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
A second term Trump-Vance will face uphill risks and a mess in economics from a Trumpian Republican party and Congress, says WSJ. WSJ Editorial Board says a second Trump term is not without risks. Tariffs cost 1.1% in annual growth in the Trump first term says WSJ, and it did have an impact on inflation. It would have had greater impact on inflation with the supply chain crisis of Biden's first term, had this supply chain crisis happened in Trump's first term. A second term Trump-Vance support tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports which would have a bigger effect on inflation and economic growth than of the first term. The key difference is that with tax cuts a basic rule for Republican policies Trump-Vance second term would not invest in infrastructure the way Mr. Biden has done and Biden will do so in a second term. As a result the economic growth is likely to be greater and inflation smaller under a Biden administration. Trillions of dollars in investment in the economy and infrastructure under Biden in a second term will be missing in a Trump-Vance tax cuts administration policy. And with it hundreds of thousand of jobs created each quarter will be missing in Trump-Vance second term. Add to this the level of clarity of stable economic policy under a Biden second term and contrast it with some of the chaos in economic policy of a Trump-Vance second term. The basic contradiction between tax cuts policy and the nation's need for infrastructure spending/rebuilding under a Republican under Trump administration will not go away, present a huge stumbling block. Chaotic policy could come from Project 2025 that says consider abolishing the US central bank Federal Reserve. This kind of erratic and unwise policy proposals are clearly not happening under Biden and Yellen. Another key difference is the cost to the economy of delays of several years in doing nothing for climate in Trump-Vance 2024-2028. Severe effects on climate if nothing is done could cause acceleration of climate negative costs which a future economy under Democrats would face, in reality the Nation would face. America's Business has taken a short term approach to climate change, when the time comes to pay the costs of short term thinking it assumes it is somebody else's problem- this happened with supply chain concentration in China the burden falling on the middle and lower classes, it would happen again with missing climate change action under Trump-Vance second term. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ says a second term of former president Trump would look very different from the first. Republicans achieved their goal of tax reform in the first two years of that term. Following that trade tariffs ensued against China creating a different environment in world trade. A second term would lead to more action on trade and more tariffs. Ip says the former president could impose tariffs on all Chinese imports and this would lead to retaliatory tariffs from China and be met with EU retaliatory action in a tit for tat manner. The result would be disruption in world trade and affect the world economy. Higher inflation could also be result of such disruptions.

The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
William Galston in the WSJ says outright for the first time in the WSJ that the years from the last term of Clinton, through the Bush, and Obama administrations were an outright failure for the American people. He documents the losses- 5.7 million job losses in 2000-2010 as Clinton opened China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any precautions taken to prevent abuse of world trading rules after the experience with Japan. Worse no help to the displaced workers which fed into the resentment of workers. Sex scandals weakened the presidency and acted as the major distraction during the last years of Bill Clinton. Over the administrations of Bush and Obama almost the entire US manufacturing base was dismantled and shipped to China. Pharmaceutical companies were allowed to charge recklessly when Bush disallowed Medicare to negotiate prices for pharmacueticals placing additional burdens on the American people. Bush started long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that cost the US dearly in lives and resources wasted with no vital US interests at stake as in Europe. This distracted attention from problems simmering at home. Obama continued these wars preferring to focus on reelection. The migration crisis, the neglect of infrastructure worsened during this period. The Bush deregulation of banks led to the 2009 world banking crisis that led to large layoffs worsening a bad situation from outshoring and creating a class of unemployed, and shrinking household wealth and savings. The Biden administration, the first Trump administration and now the second have started the process of revival of the US. And yet Biden, DJT are relative outsiders who came to the presidency and were not favored in the established order of the 1990-2016 period. One can say about Blair, Cameron, Boris Johnson in Britain, about Clinton, Bush, Obama in the US, and Schroeder, Merkel in Germany that the leadership was mediocre and failed the people of Europe and the people of America.     ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Trump-Vance nomination with its huge tariffs inside a Republican shell with its preference for tax cuts is with a large degree of certainty likely to put America further behind China, slipping even further by a decade. And slipping in renewable energy and in meeting the aspirations of ordinary Americans. Most of the public does not realize that Trump-Vance 60% tariffs and Republican preference for tax cuts over infrastructure spending would create inflation and lack of growth in a Trump-Vance second term. Things would get worse because of the contradictions existing in the choice of tariff preferring Trump in a Republican party that sees tax cuts not infrastructure spending -even when desperately needed- as the answer to every economic problem. Without a clear policy of making the trillion dollar investments in the US economy, in manufacturing, in renewable energy, in chips and science, as it has under Biden the US under Trump-Vance policies would have two serious problems- first it would revive inflation. 60% tariffs on Chinese imports and 10% tariffs on other nations proposed by Trump-Vance would increase inflation. In the absence of the infrastructure investment that Biden has put in place it would create both a lack of growth for the jobs missing that come from infrastructure that is badly needed in a aging dilapidated infrastructure economy, and the inflation that the high tariffs would engineer. The benefits would not be great if China chooses to find other ways to conduct business and continues to keep its currency at levels that promote its exports. Even today Chinese products enter the US through other countries or when China builds factories in the US as Japan has done. The Republican aversion to tackling Chinese industrial challenges in the same way that China does by actively supporting American manufacturers would give China another decade of advantage as America slips even further behind in chips, science and manufacturing. This is the real problem in mixing Trump-Vance to the Republican philosophies on the economy which are not right for this point in time whatever their merits may have been in the 1980's when America was the industrial leader in the world.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This interview of president Trump by Matthew Bender of the WSJ is following the release of John Bolton's book. Mr.Bolton says Mr. Trump was willing to make compromises in China policy to win reelection. Mr. Trump says Mr. Bolton's statements are not true. Mr. Bolton says in the book and in a WSJ article that Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Pence also called for Mr. Trump to censure China for its treatment of minorities in Xinjiang province. Instead he says Mr. Trump told Xi Jinping that he could go ahead with the building of camps In Xinjiang province for minorities. Mr. Trump says he signed the deal for censure of China passed by Congress because he wanted to. The reporter from WSJ say Pompeo and Pence had called for it earlier,  but that this was signed only today. Mr. Trump does say that he has changed his views on China after what he calls the Chinese plague. Mr. Bender says he is wondering if Mr. Trump thinks differently about the trade deal now. Mr. Trump says he thinks that the trade deal is a great deal but that "But ever since we got hit with the Chinese plague.I feel different about everything having to do with China." He says he is hardline on China. And he believes Bolton had no idea he could get tariffs payments by China. In his view Bolton just lacks the economic sense. Bolton is a hard liner but stupid says Trump. That he Trump is also hardliner, but with economic sense. Early on in the interview Mr. Trump says he sees a V type recovery is likely after the good jobs numbers 17.7% increase in retail sales. He also says he left a lot of tariffs in the deal, a big portion about 25%.. In any case Mr. Trump says repeatedly since the virus hit America his view his perspective has changed, a very different perspective on China, views it very differently.  Mr. Trump says he had hardly signed the deal and soon after the virus hits. So now he views the whole deal differently today, he now views the relationship with China differently. The conversation started with Mr. Trump signing about 254 nominations for new judges. He says 75% of small business is now open.  Mr Trump says his goal for a second term is to have a strong powerful economy. Mr.Bolton agrees that Mr. Trump was doing the right thing here to build a strong economy to support its policy. Only that he was making him, Pompeo, Pence and Lighthizer on trade issues, think that Trump would give in on national policy issues to China, on issues of U.S. national interest.  ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
10% tariff on Canada's exports to the US after Ontario Reagan ad misrepresenting trade facts is aired on television. The ad seeks to show US tariffs in the light of the Smoot Hawley tariffs of the 1930's, when the tariffs today date back to Reagan's use of tariffs when Asian partners (at that time Japan in the 1980's) followed unfair trade practices to the detriment of American workers and industry. The US Trade Representative who acted for Reagan was Lighthizer, the same USTR who worked for DJT in the first term to fight the unfair trading practices of China, and whose deputy USTR Jamieson is now the USTR in DJT second term negotiating with Asian partners. Tariffs ae being used as an additional tookl in the toolbox by DJT and Lighthizer/Jamieson to counter the unfair trading practices of other nations, which includes partners of the US such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and EU. It also includes nations such as Switzerland who ignored US interests in trade whie having open access to the US market. Most of these nations know that these practices harmful to world trade exist, only Canada, China and some other countries have pretended they do not exist and they are the so called "champions of free trade." These nations attempt to make DJT appear to be doing this on whim when this is an issue in trade relations between the US and Asian partners, the EU, and Canada/Mexico for the last 50 years. DJT pointed this out- “The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their “rescue” on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States,” Mr. Trump said in a social media post Saturday afternoon. “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. and China sign Phase 1 of the trade agreement in a sign of reduction of trade tensions between the two countries. Difficult issues of state subsidies under China's state enterprise model of development, and technological competition were put off for the future. China made the deal possible by agreeing to double its purchases of agricultural products, and offering to purchase about $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. This gives relief to farmers, a key part of Mr.Trump's support base. This also helps achieve a key Trump and U.S. goal of cutting the U.S. trade deficit with China quickly, just as happened decades ago with Japan.  See the related article and link on how for the first time in decades China's trade surplus with the U.S. is now set on a path for permanent decline. It dropped significantly in 2019 by 12.5% even though China's imports from the U.S. dropped by 21%, based on Chinese customs data released for 2019. With China increasing these imports significantly and the U.S. holding on to tariffs of 25% on $250 billon of China's exports to the U.S. which are outside the Phase 1 agreement, the downward course is set for the next few years for correction of a dangerous trade imbalance. That imbalance was allowed to develop over successive Republican and Democratic administrations. China already has the European Union as its first leading trading partner and south east Asia as its second. China plans to not be so closely intertwined with the U.S. in trade, and yet preserve its state sponsored development model and drive to compete in technology. China's increased purchases from the U.S. of $200 billon are broken down in terms of farm products- $32 billion, manufactured goods- $80 billion, energy products- $50 billion, services $35 billion. In effect the U.S. gets its goal of cutting the unsustainable China trade surplus quickly and with certainty in 3-5 years. China uses the period to transition for less trade linkage with the U.S. yet preserving its state sponsored model of development and drive for technological advancement.   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A unanimous vote of the Chinese Communist Party Congress now puts "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era" into the Chinese Constitution. As the 19th Party Congress ends Xi Jinping joins two other leaders of the Communist Party Mao  Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, who were so honored. It also appears that unlike previous leaders Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping is concentrating authority and direction for China. This Congress marks the end of Xi's second five year term as party general secretary.  Under Hu Jintao there were efforts by some Communist leaders to create new power bases. This period ended with Xi Jinping bringing a clear direction and authority under the Communist Party. This has led to China taking on a leadership role in the world economy and global political affairs after the election of Trump in the U.S. in 2017. The management of the economy also has provided a soft landing after threats of disruptions in trade relations with the U.S. ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...
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.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The leaders of India and China, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping will meet at a 2 day summit in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, China, on April 27, 2018.  The meeting is significant because for the first time the 2 leaders will meet on a one on one basis for a significant part of the time without aides to get a better understanding of each other, and a get a sense of how to establish a good relationship between the 2 countries. Ma Jiali of the China Reform Forum, a think tank affiliated with the Communist Party's Central Party School says a better relationship would serve China's interests for regional calm, so that China can focus on internal issues of tackling poverty in the interior of China, tackle economic issues arising from a difficult trading relationship with the U.S. including the tariffs of the Trump administration.  China's leadership have not anticipated the decisions made by president Trump and the Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to take a strong stand on correcting an imbalance in trade that leads to about $1 billion in trade deficit each day for the U.S. with China. Previous administrations in the U.S. have not taken action. Also at issue in the U.S. China relationship is for the first time transfer of technology for "Made in China 2025." China's earlier advances were made with a free flow of technology from the U.S. and Europe.  The last time the two leaders met was in 2014. This time the issues of border relations in the Himalayas, and the relations with China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean region, the growing relationship between Australia, U.S., India and Japan, are seen in a different light with the strong disagreements on trade relations with the U.S.  China sees a need for improving relations with India. Prime Minister Modi faces new elections in 2019 and the need to focus on infrastructure and development to win a second term in office for the ruling BJP Party.  A reduction in tensions serves the interest of both countries and leaders.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The difficulties the new U.S. Treasury Secretary faces as she tries to navigate the politics in Congress and the tries to reach out to moderates and progressives within the Democratic party. All have different views on spending, and where stimulus money should go in a second stimulus. Her long experience with the Fed is seen as not preparing her for the political role of evaluating different opinions that are described by some experts as ten times more political than anything going on in Fed meetings. As a student of Prof. Tobin Yellen sees government intervention as needed in times of economic crises. Twice in ten years the U.S. and the rest of the world has been struck by economic crises- the bank leveraging behaviours and poor lending practices that induced the 2009 financial crisis and in 2020 the coronavirus pandemic. Lessons learned Yellen says about the 2009 recession are that not enough stimulus was provided after the initial stimulus to get a strong enough recovery. Democrats are eager to spend over $2 trillion in a second stimulus. Republicans much less so particularly with a new president. Even under Mr. Trump spending was set at under $700 billion by Republicans for a second stimulus. Another economic crises is one of the U.S. strategic economic position in the world. On this issue of trade Yellen's husband George Akerloff, also a economist is more skeptical of the value of free trade. The failure of the World Trade Organization to ensure a level playing field as China subsidized key industries, and the loss of America's manufacturing advantage over three decades is now the defining issue in American politics. It takes the shape of manufacturing communities that were once a part of Democratic party support shifting away after devastated local economies from the loss of manufacturing plants to China. It takes the shape of a Republican party that is committed to bring back American manufacturing, and a Democratic party that under Biden is seeking the same result. How much each party will invest in terms of making things happen to get this done is one of the issues facing all parties, Congress, the administration, Ms. Yellen, and the new president. Economics does not have the answers. As economists could not have predicted the increase in women participation in the workforce, the drop in Black and Hispanic unemployment rates under the Trump administration. The lack of moral will to get trade to work for the American worker was more of an issue under Democratic and Republican administrations for the last 2 decades, so that issues of growing inequality were never better addressed by any party. It depended more on focus of the president elected to help American workers, and to avoid the cost and distraction of foreign wars when American interests could be protected in other ways. Yellen was not able to make a difference at the Fed because of these reasons and low interest rates have both helped and hurt the middle class, as low interest rates meant Americans were less able to accumulate savings for retirement since 2000. Determination and action counts for more than ideology or policy is the lesson learned in building strong economies and manufacturing.   ...
The Financial Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump signs an executive order on March 28, 2017, reversing the American commitment to the Paris climate change agreement. The executive order also lifts a moratorium on the sale of coalmining leases on federal lands. The Obama administration 2015 clean power plan was designed to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It was blocked by courts in 2016. Trump says he is reversing president Obama's war on coal. Earlier he approved the Keystone pipeline for bringing oil from oil sands in Canada to the U.S.. Under the Paris agreement the U.S. agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. Market changes including the availability of cheap natural gas from technology advances fracking and hydraulic fracturing is leading a shift away from coal, apart from Obama administration regulations. Another factor is the long term trend towards cleaner energy, with large energy producers such as American Electric Power and other companies planning for the long term which is likely to be in the direction of cleaner energy. These companies see the Trump administration changes as a situation that may not be for the long term. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexican president Nieto's poll numbers are at all time low of 24%, according to Reforma newspaper. He took office in late 2012 and has been hurt by human rights scandal of the murder of 43 students in the state of Guerrero, corruption issues, and failure to improve the economy. The invitation to Trump to visit Mexico left even people close to the president surprised, and was criticized widely inside Mexico. It is not clear what Trump or Nieto gained from the trip. As Trump continued his talk about building a wall on the Mexican border and having Mexico pay for the estimated $23 billion it would cost. He did this in a speech to supporters in Pheonix on the same day he met Nieto, showing the use of teleprompters and prepared script was not his way of campaigning. Just as the message to black people that Democrats take them for granted cannot resonate without the basic message delivered with compassion and understanding- such as done by the presidents Bush and Reagan- so also the message to Hispanic people is suffering from the same lack of empathy. Recent polls show only 3% of blacks support Trump. McCain and Romney gained only 4-6% in the U.S. presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. The message of the wall is also baffling as an election strategy. A Gallup poll in July 2016 shows only 15% of Americans opposing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and only 24% of Republicans. There is another problem in the strategy. The rhetoric about walls and mass deportations, and the Trump temperament combined with handling of nuclear weapons is not winning college educated women in the suburbs with polls showing Trump lagging behind Clinton by about 20 points or 4 million voters with this group. It is hard to undo the damage done by this kind of rhetoric used in the primary elections as it gains distrust of voters. It would require a bad economy with illegal immigrants taking local jobs, and handling of immigration seen as weak, for such a message to gain some national traction. Both are absent for the most part with a steadily improving economy since 2012, lower unemployment, a tough enforcement policy on deportatons under Obama that exceeded that under Geoge W. Bush, and the talk of a wall comes with illegal immigration having declined steeply since the 2008 financial crisis. The real culprit appears to be elsewhere, the triple hit taken from hollowing out of the manufacturing economy that hurt the Conservatives in Canada, the insecurity created for older whites from the job losses and hits to net worth from the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and the increasing loss of access to health care and educational opportunities with high  costs. About 62 million households or the bottom half of the distribution in the U.S. have a net worth of about $10,000, a quarter of this group having zero net worth, according to the Federal Reserve's Janet Yellen at an Inequality Conference in Oct 2014. Problems no wall is going to solve, problems that built up over 2 decades, problems that will take a generation to fix.  It shows the tech miracle of the last 2 decades as a mirage for quality of life of the middle and working class. Tech as a tool to a goal, not a goal in itself, is the better way forward. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's governing LDP party wins over two thirds of the seats in parliament in a snap election called one year before the end of the term in office. Prime minister Abe's popularity by summer 2017 dropped to about 30%, and yet with a divided opposition he managed to win the election with a large majority. The opposition led by the Democratic Party and Tokyo Governor Mrs Koike fragmented with the formation of new parties, Yuriko Koike's Party of Hope, and the Consitutional Democratic Party. Mrs. Koike failed to keep the opposition united with some missteps including asking for a loyalty pledge from candidates. This election win makes it possible for Abe to get a third term as leader of the LDP and eventually becoming the prime minister with the longest term in office. Abe had a poor start during his first effort as prime minister when he resigned in less than a year. This is a comeback for Shinzo Abe from that difficult period. Yet the constitutional changes to support Japan's Self Defense Forces with the growing threat from North Korea are not getting the same level of support. Opinion remains divided on that issue.  One aspect of this election is that very few women candidates are running for parliament. In contrast to the election in Britain with more women running for office and getting elected, in Japan's 2017 snap election less than 10% of candidates elected are women. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Robert Stavins of the environmental economics program at Harvard is cited in this NYT article by Coral Davenport. Stavin says that even with the change in policy favoring fossil under Trump administration the trend is towards using less fossil fuel and this trend is unlikely to change. This makes the claims of Trump that half a million jobs can be created with less regulation of the coal industry and shale oil industry, less likely. Industry is shifting away from coal for economic reasons and investors preferences, say experts. At the same time the progress away from fossil fuels is likely to be inadequate to avoid the worst effects of global warming, says Stavins. The change by industry is reflected in the decisions made by executives such as Nicholas Akins at American Electric Power, Ohio based electric power company. Akins tells NYT that he is making decisions for power generation 20, 30 and 40 years from now, and this assumes some form of carbon control. He says no question but that industry will move forward with cleaner energy and that means closing large coal facilities. The incoming Trump administration does not affect his policy. Another factor away from coal is dictated by economics- the availability of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. Incentives for renewable sources such as wind, solar, are not likely to change either say experts, because the solar panels and wind turbines are made in Republican and Democratic favoring districts and have support of Republicans in places like Arizona, Texas and Kansas. ...
WSJ Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
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.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

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