LyrArc Article Gist
Media headlines focused on Xi's statements on Taiwan. China is concerned that US not recognize Taiwan independence, but not much beyond that. China puts Iran much lower on the list of issues it considers important. It appears that China first priority is to be accepted as an equal partner with the US as a superpower. That is Xi's goal in this trip. Issues of Hormuz and Iran not something China considers important. China has an interest in a non-nuclear Iran, in no nuclear weapons proliferation. As the US has made this a priority China prefers to be not vocal on this issue, as it relies on the US to see this is done. A secondary priority for China is to have the US agree that China could continue to import from the Hormuz Straits to met its oil needs. As China has relations with Arab states it is carefully balancing this with relations with Iran. What does this mean? It means China and US are in considerable agreement on the current situation in the Gulf region and in the Middle East. China sees beyond Iran, so does the US. Both countries are focused on the future - on reindustrialization in the US and China on the next phase in its industrialization. New countries and blocs are also emerging that will rival China and the US- India/Japan and the European Union under leadership of Germany and France. These four countries or blocs are all thinking of the world beyond a failed Middle East- the economic issues they face and how best to tackle them, and the issues relating to borders and security, how best to tackle them. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The world today is in a much better position to complete the transition to zero dependence on the volatile Middle East for oil. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US   2. China  3. India  4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (India through waivers for Russian sources). European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources. US is self sufficient in oil and gas and exports oil to the UK, India, Germany and the European Union. Canada is self sufficient. Germany gets only 6% of its oil from the Middle East, the UK 12%, Spain 13% and Italy 14%. The Iran war is likely to shift more of the needs of UK, Spain and Italy to other more stable sources including oil from the US and Venezuela managed by the US, and other sources. This means that US policymakers can act in the best interests of all the nations of the world for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles. Germany is moving rapidly to renewable energy and this could bring its dependence on the Middle East to zero. India will meet its needs from Russia for the time being till it also shifts to oil from US+ Venezuela. India get 55% of its oil from the Middle East or about 2.7 million b/d. Russia was an important source of oil for India till the US trade agreement called for it to shift- a 30 day waiver and extension means India can get this oil from Russia without sanctions for the duration of the war. Reducing European demand and Indian demand frees up oil for Japan and South Korea on the world market the other 2 countries dependent on Middle East oil- Japan importing 95% of its oil consumption with imports of 2.5 million b/d and South Korea importing about 2 million b/d or 70% of its consumption. This means Japan and South Korea need a new strategy as they are overexposed to one source just as Germany was and learned a difficult lesson to diversify its sources. Japan has learned to reduce consumption for the same level of GDP and some of this can be through conservation, also tried in Germany in the last 4 years. During the 4 years. of Ukraine war Germany had to find ways to diversify sources Japan and South Korea will need rapidly to do the same in the Iran War. This means that only Japan and South Korea because of their lack of policy direction and vigilance have allowed this overdependence on the Gulf region,  (even as Germany diversified its sources, DJT and Israel were firm on nuclear weapons policy) they failed to see signs that they should diversify. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US 2. China 3. India 4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (Indi through waivers for Russian sources), European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India European Union Trade Agreement of 2026- game changer in world trade reconfiguring supply channels with 2 billion people market. EU's Leyen says she is determined to push ahead and make this the defining trade arrangement of this century. That the EU will deliver. For India it gives a reliable partner for modernization of its logistics, its infrastructure, and its industrialization, India's modernization in a rapid way. Similar to what China gained over 2 decades with its trading relationship with the EU, even surpassing that because of newer technologies in 2025-2050. It is a relationship based on two cultures and two civilizations, on respect for European and Buddhist/Vedic civilization for each other, totally different from the Imperial Japan of the 1930's that overran China, and the CCP in China ambitions for China Dreams based on belligerent action or support for belligerent action as in Ukraine. Leyen goes as far as citing Romain Rolland, a western philosopher of Indian civilization in the concluding point in her speech. In fact the first translation of the Bhagavad Gita was done by Charles Wilkins in 1765 taking it out of the hands of the Brahmins in Varanasi similar to how William Tyndale translated the New testament into English from Greek in 1534.  The Bhagavad Gita was then translated by German philosopher Frederick Schlegel into German from Sanskrit, spreading learning of Asian languages throughout Europe. India owes a lot to Europe and Europe to India, for two civilizations that speak the same human language of spiritual aspirations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A big win for the US and a win-win for the European Union in the sense that it brings stability to the trade relationship. For the US it brings a level playing field in world trade that had suffered fo far too long from unfair advantages taken by Japan, Canada, European Union and other nations, in addition to the serious distortions of the world trade system with China's state version of capitalism financing an export model. So the first step was to straighten out the situation with partners and allies the US has supported in the past 75 years. US European Union Trade Agreement is reached July 27, 2025, at meeting between Von Der Leyen of Eu and DJT of the US in Scotland. It includes $750 billion EU purchases over 3 years of US oil and gas, LNG, nuclear fuel, semiconductors, etc and $650 billion in investments in US, including military purchases. It puts a 15% tariff on all products from the EU entering the US, replaces the tariff of about 5% under Biden. On Pharmaceuticals it is what the US president decides says Leyen, though for now it is included.  The EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefovic says- “I think that what was most important for us was to make sure we would have this predictability and we would have stability for our businesses." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Let sleeping tariffs lie is the approach of S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan, China, India, European Union, Germany, UK-  expect all trade agreements with the US to remain in place after Supreme Court decision as no country wants to go through the intensely difficult process of renegotiating on tariffs. It is also the case that DJT can replace these same tariffs using other tools and different legislation passed by Congress to stop unfair trading practices by other nations. The president is also appealing to the public, some of the tariffs are about fentanyl flows into the US, the unfair trade practices and subsidies were a problem for the Biden administration and rebuilding manufacturing was the goal of both DJT and Biden, and will be for future administrations.  When the media NYT, Washington Post respond they are following the editorial line taken that opposes the DJT administration on all issues, when WSJ respond it takes the textbook approach of economists and finance people that free markets are best without considering the real life issues. This is why the president said at his press conference after the Supreme Court decision that 22 Nobel Prize economists had said the economy could not be turned around for growth and low inflation in 1 year, and were proved wrong after the experience of 2025 with low inflation at 2.8%, low unemployment 4.3%, and growth of 2.2% in real GDP (with strong growth in quarters 2&3 of 3.8% and 4.4%). Expect all tariffs to be in place under other legislation to be in place in coming months. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A joint statement at the G-20 meetings in South Africa on November 20 signed by the leaders of Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Germany and Norway, and the European Union expresses concern about the 28 Point Plan put forward by US and Russian negotiators. It also says that it includes important elements that will be essential for aj ust and lasting peace. US president has set Nov 27 as a date for Ukraine to come to an agreement. 

LyrArc Article Gist
A key figure in approval ratings is 46% with DJT getting 46% approval for the economy and on a range of issues including immigration. On tariffs the situation is steadily improving with new trade agreements with Japan, the EU, South Korea that were announced after or just when this WSJ poll was taken on July 20. Among Republicans 88% support the president and 66% strongly support him which says this report means more of them would turn out to vote. More significant is that the optimistic rating of the economy went up by 11 percentage points from April 2025 to 46% in July 2025. This is also the view of Fed chairman Powell. Each step of the way as DJT tariff actions result in tangible improvements in trade relations for the US and result in concrete real world trade agreements for a level playing field in world trade, the president's actions are seen in a different light. The first Trade Agreement with the UK, then with Japan and now quite possibly with the European Union. All this within 6 months of the president acting in February 2025. A major role played also by Bessent, Greer, Luttnick and others in the cabinet of ministers. This lifts perceptions of the president in the eyes of the American people in handling the economy, business and world trade, and protecting the interests of America's farmers, and rural communities. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lost in media reporting the net US exports increase of 5% as US asserted it's position as a leading exporter in 2025 has boosted second quarter US GDP growth to 3%. 

In tariff negotiations  and the agreements with European Union and Japan US has asserted it's position as a leading exporting nation, a position it held since the 1920's that was neglected through the ineptitude of previous presidents.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US central bank the Fed's Powell leaves interest rates unchanged July 30, 2025- as he waits to see what happens with inflation following tariffs action by DJT to level playing field with EU, Japan, China. A tariff of 15% is set in US Trade Agreements with Japan, EU and South Korea. Powell says the impact on US consumers will be minimal but not zero, with some effects expected even though EU, Japan and South Korea will not attempt to pass through the tariffs and risk the other benefits of trade access to the US market.

Overall both the European Union and the US have a good economy, with inflation at 2% and the the unemployment situation the best it has been in some decades near 6% in EU and near 4% in the US. 

LyrArc Article Gist
China trade pause deadline of Aug 12 and its renewal. US negotiators Bessent and Greer in Stockholm report back to DJT for a final decision on whether to extend the trade truce with China by 3 months. China wants to remove the duty related to fentanyl entering the US from origins of the chemicals in China of 20% imposed by DJT, yet trade negotiators say no significant improvements on cracking down on the chemicals used to make fentanyl are seen. Currently duties are at 50-55% and would go up to 80% without a truce. The UK, Japan and European Union, Indonesia, Vietnam have come up with trade agreements with the US by July 28, 2025.

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan and the European Union announce a new trade agreement, in a response to the protectionist tone of the Trump administration in the U.S. The deal is announced at the time of G-20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany. The deal removes the 10% duty on Japanese car imports to the EU, and removes barriers to European automakers in Japan. Experts say the deal comes at a time when the European Union wanted to come up with a response to Brexit and Trump style protectionist sentiment. European automakers say they need assurances that they will have better access to the Japanese market.

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan's economy minister, Mr. Seko, says that with no-deal Brexit Britain will lose access to Japan's new economic partnership agreement with the European Union which last month created the world's largest free trade zone. Seko said 1000 Japanese companies have invested in the UK creating 150,000 jobs, because it served as "a gateway to the European market."

Nissan is scaling back its Sunderland factory. Sony and Panasonic are relocating their EU headquarters to Amsterdam. Honda will close its Swindon plant in 2021. Seko said "uncertainty for the consequences of Brexit is spreading in Japanese industry."

LyrArc Article Gist
After renegotiating the trade deal with Mexico and Canada, and the Phase 1 trade deal with China, the U.S. is now setting its sights on a trade agreement with the European Union. To do this the U.S. is looking at the use of economic pressure including tariffs on the European automobile industry. One goal is to get the EU to do more to end state subsidies to aircraft maker Airbus SE.  The U.S. is also working with Europe and Japan to ban 4 types of subsidies under World Trade Organization rules under a new proposal. Mr. Phil Hogan is the new EU trade commissioner who backs this proposal that is aimed at restricting Chinese subsidies to state enterprises. The U.S. also wants to see agricultural issues, including tariffs discussed in future negotiations with Europe. As part of efforts to change the way World Trade Organization rules are set the U.S. has blocked the appointment of judges at the top court of the WTO so that it lacks the quorum to operate. Mr. Vaughan who works under Mr. Lighthizer in the trade negotiations with Europe, says the Europeans should take U.S. concerns seriously, and accept the possibility that Mr. Trump could take aggressive action if the facts show he is justified in acting in that manner.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India in 2022 and looking at 2030 has great potential in the world. India's interests as a democracy are clearly aligned with the US and Europe. In the past when India was small in economic terms after emerging from the British Empire as an independent nation and out of the fire of the partition and wars in South Asia in 1962, 1965, 1971 policies of ambivalence in foreign affairs took place. At that time says Manmohan Singh, a former prime minister who negotiated for rouble -Indian rupee agreement in the 1970's and 1980's India was finding its way for its small but growing economy. This was in the context of the Nehru-Indira Gandhi policy of non-alignment of the early years after independence when India was never presented with an opportunity to make a difference in the world and was only a small part of the world economy. Today's situation is different. The US and European Union now see the need for a principle based economic order and while one may quibble about the small details, in the larger sense, history has intended for us, the US, the European Union, UK,  British Commonwealth of which we are a part, to stand together economically and politically with our shared parliamentary systems based on western- British and American- democracy and values.  Never has history presented such a huge opportunity for billions of people- to meet the aspirations across continents from North and South America, European Union, to Africa, Asia south and south east and Japan. All countries that aspire to the free societies that have evolved over hundreds of years. It is also the spirit in which Hind Swaraj was written in 1910 by Mohandas Gandhi and which was turned into reality only 37 years later under his leadership and vision for India. The non-alignment period of 2 decades was more of a intervening chapter that resulted from a sense of grievance rather than in the spirit of courage and spirited effort that Mohandas Gandhi embodied and led India with. In Manmohan Singh's direct unmistakable terms and from the vast experience he brings as a respected Indian civil servant- "India as the largest peace loving democracy stands to gain enormously from this principled trade aspiration of the western block of nations of the US and European Union. It presents a tremendous opportunity for India to become a large producing nation for the world and a global economic powerhouse. However, to capitalize on these opportunities India needs free access to these markets, an accepted and global currency to trade in and seamless trade settlements." Manmohan Singh sees millions of factories manned by hundreds of millions of people of all castes, creeds and religions of India. This is a pivotal moment of change for India and India must grasp it firmly. It is also the Mohandas Gandhi of Hind Swaraj taken to a new level from 1910 to 2050, and today's young people's aspiration for India.  ...

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.   ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
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
Greg Ip points out in this WSJ analysis that the new NAFTA after negotiations and warnings from Mr. Trump to scrap NAFTA, is not very different from the old NAFTA. Mexico made concessions on auto exports and labor rights, wages. Canada made concessions for the dairy industry. Yet the combined influence of business interests, Canada's lobbying in U.S. Congress and state governments, and the restraint shown by Trump's own advisers prevailed in limiting Mr. Trump's tendencies to go for a "America first" agenda. It shows, says Ip, that there is resilience in the existing order.  It also shows what future trade negotiations with the European Union and Japan over steel and autos could look like. President Trump will continue to face resistance within from his advisers and from exporters, business, Congress, on following an exclusively "America First" agenda. President Trump will need to extol NAFTA in its current version the USMCA, U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, to get it through the U.S. Congress in 2019.   Mexico's main concessions on autos were to agree to potential tariffs if exports exceed 2.6 million vehicles.  This keeps Mexico's status as a major auto export hub intact. Auto experts say VW and Mazda may simply pay the tariff of 2.5% for lower priced models assembled in Mexico that do not qualify for duty free entry instead of shifting production to the U.S. Current shipments from Mexico are not affected as U.S. demand is weak. Labor rights and higher wages in Mexico's auto industry are a win-win for Mexico and the U.S.. They are supported by the socialist administration of newly elected Mexican president Obrador. Canada's main concession was to expand U.S. access to Canada's protected dairy industry, with Canada already prepared to make the concession. Mr. Trump had also to consider the possibility that excluding Canada from the USMCA would have not passed Congress, and face even more resistance in a Democratic controlled Congress after 2019 elections.  The support Canada has received in Congress does not extend to China, which gets much less support in Congress, leading to higher uncertainty in the negotiations with China and possibly different outcome with the size of the trade imbalance of $1 billion a day factored in.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ report shows that on the morning of the 90 Day Pause in Tariffs announcement discussions took place with the Swiss prime minister, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and watching Fox News interview of JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon. Seeing the turmoil in financial markets and bond markets, US president DJT made the decision to give time to make the agreements with about 50 countries, and time for financial markets to understand the president's  policy and goals to reformulate the world trading system into one that offers a level playing field. The chart showing the Tariffs of 67% by China and US 34% imposed tariff in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, was say reports the result of the influence on the president of the advice of Peter Navarro.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's expertise is in financial markets as a protege of Soros, Navarro's is world trade. Bessent stepped in when financial markets appeared to reflect the uncertainty and convinced the president that the 90 day pause would be the best way to implement the policy on trade. There is a vigorous debate in the administration about how to get a level playing field for trade, and get the job done without disruptions in financial markets or a recession induced by uncertainty. On April 10 as part of the effort to talk to the American people US president DJT opened up his Cabinet meeting to the media and had Bessent, Borghum, RFK Jr and Marco Rubio talk about their plans and policies. Proper implementation, gaining confidence of the people of America and financial markets, is now as important as the goals and policies in the next 90 days. Getting the trade deals with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Britain and India would go a long way to reassure financial markets and set the right tone for the future.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a first at Davos World Economic Forum, China's president Xi Jinping uses the 2017 meeting to give a one hour long spirited defense of the world trading system, critical of U.S. president elect Trump's protectionist views without naming him. Xi pointed out that "no one will be winners in a trade war." And went on to add that restricting world trade was like "locking oneself in a dark room, keeping out wind and rain from outside but also light and air." For the first time Jinping stated that China would take the U.S. role of defending the world trading system from attack as needed. On climate change Xi defended the Paris accords, and gave China's commitment to pursue changes regardless of what the U.S. under president Trump does. This follows Chancellor Merkel of Germany's statements on the issue critical of the views of president elect Trump, and taking the lead to defend the world trading system. Xi also pointed out that many of the ills that led to voter discontent in the West were not really from the freeing up of trade but from the pursuit of excessive profit with the financial crisis of 2008.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The recent appointment of fast food executive Andrew Puzder as Labor Secretary has caused great concern among union leaders. Puzder supports a $9 minimum wage compared to $15 supported by Democrats. Unions now represent 7% of the labor force, down from a high of 20% during Reagan's time when Reagan appointed a construction company executive as Labor Secretary and cut regulations.  Globalization has thinned the ranks of workers in unions. And the failure of Democratic administrations to stem the shift of factories overseas to China, Mexico and other places, as part of global supply chains focussed on cost, has weakened Democratic support among workers since the period of Bill Clinton. It eroded to the point where Obama won 65% of support among unions and Hillary Clinton won 56% in 2016. Interestingly the Republican Romney gained 33% versus 37% for Trump, showing voters were more inclined to move away from Democrats and only a smaller number willing to support Republicans, but the shift enough to give Republicans a win in 2016 for the presidency. The figures are from a Election Day survey of trade union AFL-CIO, and a larger proportion in midwestern states showed disaffection with policies from Clinton to Obama. In fact Obama spent years promoting another free trade agreement TPP that favored tech more than auto and older industries, just as Bill Clinton had promoted NAFTA, without giving thought to what this was doing to its worker base of support. A similar situation happened with Social Democrats in Germany as a SPD administration moved to the centre and handed Christian Democrats led by Merkel a win in parliamentary elections. As Democrats such as former Labor Secretary Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley who served under Bill Clinton, describe the problems of working class people their is less reflection on the impact of the changes from globalization and how Democrats handled or mishandled it, and more on the politics between the two parties.   ...