LyrArc Article Gist
Nuclear arms control SALT treaties expire Feb 2026 - need for new negotiations as the treaties were obsolete, did not include China, smaller nuclear weapons, and weapons from space. The SALT arms limitation treaty was first signed in 1972 by Brezhnev with Nixon. These treaties went through a second version and were renewed. The US no longer thinks this is relevant as China is not included, and smaller nuclear weapons, ones from space are not included and new negotiations are the best way to conduct true arms limitation. An accompanying video in NYT by David Sanger goes into these aspects of talks. Rafael Gross, head of IEA International Atomic Agency, says- You wouldn’t negotiate the same treaty again. There are new technologies that are not covered by the treaty — hypersonic missiles, undersea nuclear weapons, space weapons. And there are many other countries that, for one reason or another, feel now as if they may need a nuclear arsenal of their own.” This is the reason. It also happens that in 2026 US and Russia could coordinate their efforts, so that new US weapons may be needed as other risks could emerge from other places. There are smaller nuclear powers and new nations that might develop nuclear weapons as the US nuclear umbrella may be seen as not fully dependable. This new thinking would be that US and Russia may not see themselves as adversaries but work together to prevent nuclear risks from other sources. This is also why the US (and Russia) may want to wind down smaller regional conflicts, reduce their reliance on their own alliances, so that nuclear cooperation between nuclear powers US, Russia, China, and India may lead to control of nuclear weapons in a larger sense from space and from smaller countries that might develop nuclear weapons as has happened in Iran, which might create new risks that cannot be managed. A belligerent North Korea could lead to South Korea and Japan developing a nuclear weapon. This is also why the Ukraine conflict has run its course and it is in no one's interest to let the Nordics or Britain continue the conflict. The US, Russia, China, India, Brazil should not let middle or smaller powers continue regional or historical conflicts, and promote settlement through peace talks of such conflicts, as it inevitably leads to damaging the interests of billions of people around the world in peaceful cooperation and tackling challenges that affect the quality of life. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report on Danish wind energy company Orsted, looks at the journey of the largest developer of wind energy in the world from a company sending natural gas from North Sea to Europe to a joint developer with Denmark's Vestas of offshore wind farms. Last year Orsted, pronounced Ehrr-sted in Danish for the O and named after a Danish scientist, decided to invest $57 billion in offshore wind farms by 2027. It was not easy and the path required a bold vision and bold action to invest in wind energy for the long term even as debt piled up from losses in natural gas competing with coal, climate change committments were not yet strong, subsidies were required to make wind energy competitive, and debt was piling up. It would take a decade of hard work and technological innovation to produce wind energy that could outcompete coal and natural gas on cost without subsidies. The year is 2009 with the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The predecessor company to Orsted was losing money in natural gas with lower cost coal energy generation in Europe at the time. Yet the mood was changing governments were willing to invest in renewables. In 2012 a new CEO Paulsen did a review of 12 businesses of this Danish energy company and decided wind energy was the only one with long term prospects. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference created new awareness for the need to come up with a long term solution for energy that has no negative health effects and is renewable. That Conference set a goal of 20% for renewable energy by 2020 in the total mix for Europe up from 14%. Paulsen saw an opportunity in the crisis at the company then called Danish Oil and Natural Gas. The new company was called Orsted and the old divisions in fossil energy were sold to invest in wind farms offshore. The way Paulsen saw the situation was that the company had to take radical action whether it wanted to do so or not. By 2012 Danish pension funds were investing in large offshore wind farms of Orsted, taking a stake of as much as 50% in the Nysted wind farm. The Danish government which owned 80% of Orsted thought its projects were risky. Hard work with Vestas which builds the turbines in Denmark paid off in developing a huge new turbine that would bring costs down 65% comparing 2020 with 2012.  In 2018 the European Union was spending about 92 billion euros or $112 billion on energy subsidies including to wind farms. Britain also heavily subsidized offshore wind farms such as Hornsea 1 at about $198 a megawatt hour for 15 years double the electricity price in recent years. Windy conditions and shallow waters in the North Sea were favorable. Technology was being developed with Vestas which would reduce the cost each year. By 2016 Orsted was listed in Copenhagen. The remaining oil and gas business was then sold for $1 billion. The returns are less in wind than coal and natural gas- about 7-8% a year but the big thing is that there is certainty in this compared to coal and natural gas which are volatile and uncertain. The lesson companies are learning in renewables is that with solar and wind technology can. bring down costs, a lot of hard work and creative work lies ahead, that crisis can be turned into opportunity for companies that can be focussed enough to produce results. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the fifth North Korean nuclear test DW.com talks with Rudiger Frank about the test and what this means. Frank says the negotiations with North Korea and efforts to limit the program so far have been a colossal failure. Tests have continued and without a change in strategy more tests will be followed by the usual condemnations by world leaders and further sanctions. Frank says this change in strategy would include recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state, and getting North Korea to ensure the weapons are safe and secure in the country, getting a clear idea of what and where the weapons are. The International Atomic Agency would be asked to go in and make inspections. The next step would be to freeze the program at some level agreed to. This is a tough step to take but it only recognizes the reality of the situation, and continued development by North Korea of nuclear weapons if no steps for change are taken. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State takes a strong stand on North Korean missile testing and nuclear program in a visit to Seoul and Beijing. He said the U.S. would be forced to take pre-emptive action "if they elevate their threat of their weapons program"  to an unacceptable level. Continuing a policy of the Obama administration following missile tests by North Korea, the Trump administration has rejected any talks with North Korea. Tillerson said that "the policy of strategic patience has ended." It was also meant to signal U.S. intentions before Tillerson goes to Beijing from Seoul. President Trump commented on Twitter; "North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been "playing" the United States for years. China has done little to help." Because China sees North Korea as a bargaining chip with the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the situation has ended repeatedly in a impasse with the North Korean nuclear and missile program continuing during the Bush and Obama administrations. This has also meant that North Korea was unlikely to collapse on its own, with China pursuing a policy of using North Korea as part of its defense policies in the region, as pointed out by Sanger in this report. As the North's missile program continues the U.S., and with the North seeing the missile program as the only way to ensure the survival of the regime, the U.S. needed to come up with a new way to tackle the situation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Abut 3 million homeowners are expected to default on their mortgages in the 30 months ending in mid 2009, and two thirds of this or 2 million will go into foreclosure, according to Moody's Economy.com. So what led to all this which eventually hit the financial markets in the U.S., and also to a lesser degree in Europe, through the opacity of the mortgage securities created from bad mortgages with falsely tagged triple AAA ratings that ended up in the assets of banks and investment firms? The motivations of each group were perverted as things unfolded. When the packagers of securties were not responsible for what they were doing they pursued profit before ethical behaviour and all sorts of securities were created. As these packagers were allowed to shop for ratings the ratings companies gradually lowered their standards to attract business. Politicians failed in the free market atmosphere of the Republican Bush administration and Republican led Congress. Senator Bachus and Congressman Frank introduced legislation during the later period of the bubble but failed to draw support to curb the bad lending. Republicans blocked a new antipredatory lending law in North Carolina from being enacted for the country from 1999 onwards. And Bush without realizing the ramifications prodded HUD to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require higher percentage of loans to go to low income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie in turn met this requirement by increasing the demand for these subprime loans by buying the mortgage securities, which the packagers of these securities backed by subprime mortgage loans and incorrectly rated AAA by conniving ratings agencies were happy to supply. It was a sad situation with a happy -everyone could say the were bringing home ownership and the American dream to low income people, and business was signing up for this ride with short term gain in mind. And in all this financial innovation lost its legs as packaging these securities and constructing new investment vehicles like the conduits were being used in perverse ways. The basics of labeling something correctly was torn apart. You could not turn a subprime loan to low income borrowers or a loan without documentation to flippers and speculators into something different by simply labeling it as AAA. What the confidence in financial innovation in the American system did was help spread these securities all over the globe, where they were held with confidence by towns in remote parts of the Scandinavian north country as well as financial centres in Europe and Asia. At the state level politicians in California saw this as one of the state's star industries and protected it from legislation to curb bad lending, as most of the big lenders were based in California. Due to a strange set of affairs the Department of Corporations was left with the tasks of oversight of mortgage lenders in the state. It was concerned more with issues like protecting senior citizens from financial scams and was not staffed to meet the supervisory role of a huge mortgage lending business. When it comes to the Fed's role Greenspan also took the laissez fairre stand of not interfering with free markets, even when a lot of the bad lending was obvious and one Fed Governor Gramlich was pushing for better lending standards. The Fed supervisory role was over banks and banks were required to follow lending standards, but most of this lending had shifted to mortgage brokers and financial companies which were beyond the supervision of the Fed. Had the Fed extended its supervision to mortgage affiliates of the banks this could have increased the level of supervision and made a difference. But state regulation mechanisms in California by Department of Corporations show that the regulatory mechanism did not take into account the realities of mortgage lending and how it had changed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This was one of the last reports written by Anthony Shadid, New York Times foreign correspondent, before his death in Syria. It covers the Islamist movement's shift to modernism and incorporating an outlook that includes ideas of liberal democracy from Britain, as seen from Tunisia. No longer is the main source of ideas coming from Egypt. A diverse group of thought is being developed in Arab and North Africa, and in places like London, where emigres from the Middle East during the years of repression gathered to discuss ideas for the future. Said Ferjani's as one of these emigres is one of sources of the new thinking and approaches of Islamist thought.

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union Commission says Ireland must recover 13 billion euros in back taxes for giving tax preferences to Apple that are against EU rules. The EU Commission says Ireland allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, and .005% in 2014. The EU Commissioner says the use of Ireland as the place where Apple pays taxes on operations in Europe has no base in reality, as most profits are earned in other countries outside Ireland. Taxable profits of Apple "did not correspond to economic reality," according to Ms. Vestager, the EU Commissioner.  In the current environment where political upheaval is unsettling the democratic process in the U.S., Britain, Spain, France and Italy, as well as in Brazil and other countries in the developing world- because of deep recessions, and efforts to cut the deficits with deep cuts in state spending including in education and healthcare, basic services- the moves by companies to reduce taxes to these absurdly low levels such as .005% when other companies in the EU are paying 12.5%, is becoming increasingly unpopular. As pointed out in this BBC News article this sounds like the way Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt operated during the late 19th century, and were seen as operating in a manner that was above the law. Janet Yellen pointed out at a Boston Fed Conference on inequality in Oct 2014 that the bottom half of the distribution or 62 million households in the U.S. in 2013, had a net worth of about $10,000, One quarter of these households had a net worth of zero dollars. The working class and blue collar workers in the U.S. provide much of the support at Trump rallies. Younger college educated people support Sanders, because of the situation of the working and middle class in the U.S., and a similar situation exists in Europe. It is for the sake of the democratic process and delivering services in education, healthcare, and other basic areas to all, that companies small and large need to pay their fair share of taxes, regardless of size, influence, or technological advantages. Today this is is seen by most leaders who draw public support as the right way forward for the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asian countries, including proper allocation of resources to best serve the needs of working people. For example the 13 billion euros is equal to all of Ireland's healthcare budget, and 66% of its social welfare budget.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Rosa Ines Rivera, a cook at the cafeteria for the Y.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, with 2 small children, describes the protests over the increase by Harvard administration of the premiums charged on health insurance that now take up over 10% of the income. She says she lives in public housing with her parents as she lost her apartment because she is behind on the rent, and now cannot afford to pay the increase in premiums. About 750 workers at Harvard are on strike on this issue. She says dining hall workers want the current pay of $31,193  a year increased to $35,000 to provide a living wage that helps them afford medical care, because of the high cost of living in Boston.  To get some idea of the plight of workers who provide the kind of nutritious meals that a lot of students depend on for healthy living- Rivera says she takes in about $450 a week after taxes, or about $1800, rent is $1150, which leaves $650 for herself and two children for all food, and expenses in Boston. The $4000 in premiums for health insurance would be about 330 per month, leaving her about $320 for food and living expenses with 2 children. Why the need to bring up children in poverty in America, for generation after generation, after putting in a full day of work? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Census Bureau shows incomes of American households, the median household income, surged in 2015 by 5.2%. This increased by $2800 to $56,500. This is the largest increase since 1967. It shows that steadily improving employment and hiring is leading to improvement in incomes for the middle and working class. Ris in minimum wage has also helped . The largest increase was for the lowest 20% of the income tiers. Full time working women did better than men, with increase annually of 2.7% for women, and 1.5% for men. Nocitizen incomes increased 10.5% to $45,100, native born households went up 4.4% to $57,200. The number of people without health insurance also declined from 33 million or 10.4% of the population to  29 million people or 9.1%. Another way the changes are helping lower income households is the decline of the official poverty rate to 13.5% in 2015 by 1.2 percentage points from 14.8% in 2014. Through a series of small incremental steps the path is being set for a recovery of household incomes for the middle class and working class. A bright spot is that the improvement has affected all age groups, household types, regions and ethnic groups, though among full time workers women did better than men. In this recession older white men have had more difficulties getting back into the workforce. This is reflected in the political scene in 2015-2016 for the election season. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A new West Coast Model is emerging with ballot measures in the states of Washington, California and Oregon. The model is to make up for decades of faulty income distribution which favored tech communities in west coast states leaving behind people from minority communities and the working class outside tech hubs such as San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle. During this period budgets for education and healthcare, social services and essential infrastructure suffered as budgets were squeezed for local governments. Minimum wage also lagged behind and communities struggled to keep up. Washington votes for a ballot measure that raises the minimum wage to $13.25 statewide and mandate paid sick leave for workers. In California a ballot measure makes permanent an income tax surcharge on millionaires to use these funds for education. In Oregon measure 97 places a gross receipts tax on corporations with annual sales in Oregon over $25 million, raising $3 billion a year for schools, health care and other programs. The California and Washington measures are likely to pass, Oregon uncertain, say experts. And even in Oregon supporters have learned from the experience to put forward new proposals on the ballot. The Washington measure is supported by Nick Hanauer, and Zach Silk, president of Civic Ventures in Seattle, who say it is essential to put more money in workers wages to increase growth and to bring better lives outside the tech hub areas. Most of the tech booms of the last two decades have not touched the areas outside tech hub metropolitan areas. The conservative approach adopted in Louisiana and Kansas of reducing taxes first and then when holes in state budgets developed to cut education, health and other service expenditures has not worked, and it has led to the backlash in the form of the new West Coast Model, which is expected to be brought up in other states in the east and midwest. The tech hub areas have grown with the boom in tech but this has largely ignored the rural areas, communities just outside of the tech cities, and led to uneven and distorted growth shortchanging the working class and the middle class, and hurting investment in education and healthcare across each state. Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution conservative think tank ,says that its hard to deny that the balanced growth for all communities across the state has lagged far behind as the tech booms boosted growth in the economies of California, Oregon and Washington. An article in the German online site Zeit on Silicon Valley described this vividly showing how this can happen in communities sitting side by side in the San Jose area, with minority Hispanic communities and working class communties seeing very little of the benefits of growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....

LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Peterson of Harvard and Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, authors with Woessmann of the book "Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School," offer some startling reminders about the importance of education to economic growth and incomes in countries. Simply by raising the math standards in the U.S. to the higher standards in Canada would raise GDP by three fourths of one percentage point. One advantage that the U.S. enjoys comes from its good university systems, open markets, rule of law, tax rates, and open immigration policies, which give it about two thirds of a percentage point in higher GDP growth per year. The estimates are from the authors calculations. For the period 1960-2009, a period of rapid growth in Asian countries Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, higher test scores in math and reading compared to the wrold average as measured by NAEP test and PISA, have led to 2% higher GDP growth. NAEP shows only 32% of U.S. high school students proficient in math compared to 45% in Germany and 49% in Canada and 63% in Singapore. By contrast to Korea and Taiwan, Peru, Argentina, the Philippines and S. Africa have about 2% less in GDP growth because of lower scores compared to the world average....

LyrArc Article Gist
Lower amounts for financial aid available offset the lower rise in tution costs to leave students just as worse off as before with large amount of student debt in 2013-2014.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out the gains on three fronts evident from the Census Bureau report of 5.2% gain in median income of households in the U.S. He says the first is the growth in incomes of ordinary working class and middle class families, second the large decline in the poverty rate, and third the further rise in insurance coverage in 2015 for people without health insurance. He points to the steady efforts of the Obama administration to improve lives of ordinary families as working based on the Census report though results have taken time, and could have been better. The Stimulus, says Krugman could have been larger following the blow of the 2009 financial crisis and increased unemployment at the time. Janet Yellen at the inequality conference of the Boston Fed in 2014 pointed out the problems of 62 million households having net worth of about $10,000, and why this was running against the American idea of a better life for all Americans. In that sense the Census report is a movement in the right direction but a lot remains to be done.   ...