump says the U.S. is benefitting from higher tariffs by tens of billions of dollars. In May he estimated tariff revenues could reach $100 billion.This report in the WSJ says this could happen if the the new tariffs of 10% on additional $300 Chinese goods imported to U.S. goes into effect on September 1. This is likely considering that China sees this in different terms than the U.S. such as its sovereignty, whereas the U.S. sees it simply in terms of fair trade. With new elections China may be simply putting things off till the election is decided as Mr. Trump has pointed out. The tally of what the U.S. Treasury gets annually if $100 billion is generated in tariffs goes something like this. Of this $30 billion was generated previously for the U.S. government, so the incremental amount is $70 billion. Of this about $16 billion goes to offset the effect of loss of farm exports to farmers, mainly soyabeans exports to China, through a rescue fund. This leaves additional $54 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Money that could conceivably be put back into infrastructure that the U.S. badly needs in mobile and fixed to improve internet speeds and move up from its low rankings compared to China and other countries. A WSJ report this week shows Germany in worse shape than the U.S., both countries having dismal status in mobile infrastructure- the U.S. at No. 37, and Australia No. 4, Canada No. 3, and even Croatia No. 9. This throws some light on why this trade dispute has become intractable, for China the right of a sovereign nation to move past middle income status even as its telecom technology with Huawei 5G is top class, and for the U.S. the right not to fall behind in advanced technologies such as Telecom. It is also why one hears so much about Huawei and why it has become a flashpoint of the conflict in trade and trade practices. It is thought Mr. Trump is conducting this trade dispute. Yet less known is the fact that prominent Republicans in Congress such as Senator Warner have stated on television talk shows that they are concerned Mr. Trump may give up too much in negotiations that lead to the U.S. not being able to compete in telecom advanced technologies that matter for competitiveness and for national security. What was treated by Bush and Obama administrations routinely without much attention to the consequences is now a top concern for Republicans and others in Congress and business. ...

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. ...