LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points to dynastic politics in India and the weak leadership of prime minister Manmohan Singh, who owes his position to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi of the Congress party. There is a vacuum in the leadership resulting in no clear policy and definite actions on tackling corruption issues. This has created a crisis of confidence for the Indian public, especially for young people who have lost faith in the government to bring much needed change. Technology with mobile phones, computers, television and mass media, increasing use of cars and motorbikes and rapid road/rail links are rapidly changing Indian society. The Indian public is looking for changes in governance to keep up with these rapid changes and greater publc awareness of the world around them.

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
Friedman compares the anti-corruption movements in India and the U.S., the world's two largest democracies. The Occupy Wall Street anti-corruption movement in the U.S. focusses on the excessive influence of banks on lawmakers, regulators, and the government, through the use of campaign money, revolving door for government officials and regulators to join banks, and intense lobbying. The anti-corruption movement focusses on corruption in government at higher levels, such as the handling of government licenses, and at the basic levels of needing to bribe officials for something as simple as getting a birth certificate or other government document. Both have pernicious effects, in the U.S. excesssive bank influence leads to taking excessive risk for higher bonuses, putting the entire financial system at risk and creating a crisis in housing that delays the economic recovery. And in India the corruption leads to retarded progress, as funds to invest in infrastructure and development are siphoned off, business and entrepreneurs are required to pay bribes at each step, and ordinary people face the need to pay bribes for the most routine interactions with government officials. In the process this creates more unequal societies by skewing the distribution of benefits from wealth created to groups that are better equipped to game the system. The economic system once distorted in these ways has tendencies to take talent away from productive activity and innovation which create wealth, and direct it towards speculative activities....