LyrArc Article Gist
Liz Truss, new UK prime minister, says higher energy costs will not be passed on to bill payers and households.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Truss government UK budget in September 2022 does little for the most vulnerable populations in the cost of living crisis. It also fail to take any significant steps to build up energy supplies. Of all the governments in the G-7 countries France, Germany, Italy, Canada, it is the weakest when it comes to promoting social cohesion or taking action to promote both energy supplies and renewable energy for the transition during climate change. Spain has just introduced a wealth tax for the 1%. Nothing like this is seen here, instead the highest tax of 45% is scrapped at a time when the wealthiest are seen by most people in all the G-7 countries as the most able and even willing today after the pandemic to provide help to the vulnerable and weakest parts of the population. It is seen as delusional by some as it does not inspire much confidence in the financial markets and many in the Conservative party itself. It fails the test even Mr. Boris Johnson set himself of leveling up in Britain between the well off and the less well off in society which led to his election and the election of the Truss government with Johnsopn's support. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Liz Truss decides to appoint only loyalists to her cabinet after a leadership contest for the Tory party. Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor, Susana Braverman as Home Secretary, and James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary. All conservatives lining up for positions in the new government were told in no uncertain terms not to criticize a plan first suggested by the Labour party to freeze energy bills at the current level. This could cost 100 billion pounds. Kwasi Kwarteng, Truss's nominee for finance minister says there will be need for some fiscal loosening. Under the 100 billion pound plan to help households with bills the energy bills would be frozen at current level of 1975 pounds per year. Under the plan, commercial banks would deposit money in a state backed fund, which suppliers could then draw on to freeze customer's bills. The government would pay this back over 10-15 years through taxation or a surcharge on bills. By making such quick moves to help households Truss would be putting Britons in a position similar to that in France where energy prices have been capped and Germany where cash payments help households cope with higher energy bills.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In his farewell speech Boris Johnson, with true British resilient spirit,  says "I will be giving fervent support to Liz Truss and her government every step of the way." Johnson likened his transfer of power to Ms Truss to a relay race. "The baton will be handed over," saying it "unexpectedly turned into a relay race, they changed the rules halfway through." But he expressed no feelings of regret, having come to terms with the arrangement in his own way. More likely Johnson is without saying it still determining the policies and direction of the government, perhaps more so now with Liz Truss and his loyalists the only persons in the cabinet and running the British government. Johnson addressed people's fears about the energy price increases- "the UK would continue to have the strength to give people cash they need to get through this energy crisis that is caused by Putin's vicious war."  He listed his government's achievements- the response to Covid. Some of this is forgotten as the UK not the EU leadership was first to move forward with vaccination plans. Johnson put his government's faith in the vaccine invented at Oxford University and committed early while the EU languished under Merkel and her protege Ursula Von der Leyen. The EU fell behind in providing vaccine leadership as Britain forged ahead early, giving hope to the rest of the world's population including India that adopted the Oxford vaccine. Johnson likened his role to the missions to the planets- "Let me say I am now like one of those booster rockets that has fulfilled its function and I will be re-entering the atmosphere and splashing down invisibly into some remote and obscure corner of the Pacific." Johnson has taken the situation in a truly British way without any rancor and gracefully. With Liz Truss in charge he even gets a break after the difficult period handling the once in a century pandemic, handing over to a younger member of his group, and yet deciding on many of the policies and guiding the government for the term it was elected for to 2024. History will look at him favorably for his handling of the pandemic and vaccination, and for his instincts about the Ukraine war and Britain's unwavering support, and now in guiding Truss to provide Britain with strong support for the cost of living crisis caused by the war. His failings stem partly from his exuberance and optimistic spirit, but nowhere near detract from these achievements. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
About what sort of a leader Liz Truss will be the BBC's Nicholas Watt says it will be someone who cares, and will find a way to support the public with the cost of living crisis. Reports in the Guardian show she is likely to set up the freezing of energy bills at the current level of 1975 pounds with a 100 billion pound plan. That plan would involve commercial banks depositing cash in a state backed fund that would be repaid over 10-15 years. Of all the qualities seen in Truss the most is her adaptability and a sense of going with the groups that cares deeply about things. This is one reason why she supported the Brexiteers. A quality she shares with Boris Johnson is her affability, a sense of genuine concern for people, that has helped someone who was a Liberal Democrat, and had parents who were pro-Labor, and who was in Remain, easily act as someone who was always a Tory Brexiteer. One thing she brings from her father who is a Math professor is her passion for math says Watt, saying also that anyone going to 10 Downing Street to interview her needs to be ready for a tricky maths challenge. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reaganomics, trickle down economics, it is clear don't work. James Mackintosh says in WSJ, the latest version of Reaganomics, in the form of the LIz Truss budget in September 2022 with cuts in corporate taxes, no relief for vulnerable populations in the cost of living crisis as in all other major European countries and in the US, is already getting a bad reception in financial markets with the tumbling of the British pound.Times have changed there is nothing to be gained in its approach as there are no trade unions strangling growth as in Thatcher's time that need to be restrained, and not that much red tape to increase business flexibility. Most of the privatization has already been done and some of the state run companies are operating much better today than privatized companies handling water and other services.   Instead the problem is one of much needed investment in infrastructure and public services, and social protections after the pandemic. Businesses are not being crippled by high corporate taxes. Instead the opposite is the case, with windfall profits, so that the opposite approach taken by president Biden to use the higher tax on profits of Tech, oil and other companies to finance social protections and a huge climate energy initiative made more sense, leading to the passage of the $369 climate bill  and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  The WSJ makes these points- Britain has a higher current account deficit and higher debt at over 100% of GDP compared to the period of Thatcher in the 1980's when debt was only 40% of GDP. Most important is what the WSJ says about what has happened since the 2009 financial crisis and the austerity policies pursued after that crisis that were worsened by the pandemic so that public services in Britain are actually crumbling. Politically this lacks popular support and little backing at a time of a recession in the British economy, because such policies require public support to go through a tough period . And taking this trickle down economics today when Britain faces a cost of living crisis may be an unwise act of taking an approach that is no longer relevant or shown to be working at the worst possible time, says the WSJ. ...

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
Jan Corzine, Governor of New Jersey has talked to governors from the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, and Massachusetts about how best to execute an effective economic recovery stimulus program with the federal government. Here are the ideas they have come up with. The stimulus should cover five areas, infrastructure, countercyclical programs, housing, education, and middle class tax cuts. The principle to keep in mind is to take advantage of the strengths of the federal government and of the state and local governments. Infrastructure investment should be intelligent ones to modernize the capabilities of the country for the next phase of development and competition in the global economy and in making far reaching changes in transportation and energy for sustainable development in a global economy. A key point of Corzine's here is that safety net social programs will need to be shored up or the stimulus effects will be lost. Over the 2 years 2009 and 2010 he suugests the federal government boost its countercyclical spending by at least $250 billion. And it should do this by increasing the federal medical assistance percentages, federal share of Medicaid costs and other health care related programs such as reimbursement to hospitals for treating the uninsured, Temporary Asistance for Needy families, and child care grants. He proposes doubling the federal funding of unemployment trust funds under the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, with incentives to cover vulnerable low-wage and part-time workers who are often denied unemployment benefits. Corzine emphasizes this. That even if the Obama administration puts large sums into infrastructure spending, cutbacks in state and local safety net programs would cancel out much of the effect of the stimulus. The reason is simple while the federal government is adding to jobs on one hand, the states without the money would be cutting back jobs and services. This point will be critical in making the stimulus work. The other point Corzine appears to emphasize by quoting Roosevelt at Oglethorpe University in 1932, is that bold experimientation not clinging to rooftops in the flood, will be needed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Porter who is an authority on competitiveness and national strategy, is a Professor at Harvard University. He last servedin a national economic strategy advisor capacity in 1983, as a member of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. His view is that the USA badly needs an economic strategy. And the political system of the USA discourages developing such a strategy. The political dialogue also discourages the discussion from focussing on the key aspects of a strategy and because of the ideological slant the discussion between Republicans and Democrats tends to cancel each other out leaving the important work undone. What is an economic strategy? Its thinking clearly what are the advantages or strengths America as a nation has and how best to preserve these advantages in the future? And its thinking clearly about the weaknesses, and how to address the weaknesses, and where money and other resources should be allocated and what actions need to be takento get results. As strategy is a long term thing, it requires patient and perseverent effort and allocation of resources. The strengths he goes on to list are, an unparalleled environment for starting new companies and the science and technology, and the regional universities and clusters of high tech workers and resources in different regions of the country,the educational institutions for higher education, and the committment to competition and free markets, efficient and deep capital markets, and the acceptance of the uncertainty and cost in the huge job churn (restructuring of industry that destroys millions of jobs per year with net positive job creation). The problems that have arisen with these advantages have compromised some of them. Free markets are not really free as anti-trust enforcement has been lax resulting in mergers dominating markets and weakening compeititon. Many times the "free market' talk has become rhetoric and distorted for individual purposes. And regulatory oversight has been weakened in the name of "free markets", as if the market system could be run with no government regulation at all. The weaknesses are: remaining an energy inefficient nation even as countries like Japan have become increasingly and way more energy efficient, and doing nothing about it, not having any policies to fix this and assign a big priority to it. In the area of access to education, which is critically important to national competitiveness, the US ranks poorly in the number of college graduates and in the opportunties for access to college across the middle and working classes. Says Porter, the US ranks 12th in the college or higher educational attainment for 25-34 year olds. And the US he says has made no progress in this area for 30 years. This is a disturbing trend in a economy that must have the education and skills to justify its high wages, and how will Americans compete for jobs that can be moved elsewhere in these circumstances he asks. Strategy requires honesty with ourselves in identifying and addressing the strengths to be preserved and the weaknesses to be fixed. Solutions have to go to the heart of the problem, with the patient effort needed for longer term solutions, when problems have become embedded in the system, and in the habits, culture, and way of doing things, that will produce disaster down the road. Wen it comes to spending on priority investments, Porter prefers to tax rebates the spending that goes into educational assistance and into logistical infrastructure. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A shift in priorities away from focussing on high growth to lower sustainable growth was announced by China's premier Wen Jiabao at the National People's Congress, China's parliament, in March 2012. This shift will reduce investment in infrastructure, power generation and exports, which will affect the level of imports of commodities from commodity producing nations in the Middle East, Australia, Canada and Brazil. It should increase imports of software, computers, entertainment, tourism and high tech goods from the U.S. and Europe. Chinese leaders have said they would make this kind of shift for some years now but growth has consistently increased more than the target rate, and domestic consumption as a percentage of the economy has actually decreased in the last decade. Now 9-10% growth rates may be a thing of the past and the target of 7.5% set this year may be actually closer to the real figure. The Chinese leaders have belatedly realized the need to make these changes now because slowing markets in Europe -which is seeing declining growth and high unemployment- and in the U.S., make the issue impossible to avoid. Wen told the Congress: "Accelerating the transformation of the pattern of economc development... is both a long term task and our most pressing task at present... Domestically it has become more urgent but also more difficult... to alleviate the problem of unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable development." This is his way of saying that its unavoidable and better to start in earnest now, and at the same time recognizing the resistance to change from the stateowned companies and the other interests who have benefitted from surging growth, and now occupy a central role in the power structure. An opinion article in the People's Daily, China's official newspaper, said: "imperfect reforms are to be preferred to a crisis caused by no reforms." The World Bank's president Zoellick is respected by the Chinese leaders. He also urged them to make changes now. The recent report of the DRC, China's planning research arm, and the World Bank, also laid out the new direction away from a focus on infrastructure to domestic consumption. The fear is sudden deceleration in the absence of policy action. The impact of this will be negative for commodities over time, leading to slower growth in Australia, Brazil, and Canada. It should boost imports from Europe and the U.S. of high tech, consumer, pharmaceutical goods over time....

LyrArc Article Gist
Spain's central bank was lauded for macroprudential supervision before the housing bubble burst. Will China's central bank and financial authorites which have managed the housing bubble upto this point face similiar problems? Can China be the sole exception even as housing bubbles burst with wide repercussions in the U.S., UK and Spain? Nicholas Lardy, of the Peterson Institute of international Economics, says urban housing stock makes up 41% of Chinese household wealth in 2011. The same figure for the U.S. is 26%. Chinese buyers invest in homes because low interest rates on savings accounts cannot keep up with inflation. Real estate investment was 13% of GDP in 2011. Home ownership is a recent development in China, only since 1990, Chinese have never experienced large price declines. Household debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased significantly in recent years, up to 53.6% in 2011 from 31.3% in 2008, according to Lardy.