LyrArc Article Gist
Sanae Takaichi press conference with DJT at White House March 19 2026- there is no mention of Japanese help with clearing Straits of Hormuz. US Japan relations after the meeting of Takaichi and DJT at the White House appear to be in good shape. Japan will invest $73 billion in US investment projects in 2026 as part of the $550 billion commitment made at the time of the US Japan trade deal in 2025 under the previous LDP prime minister. Takaichi is coming with strong support in Japan after winning a landslide victory in the general election. Japan's main concern is the belligerent North Korea and China's posture in Asia as it relates to Taiwan. Agreements were reached on critical issues- to develop alternative supplies of critical minerals, to rebuild the shipbuilding industry which US and Japan had given up after dominating it for most of the 20th century. This is critical to ensure open navigation on the oceans of the world. Agreements on high tech and AI, and agreement to purchase Alaskan oil to cut Japan's 90% dependence on volatile Middle East supplies. Japan has managed Middle East supply by keeping over 254 days of inventory but this looks to be very risky as Germany learned from its dependence on Russian oil which went in the wrong direction under Merkel. Japan has released about 18% of its total reserve amount of the 254 days inventory (146 days in national reserves and 101 days in private mandated reserves). It uses 3.14 million barrels a day in 2026 down from 5.8 million barrels a day in 1996, using about half today through conservation and using renewable energy showing the potential for the US and Europe. Germany has cut oil consumption by a third in comparison from 2.9 mbd in 1996 to 2.0 in 2026. And the US remains stagnant with oil demand highest in 2005 at 20.5 mbd and 20 years later at 20.5 mbd mainly because 14mbd or 70% goes to cars and trucks on the road for 347 million people over continental spaces (compared to 297 million in 2005) for a reduction of oil use of 15%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is what our energy wars, our climate change wars are about in summary. Europe has moved faster than the US, India and China in cutting fossil fuels use over 20 years 2005 to 2025. Europe going from 1525 trillion watt hours to 792- cutting use by half. The US from 2900 to  2553 trillion watt hours just 12%. And China...China tripled its use. This has come at a price as the costs of renewables push up electricity prices beyond what homes and industry can support. UK electricity prices 80% higher than US and half of UK energy users plan to ration its use 2025. Half of electricity costs in UK come from cost and delivery, other half of costs from subsidies of renewables and other. In Germany high electricity costs are hobbling industry and reducing economic growth. Lower electricity prices make the US more attractive than Germany as a place to invest. Another way to look at it- US and Europe cut fossil fuel use by about 1100 trillion watt hours and China increased its use by 4200 trillion watt hours or 4 times what the US and Europe cut in 2024 over 2005. Adding India, Brazil this would be 5-6 times what the US and Europe saved in 2024 over 2005. The "And "strategy of combining reduction in fossil with building renewable capacity is working out compared to dumping fossil in one shove and going all out renewable. There is also the question of equity. China and India argue equity means we should be allowed to use some fossil with renewable for 2.5 billion people's needs. The other side of equity is the US saying the same as "no fossil period" strategy puts the needs of the large part of the population for lower costs of energy  pushed aside as wealthy classes say it is OK. Even when the savings through cuts and sacrifices in US and EU are cut down, cut down by 5-6 fold increase in China, India, Brazil alone. In this kind of climate change war it makes sense not to go with labels such as climate change denial DJT vs China climate change affirming, when China is diluting US-EU climate change entire twenty year savings of 2005-2024 by a factor of 4, 1100 trillion watt hours wiped out by China's 4200 trillion watt hours added. And India, Brazil taking this to a factor of 6. This is why a lot of the discussion with self-righteous indignation becomes less purposeful. What is clear is that every action to cut cost of living in US and EU for large parts of the people is an effort in the right direction as it frees up resources for the fight against climate change, the sense that we are all in the same boat and in the same struggle. The fight against cost of living is part of the long run struggle against climate change. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
COP26 stands for Conference of the Parties for Climate Change. The conference will be held in Glasgow from 31 October to 12 November 2021 in the UK. It is important because for the first time the major countries are keen on pushing forward with climate change policies and targets. This includes India, China, US, European Union, and major Asian, Latin American, African nations. In India Mr. Modi has set a target of 450 GW for renewable energy. China is aggressively cutting back on its use of coal to the point of tolerating cutbacks in electricity for industry and cities. US, UK, Germany, Nordic countries are pushing forward with new targets for reducing coal consumption and increasing renewable energy production, advancing renewable energy technologies. The new Biden administration in the US and the Greens in Germany have replaced administrations that were not as committed to tackling climate change. With China and India also committed to tackling climate change with renewed vigor the stage is set for serious steps to be taken. To reach the target of limiting global heating by no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade countries all over the world have to cut emissions by 45%. In reality emissions will increase by 16% in 2021 because China and India still depend on coal and developed nations have not cut back enough. To cut use of coal and preserve forests, avoid the drastic changes in weather patterns with drought and floods in different parts of the same country seen in Germany, India, African countries and other Asian countries a lot needs to be done. Here Mr Kerry the US Representative for Climate Change, says -"There is a significant increase in ambition on cutting emissions than ever imagined possible. A much larger group of people are stepping up." It is not clear if Mr. Xi of China will attend the Glasgow meeting. He has talked to Mr. Biden at length on this issue recently. Mr. Modi of India will attend and will meet Denmark's prime minister Mitte and other leaders before the COP26 in Glasgow.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany went through a period of stagnant growth and persistently high unemployment leading to reforms of the welfare system and entitlements under the Schroeder administration. The reforms led to lower unemployment benefits and an effort to get the unemployed take up jobs. Instead of unemployment benefits that amounted to half the salary indefinitely, unemployment benefits ended in 12 months under the reforms, and workers were forced to take up jobs or dig into their savings. The cuts to benefits led to more of the unemployed taking jobs that were not their first choice with lower incomes. Unions agreed to defer wage demands and wages remained relatively flat for a long period. The "kurzarbeit" system of government subsidizing employers to retain workers during economic downturns, helped cushion the workforce from ups and downs in the economy. Unemployment which was in double digits a decade ago, is now 6.1%. The system still preserved some other aspects of generous benefits- parental leave of 14 months at two-thirds salary, vacation time and publicly sponsored health insurance. Recent changes include raising the retirement age to 67 from 65. The Organization of Economc Cooperation and Development estimates that the 200,000 jobs saved in Germany during the recession of 2008-2009 cost the government $7 billion. Government funds helped companies retain workers by paying a portion of worker salaries and averting layoffs.This comes to $35,000 per job. Compare this with the $38.9 billion allocated to a loan program at the Energy Department under the U.S. stimulus. 8050 jobs were created under this program according to the Washington Post- for the money spent so far in Sept 2011- 2 years into the loan program, of $19.3 billion. This comes to $2.4 million in government guaranteed loans per job. The Energy Department says that 33,000 jobs were saved under the $5.9 billion that was given to the auto industry under this program for investments in manufacturing to improve fuel efficiency. This comes to $178,000 per job. The Energy Department and Congress estimated a 5%-10% loss on the $38.6 billion loan program for loans that go sour, such as the Solyndra solar company $535 million loan. This comes to $1.9 billion at 5% loss and $3.8 billion for a 10% loss. The purpose of these figures is to show the cost of programs when the programs fail to achieve job goals or produce too little for the investment. The $3.8 billion loss under the program is over half the $7 billon Germany invested for the 200,000 jobs saved as estimated by the OECD. That ranks as a far superior investment than the Energy Department program. For the U.S. there are aspects of German reforms such as "kurzarbeit" that bear emulation, with serious questions about the effective use of the U.S. stimulus funds. For the rest of Europe the stingier unemployment benefits, raising the retirement age to 67, and other reforms send a different message. From the average German the message is: we made the tough changes, the rest of Europe cannot expect Germans to pay higher taxes while they put off similiar changes. Italy needs to change its retirement age, just as the Germans have done. As Chancellor Merkel puts it: "People in countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal shouldn't be able to retire earlier than in Germany. It's important for everybody to put in effort to make it roughly equal. Germany will only help when others really make an effort." Which is why Greece, Spain, Italy, even France are faced with making serious changes. This isn't stalling when it comes to euro bonds, from the German perspective. And it isn't about the lack of committment to the idea of a European Union, as all major political parties in Germany, the CDP, the SDP and the Greens, all strongly support the idea of a European Union. ...

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
Peter Altmaier is director of the chancellery in Berlin, and is the person closest to Angela Merkel. This report in the Economist points out that Altmaier has played a critical role in steps taken by Merkel- as chief whip in parliament for the CDU during the Greece financial crisis and bailouts, as environment minister implementing the program away from coal based electricity, and in negotiating deals such as the deal with Turkey on refugees, and now with Brexit negotiations. Merkel has asked Altmaier to write her manifesto for the September 2017 election. A member of the CDU's liberal wing, Altmaier is known for being a scholar on German history, especially Bismarck, and a workaholic. Here he is mentioned as a bridge maker for the CDU to the Greens Party and was part of a group of CDU and Green Party politicians who met at an Italian restaurant in Bonn. As the moderates are now dominant in the Greens Party, a CDU coalition with the Greens could be shaped by Altmaier if the election results move in that direction. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Oversupply and price wars in China's solar power industry in 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
The German government has taken notice of hate speech on social media and social bots. The Justice Ministry convened a task force on hate speech on internet. Justice Minister Heiko Maas promised legal action against social media like facebook and twitter if it violated laws of libel and inciting to violence. Chancellor Merkel is bringing in a data science expert Professor Simon Hegelich of the Technical University of Berlin for consultations in Dec. 2016. Only AfD of the main parties, with its anti-immigration stance, has not come out in favor of not using social bots or paid trolls in the 2017 elections. Hegelich in talk with DW.com says it is hard to legislate on this because the whole phenomenon has not been fully understood. Article 5 of the Constitution provides for free speech. Hegelich also says the state of technology moves faster than legislation, and being international sites like facebook, twitter and others pose additional issues. He does not say laws cannot be helpful but that its not clear how best to do this. Thomas Jarzombek is a CDU member of parliament and digital media expert. He says social bots are more likely controlled by foreign countries, and fake news sites are more of a domestic problem. Making this worse is the incentive for unemployed journalists to do blogging of the crude and aggressive type to make more money. Jarzombek sees the need for the press to do more in its role for the democratic process to function properly, by functioning in the role of "enlightenment" and "awareness."  Jenna Behrends, a law student and CDU local politician for Berlin-Mitte, says it is necessary for good bots to be used to fight bad bots, in an article in Der Spiegel. Major mainstream media would then have to launch social bots themselves to fulfill their role of providing the public with correct and fair information free of excessive bias and distortion of the bad bots. One example of this is shown explicitly here of German chancellor Merkel's picture with the words " Guilty of betraying the people," with links to "Drain the swamp," and "Brexit." A more complex question is one of how to let people vent out frustration about the mainstream media itself being biased in favor of the established views and not doing enough or giving enough space to reflect alternative views, so that these can be debated without inflammatory language and deliberate distortion. A whole range of tools and modifications of behaviour may be necessary ahead of next years elections in France and Germany, now that the phenomenon is better understood following a vote in the Anglo-Saxon countries.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What Handan Iron and Steel in Hebei Province 300 miles south of Beijing and ThyssenKrupp in Dortmund, Germany, have in common. The transplanting of Germany's aging defunct iron and steel furnaces and plant to Handan, boxed and crated away- its unreal that in 1998 Handan Iron and Steel bought and transferred an aging polluting plant to a city where the steel works are located in China which has 8.5 million residents. When years later the steel works were debated to be moved to a distance away from the city with Baoshan Steel, the decision was made to instead put a new plant there instead. The solution was to make pollution payments to residents of Handan. It was Mao's dream to build a steel industry in Hebei province ,which has large deposits of iron ore and coal and a rail line. Couple of questions come up to mind- one why did the first steel works go up right in Handan, and same is true of Dortmund, labor supply perhaps but couldn't homes be built nearby instead and these plants located away from cities. Second the deal for bringing the ThyssenKrupp plants was as recent as 1998, by this time China was already a big steel producer (producing more than the US by one estimate) and in a few years Chinese steel production was to exceed the US, Europe and Japan combined. With steel production already on the rise why didn't China move more carefully. Some of the Thyssen Krupp assets were built only a few years before 2000 and met stringent environmental control. China bought these.. Why didn't China pick out the best assets instead of old aging blast furnaces. The possible answers are that they were available at cut rate prices, but were they worth it. The second is that Hebei must be competing with other parts of China, and there wasn't a rational allocation of capital as would happen if a sophiticated company like a Mittal or a Tata Steel is involved. Is China operating on a outmoded concept- nationalism, competition between provinces with local government officials running the show? The other question is that in the case of the automobile industry a different pattern is seen, the most modern technology was selected , and in the case of Cherry, the most recent technology was selected for manufacturing cars, then why was this same pattern not adopted in the case of steel. In the end China has a surplus of steel mills, which makes this rush into steel production without carefully thinking through this appear to have been a mistake. The visual picture if one flies into Dortmund of manmade lakes, green park areas and residential housing and shopping from the $22 billion the EU and Germany are investing to turn the Ruhr valley region of Dortmund into a centre of education, technology and tourism now contrasts sharply with Handan in Hebei province. Can emerging countries do better, build manufacturing for jobs but keep living conditions in mind, be patient and work to achieve the best overall results, and build education, technology, appropriate for their own situation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A shakeout for manufacturers in the solar industry is developing in 2011-2012, as prices of solar components drop sharply. There is slowing growth for solar products in 2012. Seven solar power manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy or insolvency in 2011, including two German companies Solar Millenium and Solon SE, and Solyndra LLC of the U.S. Debt exceeds market capitalization for the 10 largest publicly traded solar companies. A major reason is the subsidies offered by governments in Europe, the U.S. and China, which resulted in a glut in manufacturing capacity and falling prices. Chinese banks encouraged by the Chinese government have given $43 billion in credit facilities to Chinese renewable energy companies, according to Bloomberg Energy Finance. Prices of solar panels at $1.60 per megawatt in 2010, dropped to 90 cents per megawatt in 2011. Another problem is slowing demand. In Europe banks are reducing funding. Installations doubled for solar energy in Germany in 2010, and dropped 29% in 2011, according to Jefferies. Germany is the largest market for solar energy in the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT explains why the loss of jobs particularly in the auto industry to Mexico, with the experience of NAFTA passed by president Bill Clinton, has caused widespread opposition to the TPP trade agreement proposed by president Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 oppose the TPP.

LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton attacks Trump's policies in an address in Warren, Michigan, saying this was another version of failed trickle down economics. She called Trump's idea of taxing pass through entities such as small business reporting business income on individual tax returns at 15%, as a "Trump loophole." On trade policy Hillary Clinton said she would oppose the TPP or Trans- Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement that president Obama has supported. She put it flatly- " I oppose it now. I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president." And pointed out that too many companies have moved jobs overseas and "moved operations overseas and sold back into the U.S." after pushing for trade deals. The answer she said 'is not to rant and rave- or to cut us off from the world," in reference to protectionist policies Trump has supported. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The critical exchange between oil companies and auto companies about who is at fault for the energy crisis. In one ad that ran last year, Chevron argued that "if automakers improved fuel economy across the board by just 5 mpg, we'd save over 22 billion gallons of gasoline a year." The criticism is also sparked by the high price of oil which is hurting sales of pickups and large SUV's that the automakers depend on for profits. One ad by Exxon Mobil shows a cartoon of a large SUV filling up at a gas station and hints that the problem rests with the automakers who have failed to build the kind of highly fuel efficient vehicles that are needed. The ad says that the average fuel economy of new U.S. autos has not gone up much in two decades, the small gains have been offset by the increases in the size and weight of vehicles.

LyrArc Article Gist
Two weeks after his election Donald Trump says the U.S. will not join the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement during his term in office. Barack Obama took seven years to negotiate the trade agreement which was opposed by trade unions, the auto industry and was unpopular in the midwestern U.S. because of the impact of trade in hollowing out the manufacturing sector. Here Frank Sieren of the DW.com points out that the agreement was not really about trade, as most of the gains of trade had already been realized according to experts. It was part of the "pivot to Asia" to maintain American dominance in the region, says Sieren. After China pulled together some Asian and European countries into its trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the U.S. pushed for TPP as a counterweight to the China sponsored trade zone. China says it will try to integrate the countries in TPP into the trade zone it has sponsored. President Trump has said that the U.S. is better off negotiating agreements with each country and not getting into multilateral trade agreements. He fought the election campaign on the basis of the opposition to TPP and trade agreements that unfairly hurt American workers. This could have provided the 110,000 margin of victory in the states suffering from the hollowing out in manufacturing such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. A similar hollowing out in Ontario favored Justin Trudeau's Liberals against the Conservatives in Canada's election. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
France's central bank chief Christian Noyer, says public spending to create jobs has the drawback of creating yesterday's jobs, but lasting job creation has to look at today and the future for effective job creation. Once government spending crosses a certain level, about 55% of GDP, a level France has crossed, further spending becomes counterproductive, reducing public confidence in the economy, as higher future taxes are anticipated canceling any benefits.

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

LyrArc Article Gist
Car size shrinks as the Focus, Spark, Aveo, Cruze small cars attract attention at the 2010 International Auto Show in Detroit. The big change is that these small cars are following the European small car in being refined and sophisticated, with a lot of features. This isn't the Chevette that Americans knew in the sixties and seventies, and the perception of what is the right size and comfort is changing completely as a new generation of buyers brought up in a world of pc's, i-phones, and globalized cultures is in the driver seat.

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.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How is it that GM would predict sales close to 16 million when no one else sees that happening. Is it just optimistic, even in the face of last years forecast which also stumbled badly with no improvement in the second half as expected. Instead GM closes the year 2007 with sales down 6% over 2006. And much worse numbers for Ford which saw 12% decline, and Chrysler a 3% decline. Chrysler continues to sell to rental fleets. Toyota's and Honda's sales grew by 3.1 and 2.8% respectively. But this year 2008 Toyota doesn't expect to do well with only a 1% increase. Nissan and Hyundai are in the same straits as the Big Three American makers in inventory of cars and sell to rental car fleets. In terms of inventory per point of market share Nissan has excess production capacity and more cars as inventory, about 39,000 per point of Nissan's market share similar to the Big Three. Toyota and Honda have 28,000 per point of their market share.

LyrArc Article Gist
Lawrence Katz, Harvard labor economist, talks to Friedman about the jobs crisis in the U.S.. Katz identifies three jobs crises occurring at the same time today. One is the drop in the demand for goods and services that resulted from the longer term effects of the financial crisis of 2008, with rising foreclosures, weak housing markets, bad debt on the balance sheets of banks, and interest rates at close to zero reducing the scope of action by the Federal Reserve bank. The second, is the widespread long term unemployment with workers dropping out of the labor market. The third, is the nature of new factories and hiring. Work in new factories is done through increased automation, information technology and fewer workers. As a result job creation is a fraction of what it was in the past. Not mentioned here is the shrinking of the public sector under the strain of budget deficits for local, state and federal government. This leads to the question of how America will create jobs in the future. Katz believes the answer is creating more "hubs," networked urban areas like Austin, Silicon Valley, and Raleigh-Durham, by bringing together universities, high-tech manufacturers, software providers, and startup companies, to cooperate in creating new products that enhance people's lives worldwide. This has to be done by the private sector and government working together to build the infrastructure and make the investments in education, training of workers, and equipment for new job creation....