LyrArc Article Gist
A second term Trump-Vance will face uphill risks and a mess in economics from a Trumpian Republican party and Congress, says WSJ. WSJ Editorial Board says a second Trump term is not without risks. Tariffs cost 1.1% in annual growth in the Trump first term says WSJ, and it did have an impact on inflation. It would have had greater impact on inflation with the supply chain crisis of Biden's first term, had this supply chain crisis happened in Trump's first term. A second term Trump-Vance support tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese imports which would have a bigger effect on inflation and economic growth than of the first term. The key difference is that with tax cuts a basic rule for Republican policies Trump-Vance second term would not invest in infrastructure the way Mr. Biden has done and Biden will do so in a second term. As a result the economic growth is likely to be greater and inflation smaller under a Biden administration. Trillions of dollars in investment in the economy and infrastructure under Biden in a second term will be missing in a Trump-Vance tax cuts administration policy. And with it hundreds of thousand of jobs created each quarter will be missing in Trump-Vance second term. Add to this the level of clarity of stable economic policy under a Biden second term and contrast it with some of the chaos in economic policy of a Trump-Vance second term. The basic contradiction between tax cuts policy and the nation's need for infrastructure spending/rebuilding under a Republican under Trump administration will not go away, present a huge stumbling block. Chaotic policy could come from Project 2025 that says consider abolishing the US central bank Federal Reserve. This kind of erratic and unwise policy proposals are clearly not happening under Biden and Yellen. Another key difference is the cost to the economy of delays of several years in doing nothing for climate in Trump-Vance 2024-2028. Severe effects on climate if nothing is done could cause acceleration of climate negative costs which a future economy under Democrats would face, in reality the Nation would face. America's Business has taken a short term approach to climate change, when the time comes to pay the costs of short term thinking it assumes it is somebody else's problem- this happened with supply chain concentration in China the burden falling on the middle and lower classes, it would happen again with missing climate change action under Trump-Vance second term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BBC News covers the opposition by business leaders in the U.S. to president Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate change agreement. Elon Musk of Tesla and Robert Iger of Disney say they will quit working on the president's advisory councils. Walmart, Apple, Google and other companies also opposed the move. Energy companies Exxon and Chevron also opposed the move. This reduces the business community's confidence in and support for the Trump administration. Some analysts see the Trump move as a way to satisfy the mood of his own election base of support among people who see the climate change accord as one more aspect of a rigged system of globalization, a theme Trump has used during his campaign in 2016. During the first 100 days many of the decisions Trump made took into account the views of business leaders from Boeing on the Export Import Bank, of Gary Cohn on tax reforms, of Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary on NAFTA trade agreement. With the investigations in Congress underway the analysts see the move as political to shore up support with the Trump base. Yet it also brings with it the cost of losing support in the business community that has traditionally supported Republican presidents. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The International Energy Agency says China used 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2009 compared to the 2.170 billion tons of oil equivalent used by the USA. This oil equivalent measure covers crude oil, nuclear energy, coal, natural gas and renewable energy like hydropower. To give an idea of the scale of the increase- China's total energy use was only half of that of the USA in 1999 ten years ago. China plans to reduce emissions by cutting the carbon dioxide per unit of GDP by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2020. But China looks at higher energy use in the years ahead. Much of the energy use is propelled by infrastructure building and energy intensive use in industries.

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...