LyrArc Article Gist
Instead of a jinx much to the contrary the US economy outlook for 2030 in Feb 2026- a surge in investment spending in 2026-2030, new manufacturing investments and lower energy costs, moderating inflation, are likely to propel the US economy ahead to 2030.The effect of tariffs as a policy making tool has been muted because of exemptions, reversal of tariff rates once key objectives were secure for tariffs as a way to get action on foreign policy as with Indian purchases of Russian oil, deals with Japan, South Korea and China, India, UK and the EU. Some sources such as the Philadelphia Fed see price rises reaching 3% in some inflation guages more than the moderate 2.5% in the consumer price index for January 2026. These sources see the hiring slowing down just as layoffs begin to happen in the latter part of the year which is a possibility but less likely. At this point in Feb 2026 there is a tendency not to layoff and to hang onto employees, and hiring has been slow in 2025. January's report of 130,000 jobs added is the first sign of strengthening of the jobs market. Overall a cautious view would be to call it a soft landing after the inflation surge of the covid period. Another way of looking at is is more in line with the strategic direction of the US economy- freeing up the economy with investments in energy,  reducing the key costs of production, tax policy of Bessent's complete one shot depreciation of equipment increasing business investment, tariff policy making the world trading system fairer and now more attuned to US interests, all creating an investment and jobs surge in 2026-2027. There is an added benefit from US efforts to free up the world trading system from the stranglehold placed on it by China with its control over world manufacturing. A dominance and unwise concentration gained from the serious mistakes of the Bush-Clinton period of not putting in safeguards for US factories and jobs (that form the backbone for families in neighborhoods towns and regions across the US), and US business interests growing indifference to the very communities they were based in by outshoring to China destroying whole regions in America. Even where it is criticized or seen as negative there are huge benefits when the US acted. Tariff increase on India is a clear example- it built Indian resilient attitude in June-Feb 2026, and during this period it cut funding Russia's war in Ukraine by sourcing energy from other sources, the US policy led to India and EU+ Germany signing trade agreements to double their effort and double trade and scientific cooperation ( a goal secured for the US as it reduces concentration in China), was followed by US signing its own trade agreement with India within days, and increases world trade of US and EU and Germany in ways that will bring 2.5 billion people into a strong partnership that overshadows anything that happened in China in the Clinton-Bush-Obama years of failure. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
EU Japan South Korea face serious negotiations ahead, regardless of ITT ruling on May 28, 2025 saying the president did not have emergency powers. The ruling does not apply to sector by sector action by DJT just not across the board tariff of 50%. And the ruling is being appealed.  Initial analysis is that this does nothing to affect the US president's other options to use other legal authorites and laws, conduct sector by sector investigations of harm done to the US in unfair trade, take action on sector by sector basis on steel, semiconductors, autos, pharmaceuticals.  Another factor is that all are allies, EU and India is dependent on US for security cooperation, and Japan, South Korea are entirely US dependent on security. Japan also has a past history of unfair trade practices and the prime minister senior officials both understand the US need to rebuild manufacturing, and support this. This is also true of the UK which has completed it's trade negotiations and deal with the US, and sees the ITT or other actions as an internal matter for the US people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
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....