LyrArc Article Gist
A tale of two cities Oslo and London only 700 miles apart in direct flight but far far distant in their oil and energy policies. Instead of a transition period and working in coordination with China on climate change to take policies that Britain cannot use new oil resources to replace old ones and continue to invest, Britain finds itself constrained for every decision in the budget. Even an item like bus fares capped at 2 pounds in England becomes unaffordable. China is a developed modernized nation and because of its size and population and its use of coal plants decides how much climate change happens. Of 63 gigawats added in 2026 from coal plants China takes up 55 gigawatts with 85 new coal plants coming online in China in 2026. UK's situation is severe in this situation and it needed to make the case for oil production while at the same time getting renewable energy on line in a gradual way that recognized that without China it would be simply creating "budget poverty" in Britain. Industrialized nations such as Britain have failed to make a strong case across parties and a unified position on the fossil energy use transition so that Norway could say to hell with climate change and also be lauded for ensuring European oil security and have a $1.25 trillion fund to invest- when the mother of democracies and the industrial revolution, the modern world was left to simmer, its people suffer from "budget poverty" even when it comes to something like bus fares, not to talk about huge investments in infrastructure. This is a huge mistake and has ended up turning China into a modern economy and industrial power while leaving Britain without the money to invest. New oil exploration capex was neglected over 10 years most of them under the Tories, not just Brexit, Tories (and Labour) handed UK a one two three punch- austerity, Brexit and disinvestment in oil exploration, for a poorer Britain. This is a time to change all three. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 JD Vance as key negotiator of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran announced June 17 2026 in France at the G-7 Summit in Les Bains, France. Vice President Vance says-about why everything not being put in writing. “There’s a lot of discussion, the MOU, the gentlemen’s agreements, the final deal—words don’t matter, ladies and gentlemen, we’re about verification.” As with the detailed previous agreements the words have little meaning if the intention is to build a nuclear weapon while all the time saying it was for peaceful purposes.  Vance does not mention that in the next 10 years the worst hit from Hormuz are the poor countries Pakistan, India, Arab World in North Africa including Egypt, and even a developing country when it comes to per capita incomes way lower than Europe like China. There will be all these countries backing the US as high oil prices mean economic catastrophe for these countries. This is really what the president DJT means by he did this to prevent economic catastrophe. China has sustained the Iranian economy through this period and China has clearly stated that it expects denuclearization, expects Iran to reverse policy to make a nuclear weapon- as it is the crux of the memorandum's intent. Without it the US would not enter any agreement and there would be no war. Opening up Hormuz is critical for these countries including China to continue their industrial modernization. Vance says- “We have all of the cards." “If the Iranians want the benefit of the bargain they have to give us the things that are necessary to get those benefits.”  There is in Iran itself three groups, one the people, second the elected government of Pezeshkian elected in 2014 to reduce the cost of living and improve living standards, and third the Revolutionary Guard Corps. The entire Arab World, the entire Asiatic Muslim world represented by Pakistan and neighbors find this Memorandum as a lifeline, a step away from the brink of economic catastrophe, which is not shown in the media, all these countries pushing for their very life to get the US to give a chance to two of the three parts of the Iranian people and government (who will ultimately decide Iran's long term course as a part of West Asia as a regional economic development and modernization zone). There are huge stakes here for West Asia and East Asia in this Memorandum of basically intent on the part of the US (consistent with its history and purpose as Nation), and this remains the key guarantor for this opportunity for Iranian people and people of West and East Asia in their progress to modernization and economic progress similar to the path taken by Europe and the US after many struggles of their own (not to mention the Civil War that made the US and two World Wars that made the European Union).    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kessler in the WP corrects Obama's claim that he created 800,000 jobs. He says this is clever arithmetic as it takes a low point in Feb. 2010 following the financial crisis. Kessler points out that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. manufacturing jobs were 12.56 million in Jan. 2009 when Obama became president. In Nov. 2016, early estimates show there were 12.26 million manufacturing jobs, a loss of 300,000. This loss does not reflect the problems in the U.S. auto industry and older industries in the midwestern states as a result of trade and globalization that speeded up with the rapid industrialization of China. And led as Greg Ip pointed out in a recent WSJ report to a rapid acceleration of job losses in a decade that did not happen in the same scale during Japan's industrialization and urbanization in the sixties. This aggravated the situation in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and was met with a feeble response from Democrats. Even a economist like Krugman favoring the Obama administration's efforts came to the conclusion that TPP did not add much to gains from trade as most of the gains had already been realized. More of the gains went to tech and IT in California, at the expense of the auto industry based in the midwest. A report in WP show a president too close to IT in California and failing to grasp the situation in the midwest. Voters punish whoever is in power, regardless of being Conservative or Liberal, in Canada the hollowing out of manufacturing under Harper in Ontario and Quebec led to the win by Trudeau's Liberals.  ...