LyrArc Article Gist
Climate policy changes lead to $1.3 trillion savings according to analysis from DJT administration and EPA's Zeldin, with $1.1 trillion in savings from lower vehicle prices which addresses unaffordability of cars. Using the average price of a new basic Toyota Corolla the price in 2020 was $19,000 which has gone up to $23,000 a price increase of 21% by 2025 over a 5 year period. The cost in 2026 of operating a Gas powered vehicle is on average about $2500, for EV car about $1000 with $1500 in savings per year for EV's that need to be figured into the equation at gas prices that prevailed in 2024 of $4-$5 per gallon . At prices of $3 per gallon the gas costs come down to $1200 when driven 12,000 miles at 30 mpg for 400 gallons of gasoline consumed. This makes the difference between gas and EV yearly savings on gasoline costs down to about $200 from $1500. This makes gasoline powered cars attractive as car companies can reduce EV investments and pass on some of these savings in lower car prices in 2027 in exchange for favorable rules on emissions and EV transition dates.  Are there losses through the emissions and climate change? The DJT/Zeldin EPA analysis points to global climate emissions from China and India (the coal powered plants) continuing at a pace that would determine the overall change in climate for 2026-2027. In this kind of approach the goal is to make cars affordable over a 2-3 year period for US and European carmakers who would be expected to cut prices. It is about flexibility in fighting the Cost of Cars a big component in the Cost of living with housing as the next large component. It is not a long term strategy, simply one that offers a flexible approach. Will the US, Europe and Japan fall behind in EV's technology? Hybrids a focus of Japanese cars will continue to advance that technology which is becoming a preference where it is affordable for customers. Toyota for instance will have a wide lead in hybrids technology by 2030. Much of the Chinese market will have EV's and the EV's technology will advance in China in 2026-2027, and tariffs will be needed to protect European and American carmakers for 2026-2028. It is a strategy tradeoff to deal with the cost of living crisis in US, Europe and Japan answering call for a flexible approach that was also heeded by the Biden administration in relaxing carbon emissions rule changes. It will require automakers to step up and cut prices for gasoline models for buyers at the entry and lower range for affordability by 2026-2027. What about climate action? The strategy is based on the idea that climate action requires India and China (coal powered plants) on board to make a real difference so that over 2-3 years to 2027 the US, Europe and Japan need to address affordability for the lower end entry cars. There is an element of denial of climate change in parts of the DJT administration in the US but not in Europe and Japan. It is also true that leading DJT administration officials Secretary Bessent see the problem of climate as real and one that needs to be addressed yet leaving room for flexibility to tackle affordability crisis for ordinary workers with low incomes struggling to make a living. Bessent and others in the DJT administration are calling for using all of the resources to address needs of people struggling to make a living, and for a strategy for the US to get back its manufacturing capacity from China and for rebuilding the US economy after deindustrialization (caused by Clinton's huge US economy shattering failure to provide safeguards for abuse of the trading system by China in signing a poorly drafted agreement for China's entry into WTO at the end of his term in 1999-2000 just when he had fought impeachment.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Surveys of American, European and Japanese companies show souring of outlook for China investment. And Biden administration new rules leading to investment of China profits in the US economy. About $110 billion moved out of yuan denominated China bonds since 2022. There is a sharp decline in the profits of US and EU companies in China that are reinvested in China after China's sporadic lockdowns in 2022 and increase in interest rates in the US. WSJ Analysis shows $170 billion profits reinvested in 2021 to net decline in third quarter 2023 outflows of capital over inflows declining by $11.8 billion, the first ever since 1998. Unlike in the past profits are being repatriated back out of the country so that investments can be made in the US economy or in other countries in the supply chain. This is a fundamental shift as risk of doing business in China increases. 

LyrArc Article Gist
DW.com report by Mu Ciu shows a CATL(Contemporary Amperex Technology) plant in Arnstadt, Thuringia, in eastern Germany. It will not bridge Germany's technology gap. German and US consultants at the microeconomic level of the company and German and US economists at the macroeconomic level of the economy entirely fail to grasp the effectiveness of China's investment driven model. Of its joint partnering with European and American companies and China's single minded focus on technology access. This is why the DJT US administration has warned Europe that it is failing economically. China's macroeconomic and microeconomic model are run by the same authority by the state, and according to goals and plans (which in a socialist economy is weak at the microeconomic company level lacking the initiative and freedom of action). By combining its macreconomic framework run by the state with a micreconomic company level run by the state but on free market lines the Chinese investment driven model has dual advantages and operates at a speed that far surpasses the German and American model. It's society suffers as a consequence, but in few short decades 1990-2009/2020 this is all it could accomplish with a single focus on modernization for what was once a peasant agricultural economy. Where it lacks is in future technology access and as long as weak companies in the US and Germany partner with Chinese companies the technology access for Chinese companies give it the essential ingredient for its investment model to work, as American and European companies can waver in investment Chinese companies backed by the government will not waver in investment and have the clear advantage. DJT's approach is to give a big shock to the entire system of world trade now run by China, so that this is no longer going to work at the macroeconomic level and legislate huge investment incentives for one time depreciation and other moves to get American companies to invest. It wants Europe to do the same, including getting rid of the bureaucratic structures and regulations. German Chancellor Merz is getting the message and is acting quickly first with the trillion dollar investment plan, the meetings with Draghi and Meloni to get Italy and like minded nations on board, and internal efforts to get rid of regulations and bureaucratic structures, and building a new partnership with India to remove an error of Merkel/ Clinton+ Obama in excessive concentration and dependence on China. This requires a steady hand and steady governments, steady policy, and companies in America, Europe and India to work together for the long haul without wavering or delay, to rebuild the world economy along new lines and on a new path. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
French president Macron fails to get president Xi of China to commit to changes in its policies towards Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Macron's visit as seen by the NYT only undermines the US policy and European Union policy that opposes the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. EU's Leyen also visits China at this time.  The relations between the US and European business with China expanded for two decades between 2000-2020. All three regions are heavily invested in each other. Decoupling is a gradual process and China sees the EU as an access point for technology and investment. The US has not decoupled from China even after moves in semiconductors and electric vehicles were made by president Biden. Apple and other American companies are heavily invested in China. The US and the EU are committed to building new supply chains. Their policies are intended to do this in a way that reduces the effect on their economies. The European Union depended on the US for its response to the Russian invasion and to protect freedom in Europe through NATO. By 2024 the European Union policies will be integrated with policy of the US. China is also trying to reduce the effect on its economy by decoupling in a way that maintains growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Next five year plan for China calls for more concentration on industry, dominance in key sectors identified by China such as rare earths, and more exports- not less in each of these areas. Chinese Communist Party is very conservative and once this has worked for China it is not going to change its reliance on exports even at the risk of leaving goods unsold in China or oversupply. The result is that the US effort to reduce the trade deficit, trying every tool in the book does not work, leading to an effort to resort to tariffs as a last resort to cut the unhealthy and risky $1 trillion trade deficit China has with the world. Has it worked? WSJ and other reports show that large companies are diversifying their supply channels, only smaller companies without the resources are sticking with China dependence for supplies. The tariffs themselves make headlines yet the US has made careful calculations not to upset relationships with key partners Britain, European Union, and Japan, keeping tariffs low at 10% with EU, and 15% with Japan which exports automobiles to the US to recover some of the years US made concessions to Japan. There are also loopholes on certain products where it is in the US interest to do so. As a result the effective tariff is 10-12.5% not 17-20% shown in reports. Of this 10% what is passed on to consumers is small- as in autos 80% of tariffs are not passed on by auto importers such as Toyota and Subaru because of the higher margins postpandemic. In retail only 30% is passed on again because of the post pandemic higher margins. The administration of DJT has also carefully worked with world oil suppliers to keep oil prices low, lower than in 2023-2024. The result is that inflation is at about 3% in September 2025. The idea that a capricious DJT is doing the tariffs is a myth as careful economic planners including Bessent, Jamieson, Lighthizer, and Luttnick, economic advisors in the Republican party, are carefully articulating the policy with room for DJT's political talk and appeal to public sentiment. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Supreme Court hears arguments from D. John Sauer Solicitor General of the US on DJT Tariffs Wednesday, November 5, 2025. The Supreme Court will hear about a case brought by a small wine importing company with 19 employees. The US president used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that allows the president to impose tariffs. The IEEPA was introduced by president Jimmy Carter in 1977. It was used during the Iran hostage crisis. It has been used for the Venezuelan regime after elections were rigged with human rights violations, on Belarus as early as 2006, and on Mexico for drug cartels. This increases the responsibilities of the Justices of the Court as these sanctions have broad support of the American people. Tariffs were imposed on China for illicit fentanyl flows and a 25% tariff was imposed on Canada and Mexico under Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 20% on China under Executive Order 14195 in 2025 for illicit drug traffic flows across their borders into the US. Illicit flows that has taken the lives in the case of fentanyl of more young people than were killed in the Vietnam, Korean and First World Wars combined.  For the reason that the economic aspect of tariffs now overlaps with trading partners abuse of basic rights of their largest trading partner the US in the case of Canada, Mexico and China not stopping such flows, the issue before the Supreme Court is basic to the US as a Nation to protect its citizens under these Executive Orders and IEEPA- not the kind of interpretation of the law the USC does for most or almost all of its cases. In 2025 a lot of the discourse is distorted and does not reflect the way citizens of the Nation should show concern for the welfare and safety of their fellow citizens in communities around them severely hurt by the scourge of fentanyl and other opioids making their way from other countries conducted by drug trafficking gangs outside the US.  Also relevant is that the tariffs are correcting trade deficits of $1 trillion of the world with China that threaten the economic security of the US, EU, India and other countries. Larger companies are moving their supply chains out of China to reduce concentration in China, impact on inflation is slight with 3.0 % inflation in September 2025. Smaller companies such as the wine company in this lawsuit are unable to do so. Most of the smaller businesses affected can be compensated with a fund from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026. In this way the goals of the US as a Nation can be achieved of reducing the supply channels concentration in China, cutting supply chain concentration in China, for fair trade with trading partners EU/Japan, and for action on fentanyl and drug trafficking. Justice Roberts and his team have a lot to think about in this effort by the Nation to correct abuses that should never been allowed to happen. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Current responses to China's different posture in international relations obscure the huge investments made by US and European Union business in China that lead to about $1 trillion in exports from China to US and EU in 2021. This could not happen without the hyper investment in China by business in the US and EU that not only neglected manufacturing technologies in the home country but did this on a immense scale that would end up shipping almost the whole of the manufacturing supply chains to China from the US and EU. Done as a carefully planned shift of some manufacturing operations it could have benefitted both China and the US and EU. In what way was this hyper move in pace and scale damaging? China's water, air and land was contaminated at a rapid pace never before seen in history, seen as early as 2005. And the hyper shift by 2015 and in 2020 is now showing the severe effects of climate change with droughts, floods and fires all over the world. The German Environment Ministry today counts the cost at 90 times in the use of coal and fossil fuels over time. On the scale that this massive and fast shift was done of manufacturing to China even more so- a hugely imprudent response of US and EU business management and executives. Instead of tackling and confronting head on the challenging problems of quality control and cost in the 1990's through 2000 and beyond at home, management at Apple and other companies simply shifted all manufacturing to China. The other ill effect of the imprudent response of American business was in the massive and wholesale shift of supply chain to China by offshoring practically the entire manufacturing base. It was to lead to the massive losses that workers, families  and communities in the US and EU that countries could not cope with as it moved on an accelerated hyper level and pace. The result was to lead to intense criticism of China and a level of rancor that has poisoned the relations with China. Some of this counsel to China was given to leaders of the Communist party who had little knowledge of American capitalism operating within constraints of social democracy in 1990. Some of that counsel was self interested given by investment banks to Chinese officials- investment bankers that have now disappeared from view- who themselves lacked an understanding of the social constraints of American and European democracies. It is that rancor that is now leading to China and the US disconnecting the supply chains leading to questions one is certain within China about how this will affect unemployment in China in the years to come. The pandemic simply accelerated this realization on both sides of this untenable situation. Still a trillion dollars in exports are taking place even as the political situation is now totally adrift -as the situation in Taiwan in August 2022 shows- the political and trading relationships at opposite ends and seemingly at war with each other. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What US companies did not get early on is that as China's economy advanced local companies could make the same products for less and innovate to take a big share of the market. Ford exited China and GM took  $5 billion charge on its China business. Chinese makers of cars, EV's, laptops and cell phones have the major share of the market. In 2024 US companies chastened by their experience and failing to compete in China are reticent about tariffs impacting their market share in China. Other reasons China was growing at over 10% in the last year of Obama's second term. In 2024 China is struggling to reach 5%.  Following Covid, housing industry collapse, as US and Europe block China's exports, China's public is growing wary of spending. There are only 800 Americans studying in China in 2024 compared to 11,000 in 2019. There are 290,000 Chinese students in US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof of the NYT writes about DJT Action in Venezuela January 3, 2026.  Some of the least understood aspects of the US president's language on Venezuela- The president's reference to oil resources is not for the US to benefit from the oil reserves. It is about oil in the sense that the oil industry in Venezuela is in total disrepair and broken from years and decades of nationalization followed by lack of investment, lack of western technology.  Sanctions put a huge price on the Venezuelan economy with the brunt of it borne by ordinary people- the same people that a socialist like Hugo Chavez thought he could help with his erratic ideology. As China, and now India has learned the only way to get ahead in this world for nations is to invest, invest, invest with larger and larger pools of capital, technologies and labour. By alienating the US or EU there is a loss of technologies and of investment so that one is going to bat with only one strike and you are out, so that from Day 1, China under Mao, India under Nehru had lost the race, so did all the "socialist" regimes in the world. Conversely China under Deng and successors, and India under Modi are breaking development records. How does the US change this? First it removes the sanctions on the Venezuelan economy. Second it gives Chevron the green light for increased production. Oil facilities of the Venezuelan oil company will get foreign investment and US investment from American oil companies with returns for both and the state oil revenues invested under a government that is able to invest it free of corruption or it being funneled out of the country to support other regimes in Latin America. This will rebuild the country's health system, its broken infrastructure, restore its finances, and make it in a decade one of the advanced economies in Latin America. But only if- the gangs and other private militias, the other military elements from the two decades of utter mismanagement and drug trafficking are  removed. A new way will have to be devised that the US as to work out ad hoc meaning in the process of doing, invented that meets the conditions of getting this done and the process of reconstruction of Venezuela under the Monroe doctrine of keeping the entire western hemisphere free of such elements. The US achieved this with the help of Great Britain in 1823 when it was only 50 years since it's founding in 1776. The US has the resources in 2026 to make this happen in the interests of the people of the western hemisphere, in the quality of life of people in the western hemisphere. It does not seek any country's resources, it seeks the development of the countries in the western hemisphere in the great tradition of Jefferson, Monroe, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union plans to rebuild its solar panel industry by manufacturing in the home country. This means shifting away from supply channels where China controls 80% of production. Chancellor Merkel failed to see the risks of letting German companies be decimated by China's subsidy program supporting solar panel makers in China. A system of customs duties failed when China threatened to retaliate with duties on German car exports. In the end Germany like the US under president Obama and Trump after 2010 failed to support domestic solar panel makers.  Now subsidies are accepted way of competing with China for both the US and the EU. The US under the Biden administration is fully committed to compete with China by developing its own solar panel manufacturing industry with the kind of help China is giving to its own solar panel makers. The EU is following the same path. From 200 gigawatts in 2023 the EU's target is 600 gigawatts from solar by 2030. The 400 gigawatts will come from through a policy of make at home in the EU, including raw materials, polysilicon, wafers, and assembly. Subsidies are now the way the US and the EU plan to get back what they lost to China, their critical manufacturing advantage through errors in policy. The European Commission is also changing the rules to accomodate the move. A story of one more critical advantage surrendered through the orthodoxy of free markets without policymakers understanding what they were doing. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Blinken Wang Yi meeting at the G-2- in Indonesia is the first high level meeting between US and China since March when the Ukraine war started. In the press briefing after the meeting Blinken said "more than four months into this brutal invasion the PRC stands by Russia." He pointed to Beijing support of Russia at the United Nations, dissemination of Russian talking points through Chinese state media and joint military exercizes with Moscow. One aspect of the relations that is beyond the control or good intentions of the two countries top diplomats is the tit for tat response that began with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump may have seen this as a way to talk to the voter base fed up with two decades of one sided trade with China with manufacturing shipped out to China and local communities of families and workers in regions across the US losing jobs and in decline. Much of this shift was done by US companies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations over two decades. The strident tone adopted by Trump was met by tit for tat responses in Chinese media till the pandemic when it assumed a new aspect of Chinese origins of the coronavirus. The result is that Sinophobia in the US is met by a response in Chinese media and in the thinking of the Chinese leadership under Jinping that now sees the relationship as having already shifted during the pandemic. The paradox in this is that the US in its effort to get other countries on its side is only beginning to make an effort of get America's own companies and large business investors on its side. Most American companies are still continuing trade and business with China as before.  The same situation exists with the shift of manufacturing from Japan and the European Union to China, with the loss of jobs and decline of local communities that depended on manufacturing. Japanese and European companies are acting in ways that are similar to American companies. Having managed the shift of manufacturing from European Union and Japan to China these companies have done little to change this business situation in 2022 carrying on as before. This is the paradox of the current situation that business both in the US and EU, and Japan is not on the side of their governments, even as their governments attitude to China, particularly now after the pandemic and the Ukraine war has shifted drastically. Alongside this is the popular opinion that has shifted gradually over the last 10 years in the US and EU, first in these very local communities that lost manufacturing to China, and then across broader sections of the public, and now across whole regions of America, Britain, the EU and Japan. This shift in popular opinion has little interest in the way business conducts business overseas or governments conduct diplomacy in nuanced statements. As a result neither the governments of the US, EU and Japan or the business of the US, EU and Japan are in control of this shifting situation that has its momentum and pace operating quite independently of governments and business. And public opinion across America, Europe, Japan, and also in India is moving in an entirely new direction.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Editorial Board article of the WSJ says the EU's embargo on Russian oil raise the cost for Putin's invasion of Ukraine and demonstrate Europe's resolve. The new round of sanctions by EU will ban the imports of Russian oil by sea as well as insurance for shipping companies that transport it globally. About two thirds of Russian oil comes by tanker. Germany and Poland will also stop pipeline oil imports from Russia, only Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia will continue with Russian pipeline oil. The result- an effective embargo on 90% of Russian oil imports by the end of 2022. How effective is this if Russian oil is rerouted through other countries to reach China, Western Europe and the US? The WSJ says don't underestimate the impact especially when it is combined with the ban on insuring ships that carry Russian oil. The higher insurance rates and costs of shipping will limit Russian oil exports. Europe makes up half of Russian oil exports and WSJ says the rest of the world can't use up all that oil. Russia exported $180 billion of oil in 2021, a large amount of this will no longer be available to Russia to finance the war. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
"Made in China 2025" has caused consternation and alarm in Washington about China's effort to dominate key industries of the future with state subsidies. This report in WSJ shows the European response to China's effort. A survey by the EU Chamber of Commerce in China shows 58% of companies have not been able to participate in Made In China initiatives. There is concern that global supply chains are not being utilized in robotics, aerospace, and electric vehicles, three areas under China's program.  62% of companies say they didn't know whether this was leading to increased discrimination against foreign companies.

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BYD is China's largest EV automaker. It boosted employment by 50% to 630,000 in 2023, with growth of 73%. This WSJ report shows how the Chinese government is now favoring EV automakers and the EV industry over Chinese internet companies such as Alibaba and Tencent that once played a large part in the economy.  $72 billion in tax breaks are provided by the government to EV automakers. Jobs have shrunk in internet companies during the pandemic with the Xi Jinping government moving away from housing and internet industries creating higher unemployment. Youth unemployment had reached 21%. The growth of BYD by 73% in the 8 months of 2023 shows how the EV industry will play a larger role in the economy, along with other new industries and technologies. It will also become an export leader with domestic innovation in technologies.

LyrArc Article Gist
China reduces US share of exports to 15% from 18% -yet with Vietnam made Chinese goods added in it is 21%. 15.8 million job loss for China from US fentanyl tariffs 2025 from one estimate. Chinese businesses are already feeling this, says WSJ. Exports represent 13% of China's GDP and China had redoubled its export effort after the property bubble burst. There are 2 drags on growth property crash and exports tariffs. China has less room for stimulus in 2025 and the government is focusing on bottom line thinking to prepare for hard times. Already companies are cutting shifts and laying off 10-30% of workers in garment, toys and other basic industries. President Xi is preparing for a long struggle reminiscent of how Mao led China to fight the US forces under Gen. McArthur in the 1950's Korean War, says the WSJ. In the past the state subsidy system worked to take huge share of new industries such as semiconductors, smartphones, solar, electric cars. This will be harder now with less money available to invest and drive out competition, and with the US and EU making their own products boosting their industrial and manufacturing base. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tech boom bust since 2000 that has hurt America and Europe and which also laid the foundations for the loss of manufacturing and technology to China, ceding American leadership and critical advantage, is shown here in the WSJ. The role of the finance sector  is explained here. That has added one more factor to the factor of endless wars in the Middle East, where American and European investment in healthcare, education and new infrastructure was somehow diverted away, and much of America's and Europe's resources wasted- or not turned to the benefit of the people of America or Europe.  One financial firm that rode the tech boom to the hilt finds itself with unacceptable losses except in a severe recession. Tiger Global Management was using tens of billions of dollars from pensions, endowments and rich clients riding on some of Silicon Valley's hottest stocks.  With the plunge in tech stock values including startups in which Tiger pushed into aggressively now facing large losses after hyper valuations, Tiger's hedge fund which managed $23 billion at the end of 2021 was down 52% in 2022. Another of its funds that managed $11 billion has lost 62%. WSJ says this wiped out two thirds of the gains Tiger has made in the tech stocks since its founding. In addition large writedowns are expected on its venture funds valued at $64 billion at the end of 2021, says WSJ.  WSJ says cheap money (money somehow diverted from infrastructure and funding manufacturing in China instead of the US now goes by the misnomer cheap money) reshaped Silicon Valley in the last decade, as pension funds, rich investors and celebrities turned to well connected money managers such as Tiger to put money in tech stocks and startups. This WSJ report says compared to Sequoia Capital and an earlier generation of venture companies Tiger Global is simply not interested in management of companies it invests in, taking a broad brush approach, using Bain Capital for research, and trying to haul in a large load of fish like trawlers at sea hoping for some companies to make big gains. Many pension funds such as Calpers California's public pension fund invest in Tiger with a $400 million investment. WSJ also reports that Tiger Global's venture funds do not reflect the realities of the tech business as venture stocks will reflect the drop over 2022 and 2023, including its ByteDance Chinese tech investment which will need larger writedowns. Tiger has also not hesitated to get into cryptocurrency which has loss of about $1.5 trillion dollars. It is of interest to note that Julian Robertson, hedge fund manager of the 2000 period (when Clinton-Bush were US presidents) who ran Tiger Management provided the impetus for Mr. Coleman, then 25 years old, for the start of Tiger Global. Julian Robertson closed his fund in 2000 during the dot com bust. Coleman hired a Blackstone analyst and started on the next cycle of tech with social media platform Facebook now Meta, followed by China's JD.com as investments in a new China boom were started. The end result is that during a period of Middle East wars under Bush and Obama, and building dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies under Schroeder and Merkel, China was the gainer as the US and EU lost much of its manufacturing and technology to China. During this period US and Europe neglected investment in infrastructure that would benefit the people of America in ease of living and quality of life. Just as money was wasted in wars much of the tech investment was wasted. The companies that added value over time were started long before and relied on sales growth and new products that revolutionized their field such as Apple with smartphones that started well before the nineteen eighties, Amazon with logistics and its own style of management, Microsoft from an even earlier era. Tech monopolies Facebook, Google, and others would not be missed much in terms of real progress for the people of America. The cost is many decades of ceding manufacturing and technology advantage to China by US and the EU led by Germany. China 2030 and the war in Ukraine with China's support have shown how fragile the foundations have been with weak political leadership and a finance sector running backwards in terms of America's and Europe's strengths in new infrastructure, better healthcare, services and education for the people of America and Europe. Leaving it to the Biden administration and a new coalition of Greens and Scholz in Germany to begin the task of rebuilding America and Europe on strong foundations, including the dignity of the workers and families, that makes who we are and what we believe in, and why the free world believes in us. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Was Russia better off in 2021 than after the invasion of Ukraine. Was it better for upward mobility, health, openness of the economy and growth, and standards of living. Was the US perceived as a hegemon when it also lacked control of its own companies that preferred to invest elsewhere and ignored US workers for a long time. This report in the WSJ asks whether it is not true that not just Russia, but the US, the EU, China, India, other large nations faced a world order that was in many ways difficult, not to their liking, and in some ways posed risks for their countries. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The price of gas powered cars and EV's is closing, to about $5000 according to Cox Automotive. Tesla is cutting prices because of new competition from Japanese, Korean and German models in the US market. China's BYD is also in the global market with new battery technology that cuts cost. Batteries make up 40% of EV car cost. The cost of making EV's will drop to becoming the same as gas powered models by 2027 as companies get more experience in the new technologies, says Gartner.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ's reporters Meichtry, L, Pokharel, and Soon look at the extraordinary rise of Gautam Adani through his efforts to develop reclaimed land at Mundra port in the state of Gujarat. Adani who started with a small family owned plastics maker in Ahmedabad developed Mundra port around 2001 with the help of the Modi administration. Modi saw the electricity shortages in Gujarat as an opportunity to tackle India's chronic electricity shortages. Adani's early development of a deep water port at Mundra offered both Modi and Adani the opportunity to tackle the electricity shortages by bringing coal in large ships to Mundra in the way that China was already doing by 2005 in its own efforts at industrialization. So deeply immersed was India under the Congress Raj of licenses and closed economy that India's established business failed to see what China was doing to break into the ranks of industrialized nations. India's first prime minister Nehru had build a command economy where not much happened without government licenses and approval often riddled unwittingly with corruption. Modi needed someone outside the established companies operating under the Congress Raj command economy and with a vision of an India with abundant electricity to take the risks Chinese companies were taking to build an entirely new economy. By 2005 Guangzhou was importing coal with large ships from Indonesia and Australia. State owned companies moved slowly and would take years to develop the port capacity. Using China's example Modi pushed ahead with Adani on a rapid time delivery making Mundra a Special economic Zone and helping to connect Indian Railways to the port of Mundra for coal deliveries. Adani Enterprises built the thermal power plants near Mundra and build electricity transmission lines on a rapid mission mode giving Gujarat abundant electricity supplies and giving Gujarat state in northwestern India a great leap forward in the way China was already doing right in front of everyone's eyes by 2005 with world class ports built at Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenzen, Hong Kong and logistics connections set with the help of Maersk.  Maersk is now doing the same for modern logistics in India in collaboration with the Modi administration.  Modi and the younger generation of aspirational youth in India see a New India that can break into the ranks of the largest industrialized nations with world class infrastructure in the way China has done, and use new technologies with innovation that will speed up the process in a way that the world has never seen. A quick look at Mundra Port in Wikipedia shows the timeline, It starts in 1998 when Adani Port Ltd was setup and Mundra port work began, 2002 the port integrated with Indian Railways, 2003 when it was made a Special Economic Zone by the Modi government in Gujarat, 2007 when IPO of 40 million shares at price band of around Rs 400 was done.  The Biden administration and the Trump administration support India's efforts to build a new modern economy with a rapid shift to renewable energy. As India is building the ports and logistics with the help of Maersk and other companies in the European Union, president Biden is working with prime minister Modi to build a new supply chain that removes the overconcentration of manufacturing and supply chain logistics in China. This means new ports with the latest technologies in India to handle shipment to the US and the EU. Jake Sullivan set out the goals for president Biden to accomplish this task in meetings with his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval this week on iCERT. President Biden and Republicans, Germany and the EU, see India as a critical part of the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies, and the new supply chain. For the Adani Group the IPO pause offers an opportunity to do what Nirmala Sitharman has done in the Indian Budget this week- build a stable growth path ahead for the long term in line with India's Amrit Kal the next 25 years to centenary of freedom in 2047. Nirmala Sitharaman set a goal of rapid capital spending and investment increasing capital spending in 2023 by 33% in 2023 over 2022, yet maintaining a stable fiscal path by keeping the deficit below 6%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How to build a global port network with less cash- China's state owned Cosco and it's European ports network is an example of savy buying during financial crises, and when companies in Europe and the US were keen to make sales of ports. China simply integrated it into a vast exports network, using containerized terminal expansion modernization to build its manufacturing for export model. This was an extension of its domestic network where it added new port infrastructure to newly built rail and road connections.  India today is learning from this example. By 2000 the Chinese global export model was entrenched. It was also the year when the junior Bush president extended the wars of Reagan/Bush in Iraq of the 1980's to Afghanistan. China had a clear road ahead to build state of the art infrastructure of ports, logistics and exports over the next 10-15 years without any defense costs.  Piraeus in Greece south of Athens, a port concession acquired in 2004 Antwerp in Belgium (Austrian Netherlands), a minority stake in a container port acquired in 2008. In 2013 with sale of Terminal Link ports in a 49% stake deal by CMA of France holding 51%, China has stakes in Zeerbrugge and Antwerp, Busan South Korea, and Le Havre, Montoir and Fos in France, Xiamen in China, Miami and Houston in US. Rotterdam, Netherlands- Cosco acquired in 20126 a 35% stake in Euromax Terminal in Rotterdam from Hong Kong's Hutchison's Holdings for $125 million. Valencia and Bilbao majority  51% stake for $270 million, when JP Morgan paid as much as $950 million to ACS of Spain for these ports after the 2009 crisis led to Spanish divestments. Today in TEU's shipping containers China sends goods to Europe 10 times what it takes in through Spanish ports. Hamburg-In May 2023 Germany's Scholz overruled Habeck to let sale of 24.9% of Hamburg port to COSCO go through ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In the past market forces pushed the US out of the chip business to highly subsidized chip companies TMC and SMIC in Taiwan and China. US cannot have it both ways. It cannot compete with China in chips and allow temporary market forces do the job of decimating its chip industry.    Market forces are rags to riches and mostly short term ignoring long term. Nvidia now valued at $1 trillion under market forces would not exist today. WSJ showed recently that only with the help of a loan from a Japanese Sega videogame executive Iramijiri to Nvidia founder Jensen Huang was Nvidia able to survive market forces in 1998. Qualcomm a maker of phone chips has made a takeover offer of Intel in 2024. Intel shares dropped 60% this year and is valued on share basis at $90 billion- yet was recently at $290 billion closer to its true value as America's chip pioneer and leader. Qualcomm is at $185 billion. Yet share values can be rags to riches as Nvidia story of going up to $1 trillion in 2021 and $3 trillion in 2024 shows. Such a deal draws anti trust concerns with too much control under one company. A deal for takeover of British owned ARM by Nvidia was stopped by regulatory authorites in UK and the EU in 2022. The US government is giving $8.5 billion to Intel to build up its chip making technology in competition with China. The Gelsinger plan is for manufacturing to be boosted up, so is the effort of the Biden administration. It may take time yet it is the right approach for the US. Pat Gelsinger is leading this effort at Intel. In the past market forces pushed the US out of the chip business to highly subsidized chip companies TMC and SMIC in Taiwan and China.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After all the media talk about tariffs inflation- inflation is at 2.4% in May 2025. Tariffs was part of the toolbox of strategies under Lighthizer and Jamieson on getting fair world trade, and not like Congressman Hawley in the 1920's who understood little about the workings of the US economy. This fact the official media such as the WSJ and NYT, Wash Post, BBC need to get it right about the Hawley Tariffs. Hawley was born in rural Oregon in 1864 went to country schools, and was president of Willamette University in Salem, when it's population was 4258. As House Ways and Means Committee chairman he wrote the failed tariffs bill Hoover signed in 1930. DJT's US Trade Representative Lighthizer in 2016 led the successful negotiations with Japan under Reagan, Scott Bessent who leads negotiations on tariffs with China with USTR Jamieson, has a deep understanding and grasp of today's financial markets. Tariffs is one of the tools in the US toolbox to get Japan, China, South Korea to even the playing field for US companies and bring back manufacturing to the US. Without it China would not budge from its unfair advantage and would not negotiate in fairness. This is proven in the way Japan in the 1980s and China today are responding to the US position preparing their economies for not relying on sudden surges in exports putting whole industries and workers in America and Europe out of work and out of jobs. DJT says- "No we are not going to accept that," the EU is catching on and adopting a similar position, China knows that.  The media is irresponsible in presenting tariffs in a negative way, irresponsible to American workers the 10 million put out of work since 2000, and to American families and the Nation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Trade tensions and struggle for tech leadership with U.S. actions to prevent flow of sensitive technology to China affect Chinese investment in Silicon Valley. American companies are required to comply with new American laws preventing such flows to China of American technology. The Trump administration takes action in 2019 to restrict such flows in its trade dispute with China over trade surpluses China accumulated over 2 decades, and over China's plans in the document "Made in China 2025" for tech leadership based on continued access to American and European technologies. Trump does a U turn from the initial efforts of Clinton and later Obama to maintain such flows to a developing country that has brought hundreds of millions out of poverty through favorable trade with Europe and the U.S. "Made in China 2025" was seen as a loss of American leadership in key areas beginning with the current loss of leadership in 5G to Huawei. Chinese investments in Silicon Valley face higher regulatory scrutiny in this new environment and American companies shy away from Chinese capital. ...