World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The Times of India Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Modi and Delhi election- Modi's party the BJP wins 50 of 70 seats Feb 2025. Of the hundreds of lines of text in this takeaway on local politics in the Times of India not one line can be found on how it relates to Vikshit Bharat 2047, the goal of a developed economy and modernization of Bharat. Being so close the TOI cannot see the forest, just the trees. Surely Delhiites will not have not noticed the idea of Vikshit Bharat 2047? The 10-15-20 year target of modernization of the Indian economy in the nation's capital. The question in the Lok Sabha elections of 2024 was whether after struggling to keep up with Europe's changes in the modern scientific observation mind during the Renaissance period in the 15th century amid invasions from western Asia, and losing its independence by the 17th and 18th centuries, India would see its modernization blocked by a lack of clear focused development without a majority party in charge. The setbacks in Maharashtra and in Uttar Pradesh for Modi and the BJP in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections were reversed in Maharashtra within 1 year in the Maharashtra Assembly elections in 2024 with a BJP landslide. This win in the nations federal capital Delhi now added to the win in Mumbai the commercial capital (Maharashtra) brings together the entire regional capitals Mumbai- Ahmedabad-Jaipur-Delhi-Indore-Lucknow together as one region for modernization and investment for the first time in 75 years. Large investment in Bihar and Orissa, Andhra Pradesh in the Eastern states in 2024 and 2025 Indian Budgets create a new Way Forward for India to Vikshit Bharat 2035, and onto Vikshit Bharat 2047. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Policy on China in the second year of the DJT Administration- shift from adversary positions to cooperation. A shift in policy after the meetings with Chinese leaders Xi and Wang Yi at Busan, South Korea in 2025. WSJ Analysis looks at what happened in the first term of DJT, the Biden Administration that followed and in 2025 in US-China relations and how the posture changed, how Xi and his team built rapport with DJT and his team over the tumultuous period in 2025. US turned to Xi in getting Iran to the table for negotiations in Islamabad meetings after the month long effort to take out Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program infrastructure. This was arranged in the early hours of Tuesday April 7th 2026. Throughout the US air campaign in Iran China pursued the policy it had set at Busan of not letting it affect US- China relations and the DJT visit to Beijing believing it sets the basis for the future course of US- China that affects the whole world beyond regions such as the Middle East where little headway has been made in bringing about peace. China US, EU, India, Brazil, Latin America, Africa, Indonesia, make up most of the world's population and China remains focused on ensuring the US and China can through their cooperation maintain peace in the world overall. This is reflected in this statement of China's Foreign Ministry on Busan meeting as the beginning of something new and big for the world- "Over the past seven decades and more, we have been working from generation to generation on the same blueprint to make it a reality. We have no intention to challenge or supplant anyone. Our focus has always been on managing China’s own affairs well, improving ourselves, and sharing development opportunities with all countries across the world. And that is an important secret to our success. China will further deepen reform across the board, expand opening up, and promote higher-quality economic growth while achieving an appropriate increase in economic output, and advance well-rounded human development and common prosperity for all. This will also expand the space for cooperation between China and the United States." This relates to China's worst fear, worst nightmare - that before it can become a fully developed economy for 1.4 billion people it would find itself in the situation that faces Japan of an aging society and weak growth something Japan faces as a fully developed economy much smaller of 120 million people. Japan per capita GDP is at $36,000 2.5 times China's at $14,000 and about a fifth of Germany's at $64,000, about a seventh of the USA at $92,000. So that if China does not continue along the path of development it has followed since 1990 working with the US and EU it faces the prospect of losing forever the prospect of joining Japan and fall into lower than middle income status when large parts of the interior of China a third of its economy that is rural are still living in poor economy status with per capita GDP of $3500, which is 8% of the GDP per capita of the poorest state heavily rural state of Mississippi in the US. Even Shanghai and Beijing with about $32,000 per capita GDP are only about 58% of the per capita GDP of Louisiana in the bottom one third of US states. Xi Wang Yi, Lifeng are doing what China must do to compete with advanced US and European economies and Japan- continue to work with the US on the development model that has worked the best for China since 1990. It is not about supplanting anyone China is serious when it says here- "Over the past seven decades and more, we have been working from generation to generation on the same blueprint to make it a reality. We have no intention to challenge or supplant anyone. Our focus has always been on managing China’s own affairs well, improving ourselves, and sharing development opportunities with all countries across the world." ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This year 2025 is the 75th year since the invasion of Tibet by Communist China under Mao in 1950, and the 66th year since the uprising in Lhasa in 1959. The new book by Tibet Dalai Lama will be out in March 2025- Voice for the Voiceless: Over Seven Decades of Struggle With China for My Land and My People.  The Dalai Lama calls for preserving Tibet's Buddhist civilization and culture within China. Bringing China's borders to the borders of India was a serious mistake as the mountains of Tibet and Nepal acted as a buffer zone between China and India. The invasion was a result of seeing India as India under a colonial power the British and independent India still run in 1950 under a system modeled on Britain- what Mao fought against since the 1920's.  In 2025 India has emerged as distinctly Indian and China has emerged from the 1950's communist state into a market economy state. The old colonial period systems no longer exist and only a reversion to the old Buddhist periods since the 5th century in terms of borders makes sense. The Tibet invasion after millenium in which Tibet had relations with Nepal, China and India has created other issues in this region. In the centuries before the colonial powers entered Asia in the 15th century, the Portuguese, Dutch and the British, there was contact, commerce and other relations between India, Nepal, Tibet and China. The earliest contacts were with Bodhidharma prince from from India going to China through these Tibetan mountains to convert China to Buddhism in about the 6th century AD. China reverting to its Buddhist culture is a serious possibility because it is so intertwined with a sense of being Chinese and the culture of China. And with this the borders of times past.   ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Only the week before Tuesday April 7 Pakistan Foreign Minister Dhar failed to convince China to get involved. April 7th Tuesday in the US 1.30 pm US time, 8 pm Islamabad Pakistan time, China finally decided to jump in to convince Iran to accept peace talks in Islamabad. It is quite possible that behind the scenes the US was talking with China which has a 25 Year Comprehensive Agreement with Iran signed in 2021 that is the main support for the Iranian economy. China acted to reassure Iran that talks in Islamabad would proceed smoothly, and persuade Iran to accept ceasefire and talks. Why? Knowing that brinksmanship by US and Iran would lead to unforeseen consequences and hurt China's economy with oil price volatility as well as  hurt the US economy, and hurt the prospects for the planned May14-15 visit by DJT to Beijing to improve economic and political ties, both China and the US wanted to do everything to prevent this from happening. The result a hastily arranged peace talks in Islamabad so that by 4 am Islamabad time on Wednesday or 6.30 pm US time on Tuesday evening the ceasefire had already been agree to by US and Iran, according to this report in The Guardian from Pakistan. The crux of the matter was that it would affect US and China's economy with oil volatility, and US-China relations by jeopardizing May 14-15 revised date for DJT visit to Beijing. This good sense prevailed over all the war rhetoric and the media information and disinformation. It is confusing because of all the misinformation, but becomes clear when one understands this in the context provided in this report from Pakistan by the Guardian. Why Pakistan? For Pakistan the missile attack the day before of a Saudi petrochemical complex by Iran was drawing Saudis into the war and Pakistan has signed a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia that requires Pakistan to support Saudi Arabia if it gets into a war. For Pakistan it was a fragile situation that would be a catastrophe with unforeseen consequences on its economy. Already schools are closed for 1 month in Pakistan and oil is in short supply, paying for it at $115 or $125 a barrel would put severe strain on Pakistan. Who wins, who loses is being told in the media- much less on the good sense that prevailed  the efforts and the predicament of the large powers China, India, the US, and Germany, European Union, the poorer countries, all hurt economically, caught in a war they do not want, do not need. ...
The Hindu Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese views on the India war of 1962 are shown at the Beijing Military Museum in a display effort "One Hundred Questions on the China-India Border Self-Defense Counterattack."  China's PLA on its 95th anniversary looks at the 33 day war and calls it a "counterattack." It also says China withdrew because its goals were accomplished of getting back the territory it lost since August 1959 to India, that on the Indian side "the decision making was in the hands of civilian officials who did not understand the military at all," and called it "chaotic." It also brings up the international situation that Russia supported both China and India in the conflict and India had the US on its side. It says PLA withdrew because of the difficulty of supplying the military in the Arunachal region at a great distance from China particularly after the famine that resulted from the Great Leap Forward. Today there is a clear chain of command and joint work by the Indian Air force and the Army, infrastructure to support mountain operations being built at rapid speed, and building of modern defense manufacturing capabilities for the airforce and army as shown at the Defense Expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, this week.  One of the first aspects of the border that one sees in the region is how close it is to large population cities and towns in India and how remote it is from large population towns and cities in China. In this sense China after the experience with Russian conflict before 1900, later a large Japanese invasion in 1931and 1937 appears to have responded to its period of semi-colonialism with an aggressive policy of extending its frontiers to regions that were throughout history acting as large buffers between India and China- such being the case of Tibet which was occupied in the 1950's leading to the war with India and a border dispute that had never existed before in history. Other aspects today are that in 1962 the PLA had fought the war against the Japanese and the war agains the Americans in Korea all within a 20 year period. In 2022 China has focused for 50 years on modernizing its economy. The supply chain in the Ukraine war showed shortcomings in the Russian army, and the difficulties of supplying forces at great distances. There is also the question of morale when it is about  miles of icy terrain at heights over 10,000 feet, thousands of miles away from major population cities and towns in China- for reasons of Russian and Japanese semicolonialism behaviour not to be found in regions that had never seen large armies in history such as Tibet or Arunachal or the Himalayan border regions. The distances tell much of the story- the distance from Shanghai, Shenzen or Beijing, to Tibet is over 4000 kilometers and the border region with India additional thousands of kilometers over some of the most rugged terrain on earth with only remote mountain communities existing in the most difficult environments.       ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...
South China Morning Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, gives insights into the Chinese position in trade war with the U.S.  China has its own internal groups which support China being able to take a leadership role in world affairs. Xi Jinping made giving China a prominent role in the world a feature of his presidency. China  has this internal audience and its own sense that China's resurgence was won with hard work and cooperation, plus dedication of the Chinese people. In the past Japan and South Korea also used state subsidized industries, and subsidies to gain leadership in key business sectors involving high technology. China would see this state subsidies model as its own model of development. From this standpoint the U.S. demands on subsidies as unfair competition could be seen as changing a key part of its economic model.  Asking China to put everything in writing and show tangible proof of enforcement as the U.S. insisted in talks, was too much for the Chinese side. China said trust us to do this, and lift the tariffs based on our verbal assurances. The U.S. having seen decades of no progress on this point, wanted tangible proof before tariffs were lifted. Added to the demands on subsidies were the demands for no more of what the U.S. calls stealing of U.S. technology through forced transfer of technology by U.S. firms as a condition to operate in Chinese markets. With the U.S. lagging in 5G technology and Huawei ahead the issue resonates on the U.S. side. Add to this Mr. Trump's key voter base includes the former Democratic party supporting workers who have shifted to him because of trade agreements and policies of Clinton and Obama that hurt American workers through seemingly endless closure of manufacturing plants from Chinese competition.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Modi of India's visit to Japan in September 2014 leads to a commitment of about $35 billion in Japanese investment over 5 years. Japanese companies such as Suzuki, Toyota and Toshiba already have large investments in India.
WSJ Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's statement calling for a list of goods for tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods leaves China without a clear response and facing new risks. The U.S. exports about $150 billion in goods to China so that China would have to impose penalties to respond at the same level. Placing restrictions on American firms on access to China's market, and imposing other penalties would have the effect of reinforcing the perception of unfair practices targeting American business and lead to hardening of U.S. response.  The U.S. sees itself as being in a better position with the U.S. economy experiencing a growth trend. China with large local government and bank debt faces a difficult situation. President Jinping's policy of reducing the risks of bad debt in the banking system involved sacrificing some growth to stabilize the system. China's GDP growth in 2017 was 6.9%, the target at 6.5%. Future targets and actual growth now look to be much lower.The trade war with the U.S. has the effect of dampening growth leading to calls for the central bank to loosen its monetary stance. In response to Trump's announcement the People's Bank of China pumped $31 billion into the nation's banks. China is studying Japan's response in the 1980's and 1990's when the U.S. took strong action against Japan's growing trade surplus. Japan responded by appreciating its currency and using stimulus to cushion the effect of lower exports on the economy. The stimulus led to the housing bubble and over time a period of low growth and stagnant economy. The large China stimulus in 2008-2009 has compounded the problems in the banking system. Not deleveraging and controlling financial risks in China's banking system because of the trade war would bring a new set of risks. ...
Original article ›
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.

WSJ Original article ›
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. 

DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A number of issues came up at the Women20 Summit in Berlin. Annette Niederfranke, Director of the International Labor Organization, brought up the issue of family reconciliation as "one of the toughest challenges for working women worldwide," that in order to meet obligations women tended to work in "non standard forms of employment and in part time work linked to lower wages, lower social security, lower benefits, and fewer training possibilities." Childcare was also an issue that was prominent considering the lack of adequate childcare in many countries including in the European Union. With responsibilities for the elderly, babies, and small children women tend to be in the workforce for shorter periods leading to men taking up many of the higher positions. Angela Merkel pointed out that Gemany tended to take a narrow view of professions available to girls, saying- "So it is very very important that we take a broader view of things while girls are still at school." Merkel also supports a Africa compact that would help women set up small and middle size businesses in poor countries. The "Digital" aspects of this and other efforts for women were a major topic being discussed. One idea that came up was that more cooperation from men was needed to make things happen. This is the third Women20 Summit after ones in Turkey and China, and a sense of momentum was felt by women. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There are similarities in the Republican and Democratic party platforms in 2016. One area of agreement is in the reinstatement of Glass Steagall Act. That legislation made in the Depression period to separate commercial banking from investment banking was changed  when president Clinton made changes in a deal with Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Leach in 1999. The too big to fail problems of banks and the problems of investment banks during the 2008 financial crisis are attributed to the lack of Glass Steagall protections for financial stability and safety. The result is that in the post 2016 environment banks can expect a tougher regulatory environment. Another are is in trade where both parties are expected to take tougher positions to protect U.S. interests. The Republican platform calls for "better negotiated trade agreemets that put America first."

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Researchers David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, in independent research, studied the impact of trade on 722 clusters of interrelated counties in the U.S. They focussed on the surge in Chinese imports and found a pattern. Counties with higher exposure to Chinese import growth showed higher unemployment and higher expenditures by the government for unemployment benefits, food stamps and disability benefits. Their calculations show the increased government payments amount to one to two thirds of the gains from trade with China. This does not include the losses suffered by people losing jobs who deplete savings as they look for new jobs. Hanson studied the effects of trade and Chinese imports in the 1990's and found the effects were relatively small. This time the effects are large and show counties that lacked local investments in industrial machinery and technologies in which China was still playing catchup such as Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, and Boeing in Everett, Washington, were most susceptible to higher jobless rates and in need of government support payments. Autor and Hanson found that from 2000-2007, communities in the 75th percentile- ones with greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities- saw a manufacturing jobless rate of about one-third more than communities in the 25th percentile. The government payments mean higher taxes or larger deficits are needed to support these communities, and long periods of unemployment reduce the incentive to work. Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist from New York University, says the world has never seen such a rapid pace of growth as China experienced between 2000-2011, with rates approaching 12% in some years, making past experience and prevailing theories on trade an insufficient guide to what is happening....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Kessler in the WP corrects Obama's claim that he created 800,000 jobs. He says this is clever arithmetic as it takes a low point in Feb. 2010 following the financial crisis. Kessler points out that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. manufacturing jobs were 12.56 million in Jan. 2009 when Obama became president. In Nov. 2016, early estimates show there were 12.26 million manufacturing jobs, a loss of 300,000. This loss does not reflect the problems in the U.S. auto industry and older industries in the midwestern states as a result of trade and globalization that speeded up with the rapid industrialization of China. And led as Greg Ip pointed out in a recent WSJ report to a rapid acceleration of job losses in a decade that did not happen in the same scale during Japan's industrialization and urbanization in the sixties. This aggravated the situation in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and was met with a feeble response from Democrats. Even a economist like Krugman favoring the Obama administration's efforts came to the conclusion that TPP did not add much to gains from trade as most of the gains had already been realized. More of the gains went to tech and IT in California, at the expense of the auto industry based in the midwest. A report in WP show a president too close to IT in California and failing to grasp the situation in the midwest. Voters punish whoever is in power, regardless of being Conservative or Liberal, in Canada the hollowing out of manufacturing under Harper in Ontario and Quebec led to the win by Trudeau's Liberals.  ...
WSJ Original article ›
DW.COM Original article ›
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. ...
The Guardian Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rattner looks with alarm at recent figures showing that of 2.65 million jobs created in the U.S. in 2015, only 30,000 were in manufacturing. He reflects on growth in manufacturing with the recovery in automobile manufacturing between 2009- 2013 - during this period employment in the U.S. auto industry went up by 23 percent to 690,000, and employment in Mexico's auto industry went up by 60 percent to 589,000, showing much faster growth overseas. Manufacturing has also experienced decline in private sector wages of 0.8% since 2009, with auto industry wages down 12.7 percent, says Rattner.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Peterson Institute of International Economics study on the TPP trade agreement shows it would reduce growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector by a fifth, according to this report in the NYT. Workers incomes and job losses in manufacturing are a key concern for voters and account for the surge in polls for Trump and Sanders in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. All four leading candidates Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Cruz oppose the TPP agreement. Congress will wait till after the election to decide. This is a big issue today because about 5 million jobs have been lost in 1977-2014, according to the Alliance for American Manufacturing. The Peterson study predicts job losses of 50,000 a year, yet another study by Tufts University predicts job losses of 450,000 a year. Another study by the Economic Policy Institute study shows other damaging effects such as labor's share of national income declining from the TPP.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell tells the Washington Post in an exclusive interview that the dynamics surrounding the Trans Pacific Agreement pushed by president Obama have changed. He sees little prospect of it passing Congress before president Obama leaves office, and says it will be up to the next president to take it up after Obama leaves office in Jan. 2017. McConnell said that there is a lot of pushback all over the place. The Republican frontrunners Trump and Cruz both oppose the TPP, and all Democratic candidates including Hillary Clinton oppose it. In addition tobacco interests in McConnell's home state of Kentucky and pharmaceutical interests backing Senator Orrin Hatch, the Republican Finance chairman also oppose aspects of the negotiated deal. Labor unions, the automobile industry, environmental groups, and public interest groups, have strongly opposed provisions of the TPP that hurt workers and the public interest from the beginning, making it a risky proposition for Congressmen coming up for reelection in 2016. The divergence between the Republican establishment and the presidential front runners Trump and Cruz also have diluted support in Congress on the Republican side, making it a no win proposition....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton narrowly loses the Michigan primary to Bernie Sanders in March 2016, as the Sanders campaign focusses on Clinton's support for trade agreements that hurt American workers and lead to loss of manufacturing jobs. About three fifths of voters in the Michigan primary considered this a major issue. Many less educated younger workers see their job prospects diminish and wages drop with free trade that hurts American manufacturing jobs. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement with Mexico, and as a member of the Obama administration Clinton supported the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, later opposing TPP when she left the cabinet. Sentiment against trade that hurts manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is strongest in midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. This was also a major issue benefitting the Liberals under Justin Trudeau who won in Canada's industrial Ontario province which has suffered hollowing out and loss of manufacturing jobs under the Conservative Harper administration. In the U.S. the issue goes back to the Clinton Administration for two decades. New jobs created by Apple, Google, and other tech companies pale in comparison with the industrial jobs created in another era that benefitted working class families. This issue and high unemployment or under employment, lower wages for working class families, was a major issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Widening wealth disparities, and lack of upward mobility, high tution and healthcare costs for ordinary families, dominated the campaign in the U.S....
New York Times Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us