ReportWire

Tag: economy and economic indicators

  • Apple is now worth $3 trillion, boosted by the Nasdaq’s best start in 40 years | CNN Business

    Apple is now worth $3 trillion, boosted by the Nasdaq’s best start in 40 years | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Apple’s stock ended trading Friday valued at $3 trillion, the only company ever to reach that milestone. It has been riding a Big Tech stock wave that has given the Nasdaq its best first half gain in 40 years.

    Shares of Apple rose more than 2% Friday at a record $193.97. With 15.7 billion shares outstanding, that stock price pushed Apple to its historic market value.

    Apple has been here once before: On January 3, 2022, Apple hit the $3 trillion mark during intraday trading, but it failed to close there.

    The company’s stock closed Thursday at a record high share price for the third-straight day, but it merely budged 0.2% higher. Apple easily surpassed the $190.73 level it needed to break $3 trillion at Friday’s market open.

    The sky-high valuation for the tech giant comes on the heels of its risky launch of the Apple Vision Pro earlier this month and a stronger-than-expected quarterly earnings report in May – even though sales and profit slumped.

    The Vision Pro, which will go on sale next year, impressed tech journalists who got an early preview of the augmented reality device. But it is entering a nascent market with little mainstream consumer adoption. Apple plans to charge a hefty $3,499 for its headset, which currently has limited apps and experiences, and requires users to stay tethered to a battery pack the size of an iPhone.

    Apple’s

    (AAPL)
    stock has skyrocketed 49% this year, boosted by a broader surge in Big Tech stocks as investors have jumped onto the AI bandwagon. Nvidia

    (NVDA)
    leads the S&P 500 with a 190% jump this year, followed by Meta

    (META)
    at 138%.

    The Nasdaq grew by 31.7% in the first half of the year, notching its largest first half percentage gain since 1983.

    This year’s stock market success for Apple comes in sharp contrast to 2022. At the start of 2023, Apple’s market cap fell below $2 trillion in trading for the first time since early 2021.

    Wall Street ended the first half of 2023 on a positive note as the tech rally led markets to close higher for both the month and second quarter of the year.

    The S&P 500 gained 6.5% in June, its best monthly performance since January. It also notched its third consecutive quarter of growth, up 8.3% in the second quarter. The S&P 500 is about 15.9% higher so far this year, its best half since 2019.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House escalates political pressure on GOP as McCarthy unveils debt limit proposal | CNN Politics

    White House escalates political pressure on GOP as McCarthy unveils debt limit proposal | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    White House officials have spent weeks engaged in skirmishes with House Republicans over the looming debt ceiling battle.

    Those skirmishes have now expanded into an all-out war.

    President Joe Biden’s economic speech in Maryland on Wednesday, which leveled a series of policy and political attacks at House Republicans, serves as a critical marker for a White House moving quickly to escalate the political pressure on House Republicans as the calendar moves closer to the deadline to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

    Months of messaging and rapid response efforts to counter nascent House GOP debt limit proposals evolved this week into a full-scale effort to undercut Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s spending cut and debt ceiling proposal at the moment of its inception.

    Biden’s remarks, though planned for several weeks, provided a window into the trigger for the escalation.

    “Just two days ago the speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy went to Wall Street to describe the MAGA economic vision for American,” Biden said in reference to McCarthy’s speech Monday at the New York Stock Exchange.

    McCarthy’s high-profile remarks, which broadly outlined the Republican push for steep spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase, set in motion the House Republican push to pass a proposal and shift the entrenched political dynamics.

    “American debt is a ticking time bomb that will detonate unless we take serious, responsible action,” McCarthy said in his New York speech, which previewed a proposal that was made public Wednesday.

    Biden’s remarks, at a union hall in Maryland, served as a clear response.

    “Massive cuts in programs you count on,” Biden said of the outlines of McCarthy’s proposal. “The threat of defaulting on America’s debt for the first time in 230 years.”

    The positions of the two sides remain unchanged – and completely incompatible. Biden and his top advisers say unequivocally they will not negotiate over a debt ceiling increase and will only accept a clean proposal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit. McCarthy and House Republicans have labeled that position a non-starter and are demanding significant spending cuts in order to sign on to any increase.

    The irreconcilable positions underscore the central importance of winning the political and messaging battle that is set to dramatically intensify. With no pathway to reconcile the respective positions, both sides are pointing to the political pressure – and potentially catastrophic economic consequences that would result in a failure to a find a resolution – as critical to crack their opposition.

    Biden’s speech was crafted to crystallize a clear political contrast and detail the legislative wins of Biden’s first two years in office and his agenda’s priorities for the years ahead.

    But the speech was also tailored to directly attack McCarthy and the broad outlines of the California Republican’s forthcoming proposal at the same moment behind the scenes efforts to keep Democrats unified and escalate outside pressure.

    “Folks, it’s the same old trickle-down dressed up in MAGA clothing,” Biden said of McCarthy’s proposal in his remarks. “Only worse.”

    White House officials quietly circulated messaging and polling memos touting Biden’s budget and tax proposal earlier this week. Biden spoke by phone with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday in what people familiar with the call framed as a discussion that was equal parts ensuring total alignment and mapping out the policy and political strategy ahead.

    “President Biden, Leader Schumer, and Leader Jeffries agree that we won’t negotiate over default and Republicans should pass a clean bill like they did three times in the previous administration,” the White House said in a readout of the call Tuesday night.

    Outside advocacy groups aligned with the White House are also set to ramp up their efforts to highlight Biden’s agenda while attacking the outlines of McCarthy’s proposal.

    The tightly coordinated messaging and political escalation reflects a deadline that is growing closer, officials said. But it also underscores an understanding that McCarthy and his leadership team face their own critical intraparty moment as they attempt to coalesce around their own proposal ahead of a vote next week.

    That House Republican plan, should McCarthy whip the votes to pass it, is dead on arrival in the Senate. White House officials view the proposal less as a tangible way to shift the entrenched political dynamics and more as an opportunity to launch a whole new array of policy attacks, officials say.

    Republicans have made clear, however, they view the opposite as true. A House-passed bill should force Biden to the table and serve as a demonstration of Republican unity and resolve.

    “President Biden and Senator Schumer have no right to play politics with the debt ceiling,” McCarthy said on the House floor Wednesday, calling on Biden and Democrats to enter negotiations.

    McCarthy has insisted he can marshal the votes to pass his proposal. White House officials have privately been skeptical that’s the case given the fractious dynamics of the conference.

    But at a critical moment in a fight that is set to envelope Washington in the months ahead, White House officials are intent on making McCarthy’s job as difficult as possible.

    “The American people should know about the competing economic visions of the country that are really at stake right now,” Biden said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s second debt limit meeting with congressional leaders postponed | CNN Politics

    Biden’s second debt limit meeting with congressional leaders postponed | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden’s anticipated meeting originally scheduled for Friday with congressional leaders aimed at discussing a deal to avert a default on the national debt has been postponed, a White House spokesperson said.

    Friday’s meeting would have been the second time in less than a week that congressional leaders met with Biden at the White House in an effort to reach a solution to avoid default. Instead, the spokesperson told CNN on Thursday, staff will continue to meet and the leaders will come together again next week.

    “I don’t think there’s enough progress for the leaders to get back together,” McCarthy said on Thursday, adding that he expects a meeting on debt limit next week with the four congressional leaders and the White House.

    “The White House didn’t cancel the meeting – all of the leaders decided it’s probably in the best of our interest to let the staff meet again before we get back together,” McCarthy said.

    A source familiar with the meetings insisted the delay was a “positive development” and that “meetings are progressing.”

    White House officials and aides to McCarthy and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries all thought postponing the meeting was a good idea, according to another source familiar with the negotiations. The general consensus, they said, is that allowing more time for staff-level talks will ensure the leaders’ meeting would be “more productive.”

    In a sign of contention, however, McCarthy slammed the “seriousness” of the White House in debt negotiations on Thursday, saying, “it seems like they want a default.”

    The ongoing conversations between the two federal branches come at a critical moment.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently warned that the United States could default on its obligations as soon as June 1 if Congress doesn’t find a solution addressing the debt limit. And McCarthy has said Congress will need to reach a deal in principle by next week in order to move the deal through the gears of Congress ahead of that potential default deadline.

    After an initial meeting on Tuesday in the Oval Office, those involved acknowledged that a concrete path forward to avoid default had not been secured.

    Staff for each of the offices involved have met daily since Tuesday’s meeting, relaying areas they see as red lines for each of their parties.

    House Republicans have wanted to attach spending reductions to a debt ceiling increase and have passed a debt limit plan that does just that. But Biden and congressional Democrats have insisted on passing a clean increase on the debt limit before addressing a framework for spending.

    But even as the president continues to insist he will not negotiate over raising the debt ceiling, he has said he is willing to negotiate spending levels and his staff is now racing to reach a spending agreement with Republicans before the US faces default as early as June 1.

    The White House has conveyed to congressional negotiators that Biden’s most recent legislative accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act, is off the table as the two sides begin to eye potential spending cuts, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. The law, which makes historic investments in combating climate change, was targeted as part of House Republicans’ bill to cut spending alongside a debt ceiling increase.

    Among the White House’s other non-starter items: rolling back student debt forgiveness – a key campaign promise that remains tied up in litigation that was also targeted in House Republicans’ bill last month – and Medicaid and SNAP benefits.

    Inside the West Wing, there is a growing acknowledgment that the White House will have to accept spending cuts, even as the president argues the spending negotiations are not linked to raising the debt ceiling.

    And negotiators are also beginning to discuss permitting reform, which could be a part of an eventual deal, two sources said.

    Sources familiar with the matter said the White House is willing to entertain a cap on future spending, but for a far shorter period of time than the 10-year spending cuts agreed to as part of the 2011 debt ceiling standoff.

    And in early conversations, White House officials have also indicated a debt ceiling increase will need to last more than the one year, to avoid this scenario playing out again next year.

    Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, who is helping lead GOP negotiations on the debt ceiling, on Thursday outlined four areas where he thinks there could be agreement: permitting reform, clawing back unspent Covid relief funds, work requirements and spending caps.

    Graves acknowledged that the White House indicated they “don’t like” repealing any portions of the IRA. On the length of the debt ceiling hike, Graves signaled that Republicans would be open to a two-year hike but said that would require the White House to put “more savings on the table.”

    While Biden had suggested earlier this week that he’d be open to a short-term extension, Graves ruled out the idea, saying, “As far as we’re concerned right now, it’s absolutely off the table.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘You’re wrong’: McCarthy answers his critics as he faces blowback from GOP hardliners | CNN Politics

    ‘You’re wrong’: McCarthy answers his critics as he faces blowback from GOP hardliners | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in February made a bold prediction about the GOP and the debt ceiling, asserting: “We don’t believe they have a plan that can pass with Republican votes in the House.”

    He later insisted that the White House would not negotiate with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on a debt ceiling increase and that ultimately Congress would lift the borrowing limit without any conditions at all.

    “Clean, clean, clean,” he told CNN in April, referencing the push for a clean debt ceiling resolution.

    But McCarthy ultimately passed a bill in April on GOP votes alone. He then later forced President Joe Biden to negotiate a debt limit suspension with spending cuts. And Wednesday night, the House passed the McCarthy-Biden deal by a 314-177 vote, even winning the backing of 149 House Republicans, more than half of his conference, and the support of 165 Democrats. The Senate passed the bill late Thursday night, and it now goes to Biden’s desk for his signature.

    “You’re wrong,” an ebullient McCarthy said when asked about critics underestimating him.

    After one of the longest speaker’s races in history, winning the gavel after an ugly 15-ballot fight, McCarthy has managed to navigate his ideologically divided conference and bring to an end the debt limit standoff – even to the surprise of some of his sharpest critics.

    “I have been thinking about this day since before my vote for speaker because I knew the debt ceiling was coming,” McCarthy said at a news conference following the vote Wednesday night. “I wanted to make history.”

    When asked if he underestimated the speaker, Schumer didn’t answer directly.

    “No. 1, we avoided default – our number one goal, which we’ve been talking about from day one,” Schumer said. “No. 2, it is a far, far cry from where the Republicans started out.”

    Democrats say if the speaker surprised them in the fiscal fight, it’s because they didn’t think he would hold the specter of the first-ever US default over the White House until Biden agreed to negotiate on his terms.

    “I think the Republican House caucus is willing to go to default,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat. “When dealing with folks like that, it’s really hard to negotiate at all.”

    But it didn’t come without a cost.

    After the debt limit deal passed, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado told CNN that House conservatives will be having discussions about ousting McCarthy “in the next week or two,” although he didn’t commit to following through with that threat.

    A fired-up Buck, who opposed the debt limit deal, told reporters that he has received calls from constituents about removing McCarthy from the speakership. “My constituents are furious and you know what’s so interesting about the calls in the district? They are not only ‘vote against this bill,’ but they are ‘take McCarthy out.’ That’s what the calls are coming in,” he said.

    The same Republicans who held out their votes for McCarthy’s speakership bid in January hated the deal he struck, arguing that it failed to curtail spending or provide conservatives with key policy wins. Several have publicly talked about moving to oust him for the agreement.

    Rep. Chip Roy, the Texas Republican who has vocally slammed the deal, promised a “reckoning” earlier this week after the agreement was reached. And Rep. Dan Bishop, the North Carolina Republican who publicly vowed to target the speaker and potentially oust him from his job, said of his confidence in McCarthy: “None. Zero. What basis is there for confidence?”

    Still, there haven’t been signs yet that the hardline conservatives will actually move to oust the speaker.

    During a House Freedom Caucus conference call Tuesday night, when the motion to vacate was briefly brought up, Chairman Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, dismissed the idea as “premature” and the conversation quickly moved on, according to a source on the call.

    The source said that there have been private, “independent” discussions about the motion to vacate among some of McCarthy’s fiercest critics, but not among the Freedom Caucus as a whole, where there is far less appetite to go that route.

    After facing an all-consuming debt limit battle for the last several months, McCarthy is ready for the next act of his young speakership – and he’s taking steps that can win over the far-right furious at him over his debt ceiling deal with the White House.

    To win some of his critics back, he’s promising his members that he wants to set up a bipartisan commission to rein in sky-high deficits while also privately vowing to hold the line in the government funding fights to come.

    Rep. Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican who said McCarthy has lost “some trust” by cutting the debt deal, told CNN that the speaker had promised that leadership would be “actively” involved in the appropriations process, saying that’s where “the next big debate” will be.

    While the debt limit and spending has bitterly divided the GOP conference, McCarthy is now free to turn toward more unifying measures – and to go on the attack against the Biden administration instead of cutting a deal with the president. It’s one reason why McCarthy was OK with agreeing to the White House’s demand to suspend the debt limit until January 2025, ensuring the divisive issue won’t be litigated before the 2024 elections.

    Asked what’s next now that the debt crisis is behind them, McCarthy told reporters: “We’ve got a number of things.”

    “We’ve got to do appropriations,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of oversight work to do. I don’t know if you’ve followed … FBI Director Wray, not following through on our subpoena. Now he says he would let us look at the document,” McCarthy told reporters.

    The focus internally is already shifting.

    On Wednesday, House Oversight Chairman James Comer said his committee would begin contempt proceedings as early as next week against Wray, in a move that would serve up red meat to the right flank of the GOP conference.

    Comer has demanded that the FBI turn over an internal law enforcement document related to an unverified allegation against Biden, and he said Wednesday that the FBI’s proposed accommodation to allow Comer to view the document would not be sufficient to stop contempt proceedings.

    Another target for far-right Republicans is Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary whom conservatives want to impeach over problems at the border.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Georgia Republican who backed McCarthy’s speakership in January, told reporters that she is willing to swallow the debt ceiling deal but said would like to see a “dessert” to go along with it – and specifically named the idea of impeaching Mayorkas or Wray.

    This story has been updated to reflect the bill’s passage in the Senate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nvidia says US curbs on AI chip sales to China would cause ‘permanent loss of opportunities’ | CNN Business

    Nvidia says US curbs on AI chip sales to China would cause ‘permanent loss of opportunities’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Nvidia warned Wednesday that if the United States imposes new restrictions on the export of AI chips to China, it would result in a “permanent loss of opportunities” for US industry.

    The company’s chief financial officer, Colette Kress, said she didn’t anticipate any “immediate material impact” but tighter curbs would impact earnings in the future.

    US officials plan to tighten export curbs announced in October to restrict the sale of some artificial-intelligence chips to China, according to multiple media reports, including the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Washington has ramped up efforts to cut China off from key technologies that can support its military.

    The US Department of Commerce has not replied to a CNN request for comment.

    The rules, as reported, could make it harder for companies like Nvidia

    (NVDA)
    to sell advanced chips to China. Fueled by a boom in demand for its AI chips, the company briefly hit a market capitalization of $1 trillion in late May.

    “We are aware of reports that the US Department of Commerce is considering further controls that may restrict exports of our A800 and H800 products to China,” Kress told an investment conference.

    “Over the long-term, restrictions prohibiting the sale of our datacenter GPUs to China, if implemented, would result in a permanent loss of opportunities for US industry to compete and lead in one of the world’s largest markets and impact on our future business and financial results,” she said.

    GPUs refer to graphics processing units, which are chips or electronic circuits capable of rendering graphics for display on electronic devices.

    “Given the strength of demand for our products worldwide, we do not anticipate that such additional restrictions, if adopted, would have an immediate material impact on our financial results. We do not anticipate any immediate material impact on our financial results,” Kress added.

    Last October, the Biden administration unveiled a sweeping set of export controls that ban Chinese companies from buying advanced chips and chip-making equipment without a license.

    The new move is aimed in part at Nvidia’s A800 chip, which the US-based company created following the introduction of last year’s curbs in order to continue to sell to China, Bloomberg reported.

    China is a key market for Nvidia. Revenues from mainland China and Hong Kong accounted for 22% of the company’s revenue last year, according to its financial statements.

    On Wednesday, shares of Nvidia slumped as much as 3.2%, before recouping some of the losses. It ended down 1.8%. Chinese AI stocks suffered much heavier losses.

    Inspur Electronic Information Industry fell by 10%, the maximum allowed, on Wednesday in Shenzhen. It dropped again by 5.3% on Thursday. Chengdu Information Technology of Chinese Academy of Sciences slid 12% on Wednesday. Baidu

    (BIDU)
    , which is developing a rival to ChatGPT, sank 4.4% on Thursday in Hong Kong.

    “The US could ruin China’s AI party,” Jefferies analyst said in a research note. Local chipsets do not have Nvidia’s GPU ecosystem, thus every update may require reworking, resulting in lower efficiency and higher costs.

    The Biden administration’s chip curbs would be “much more effective” in limiting China’s advances in military power driven by AI than rules restricting US investment in China’s tech sector, the analysts added.

    China has strongly criticized US restrictions on tech exports, saying earlier this year that it “firmly opposes” such measures.

    In May, Beijing banned Chinese operators of critical information infrastructure from buying products from Micron Technology

    (MU)
    , in apparent retaliation against sanctions imposed by Washington and its allies on the country’s chip sector.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy tells Republicans he’s ‘nowhere near’ a debt limit deal with Biden as deadline nears | CNN Politics

    McCarthy tells Republicans he’s ‘nowhere near’ a debt limit deal with Biden as deadline nears | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Republicans during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that he’s not close to a bipartisan deal with President Joe Biden to avoid a first-ever default on the nation’s debt.

    “We are nowhere near a deal,” McCarthy told Republicans. “I need you all to hang with me.”

    As each day passes without a deal, the clock is ticking closer to a looming deadline for default – which could be catastrophic for the global economy and have financial effects on countless Americans.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen reaffirming in a letter to McCarthy on Monday that it is “highly likely” that the US Treasury will not be able to pay all of its bills in full and on time as soon as June 1. But several Republicans, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have suggested that they do not believe Yellen’s estimate of June 1 as the so-called X-date for potential default and called on her to testify before Congress.

    While McCarthy has maintained that both parties could still obtain a deal by the June 1 deadline, he is also now accusing the president of trying to “disrupt” negotiations by bringing proposals involving Medicare and Social Security back “into the fold.”

    Republican Study Committee Chairman Kevin Hern said McCarthy told members during Tuesday morning’s meeting they should go home and work their districts if a deal isn’t reached by the White House and Republican negotiators by Memorial Day weekend. Members can always be called back, but Hern told reporters that this is a deal that has to be reached between a few key people.

    “The negotiations are with the speaker and his team and the White House and their team. And so the rest of us being here, just waiting around, doesn’t do any good for anyone,” Hern said.

    McCarthy’s continued optimism about securing a deal before next month follows a meeting at the White House with Biden on Monday evening, where he had underscored that both parties are united in their goal of reaching an agreement to raise the nation’s debt limit before the country defaults.

    “I felt we had a productive discussion. We don’t have an agreement yet, but I did feel the discussion was productive in areas that we have differences of opinion,” McCarthy said outside the West Wing, adding that the “tone” of Monday’s meeting was also “better than any other time we’ve had discussions.”

    Monday evening’s meeting at the White House came after negotiations hit a snag and were put on pause Friday, and representatives of each side spent most of the next two days criticizing the other while defending their own positions. But the parties appeared to smooth things over to resume negotiations when Biden and McCarthy spoke over the phone as the president was aboard Air Force One returning to Washington after a trip to Japan.

    Biden, in a statement, called Monday’s discussion in the Oval Office productive while acknowledging that areas of disagreement persist.

    “We reiterated once again that default is off the table and the only way to move forward is in good faith toward a bipartisan agreement,” Biden wrote. “While there are areas of disagreement, the Speaker and I, and his lead negotiators … and our staffs will continue to discuss the path forward.”

    On Monday evening, McCarthy maintained that both he and the president “agree we want to be able to come to an agreement.”

    McCarthy’s team and White House negotiators have been meeting daily in an effort to come to a consensus on the budget and the debt ceiling. Negotiators also met through the night on Monday and reconvened Tuesday morning.

    The speaker on Monday also acknowledged that he does not plan to waive the House’s three-day rule – which requires that legislation be posted for at least three days to allow House members to study it before it can be voted on.

    McCarthy has repeatedly warned that the White House and House GOP must reach a deal this week to avoid default. And if negotiations drag on, waiving the three-day rule could allow the legislation to pass more quickly. However, there are concerns that expediting the legislative process by waiving the rule may lead to members voting to support something they aren’t fully informed on.

    The speaker said he “would give everybody 72 hours, so everybody knows what they’re voting for.”

    Despite continued talks, House members on both sides of the aisle appear remain divided over the approach to debt ceiling discussions.

    House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Monday evening asserted that talks are moving in the “wrong direction.”

    At a hastily called news conference on the steps of the Capitol, Jeffries attacked the GOP for rejecting a White House compromise – to freeze domestic spending at the current levels. Republicans instead want to roll back spending to previous years’ levels and write into law that spending would be capped for several years.

    “They’ve rejected the fact that President Biden is willing to consider freezing spending. It will reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars. This is what the extreme MAGA Republicans say that they want. They rejected. They rejected an unwillingness to not put the country through this again,” the New York Democrat said. He also repeatedly refused to say if House Democrats would accept a spending cut, as McCarthy has demanded.

    Jeffries’ position is critical because McCarthy will almost certainly need House Democratic support to pass any deal cut with the White House.

    During Tuesday’s closed-door meeting with Republicans, at least one hardline member – Rep. Chip Roy of Texas – complained about Republicans seeking a compromise that water downs what they passed in the House, according to a source in the room. Roy said it’s about saving the country, not seeking a deal.

    Still, a number of Republicans – even some who haven’t always backed McCarthy – said they are standing by the speaker and are happy with how he’s negotiated up until this point.

    “I am very confident in Kevin McCarthy as our speaker,” Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina told CNN. “I don’t want Speaker McCarthy’s job. That’s a very tough job … he’s got the five families to deal with and a caucus of one right here. He’s doing a great job of pulling people together.”

    “I do not envy his position. I would not want it. He’s had a lot of success in bringing a lot of different factions together within the party and that is no small feat, and it’s not easy,” Mace said.

    Rep. Tim Burchett, who voted against the House’s GOP debt ceiling plan said that “McCarthy is very good at deal cutting. I trust him.”

    “If he says it’s going to start snowing in Knoxville tomorrow, I am running down … and buying a new sled,” Burchett added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How every senator voted on the debt ceiling bill | CNN Politics

    How every senator voted on the debt ceiling bill | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Senate voted late Thursday on a bill to suspend the country’s debt limit through January 1, 2025 following weeks of contentious negotiations on the legislative deal between the White House and Republicans.

    The bill is now on its way to President Joe Biden for approval, and once signed, it will avert what could have been an economic catastrophe and the first time the US would have defaulted on its debt. (Biden is scheduled to address the nation about the legislation Friday night.)

    The Senate vote was 63 to 36. Take a look at how every member of the Senate voted on its final passage.

    Members of the Democratic Caucus

    1. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

    2. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado

    3. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut

    4. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey

    5. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio

    6. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington

    7. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland

    8. Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware

    9. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania

    10. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware

    11. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada

    12. Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois

    13. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois

    14. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California

    15. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York

    16. Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire

    17. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico

    18. Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado

    19. Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii

    20. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia

    21. Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona

    22. Sen. Angus King of Maine

    23. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

    24. Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico

    25. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia

    26. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey

    27. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut

    28. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington

    29. Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia

    30. Sen. Alex Padilla of California

    31. Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan

    32. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island

    33. Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada

    34. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii

    35. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York

    36. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire

    37. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona

    38. Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota

    39. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

    40. Sen. Jon Tester of Montana

    41. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland

    42. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia

    43. Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia

    44. Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont

    45. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island

    46. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon

    Members of the Republican Conference

    47. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas

    48. Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota

    49. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa

    50. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa

    51. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

    52. Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota

    53. Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma

    54. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas

    55. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

    56. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

    57. Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota

    58. Sen. Todd Young of Indiana

    59. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota

    60. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina

    61. Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas

    62. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia

    63. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine

    Members of the Democratic Caucus

    64. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts

    65. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon

    66. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

    67. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania

    68. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

    Members of the Republican Conference

    69. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming

    70. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee

    71. Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana

    72. Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama

    73. Sen. Ted Budd of North Carolina

    74. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana

    75. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas

    76. Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho

    77. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas

    78. Sen. Steve Daines of Montana

    79. Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska

    80. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina

    81. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri

    82. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi

    83. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

    84. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana

    85. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma

    86. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah

    87. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming

    88. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas

    89. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky

    90. Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska

    91. Sen. Jame Risch of Idaho

    92. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida

    93. Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri

    94. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida

    95. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina

    96. Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska

    97. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama

    98. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio

    99. Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi

    Not Voting

    100. Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China just played a trump card in the chip war. Are more export curbs coming? | CNN Business

    China just played a trump card in the chip war. Are more export curbs coming? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    A trade war between China and the United States over the future of semiconductors is escalating.

    Beijing hit back Monday by playing a trump card: It imposed export controls on two strategic raw materials, gallium and germanium, that are critical to the global chipmaking industry.

    “We see this as China’s second, and much bigger, counter measure to the tech war, and likely a response to the potential US tightening of [its] AI chip ban,” said Jefferies analysts. Sanctioning one of America’s biggest memory chipmakers, Micron Technology

    (MU)
    , in May was the first, they said.

    Here’s what you need to know about gallium and germanium, how they could play into the chip war and whether more countermeasures could be coming.

    Last October, the Biden administration unveiled a set of export controls banning Chinese companies from buying advanced chips and chip-making equipment without a license.

    Chips are vital for everything from smartphones and self-driving cars to advanced computing and weapons manufacturing. US officials have talked about the move as a measure to protect national security interests.

    But it didn’t stop there. For the curbs to be effective, Washington needed other key suppliers, located in the Netherlands and Japan, to join. They did.

    China eventually retaliated. In April, it launched a cybersecurity probe into Micron before banning the company from selling to Chinese companies working on key infrastructure projects. On Monday, Beijing announced the restrictions on gallium and germanium.

    Gallium is a soft, silvery metal and is easy to cut with a knife. It’s commonly used to produce compounds that are key materials in semiconductors and light-emitting diodes.

    Germanium is a hard, grayish-white and brittle metalloid that is used in the production of optical fibers that can transmit light and electronic data.

    The export controls have drawn comparisons with China’s reported attempts in early 2021 to restrict exports of rare earths, a group of 17 elements for which China controls more than half of the global supply.

    Gallium and germanium do not belong to this group of minerals. Like rare earths, they can be expensive to mine or produce.

    This is because they are usually formed as a byproduct of mining more common metals, primarily aluminum, zinc and copper, and processed in countries that produce them.

    China is the world’s leading producer of both gallium and germanium, according to the US Geological Survey. The country accounted for 98% of the global production of gallium, and 68% of the refinery production of germanium.

    “The economies of scale in China’s extensive and increasingly integrated mining and processing operations, along with state subsidies, have allowed it to export processed minerals at a cost that operators elsewhere can’t match, perpetuating the country’s market dominance for many critical commodities,” analysts from Eurasia Group said on Tuesday.

    Shares of Chinese producers of the two raw materials surged by 10% on Tuesday.

    Beyond China, Australian rare earths producers also advanced, as investors expected Beijing might extend export curbs to that group of strategically important minerals. Lynas Rare Earths

    (LYSCF)
    rose 1.5%.

    The United States is dependent on China for these the two critical elements. It imported more than 50% of the gallium and germanium it used in 2021 from the country, the US Geological Survey showed.

    Eurasia Group analysts described China’s export controls as a “warning shot.”

    “It is a shot across the bow intended to remind countries including the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands that China has retaliatory options and to thereby deter them from imposing further restrictions on Chinese access to high-end chips and tools,” Eurasia Group said in a research note.

    Chinese authorities may also intend to use its control over these niche metals as a possible bargaining chip in discussions with US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is scheduled to visit Beijing later this week.

    Jefferies analysts said the timing of the announcement was unlikely to be a casual decision.

    “It gives the US at least two days to digest and come up with a well-considered response,” they said.

    However, the move is not considered “a death blow” to the United States and its allies.

    China may be the industry leader, but there are alternative producers, as well as available substitutes for both minerals, the Eurasia Group analysts pointed out.

    The United States also imports a fifth of its gallium from the United Kingdom and Germany and buys more than 30% of its germanium from Belgium and Germany.

    That’s definitely possible, a former senior Chinese official has warned.

    The curbs announced this week are “just the start,” Wei Jianguo, a former deputy commerce minister, told the official China Daily on Wednesday, adding China has more tools in its arsenal with which to retaliate.

    “If the high-tech restrictions on China become tougher in the future, China’s countermeasures will also escalate,” he was quoted as saying.

    Analysts believe this too. Rare earths, which are not difficult to find but are complicated to process, are also critical in making semiconductors, and could be the next target.

    “If this action doesn’t change the US-China dynamics, more rare earth export controls should be expected,” Jefferies analysts said.

    However, analysts from Eurasia Group warned that restricting exports is a “double-edged sword.”

    Past attempts by China to leverage its dominance in rare earths have reduced availability and raised prices. Higher prices have spurred greater competition by making mining and processing ventures outside of China more cost-competitive, they said.

    China cut its rare earths export quota in 2010 amid tensions with the United States.

    That resulted in greater efforts by companies outside of the country to produce the metals. US data showed that China’s global market share dropped from 97% in 2010 to about 60% in 2019.

    “Imposing export restrictions risks reducing market dominance,” the Eurasia Group analysts said.

    CNN’s Hanna Ziady and Xiaofei Xu contributed to reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the 14th Amendment factors into the debt ceiling debate | CNN Politics

    Here’s how the 14th Amendment factors into the debt ceiling debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As the stalemate over addressing the debt ceiling continues and the threat of default looms larger, President Joe Biden has resurfaced the controversial idea of using the 14th Amendment as a way to lift the borrowing cap without Congress.

    How could a 145-year-old change to the US Constitution that gave citizenship to former slaves serve as a path out of the debt ceiling drama? Government officials and legal authorities are divided over whether it does.

    Some experts, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, point to Section 4 of the amendment as the basis of their argument that the president has the authority to order the nation’s debts be paid regardless of the debt limit Congress put in place more than 100 years ago.

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned,” reads the section, which refers to the debt incurred by the Union to fight the Civil War.

    Lawmakers who crafted the amendment are very strongly saying that once the US borrows money, it has to pay it back, said Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oregon. The section was designed to remove debt payments from potential post-war partisan bickering between the North and South, but it also applies to the wide divide between Democrats and Republicans today.

    “The federal government is required to pay the debt on time in full,” said Epps, who has long supported using this option in the event Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling.

    Were Biden to invoke the 14th Amendment to allow Treasury to borrow above the debt ceiling to pay the nation’s obligations, it would almost certainly prompt a constitutional crisis and swift legal action. The president acknowledged as much, saying that he doesn’t think it would solve the current problem.

    “I’ll be very blunt with you, when we get by this, I’m thinking about taking a look at, months down the road, as to see whether what the court would say about whether or not it does work,” Biden said Tuesday after meeting with congressional leaders about the impasse.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who has warned lawmakers that the government may default on its obligations as soon as June 1, also poured cold water on the idea.

    “There would clearly be litigation around that. It’s not a short-run solution,” Yellen said at a news conference Thursday when asked about the 14th Amendment. “It’s legally questionable whether or not that’s a viable strategy.”

    She declined to rank where invoking the 14th Amendment would fall in the list of options if Congress failed to act.

    “There are choices to be made, if we got into that situation,” she said. “But as you think about each possible thing that we could do, the answer is there is no good alternative that will save us from catastrophe. The only reasonable thing is to raise the debt ceiling and to avoid the dreadful consequences that will come if we have to make those choices.”

    Prior administrations also considered invoking the 14th Amendment but deemed it unworkable. They never had to pursue it since Congress always acted in time.

    Doing so, however, would not avoid calling into question the safety of US Treasury securities and would put the nation at risk, former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who served in the Obama administration, said at a Council on Foreign Relations event last month.

    “It was not meant to be a broad grant of power,” he said. “Whether you could come up with a theory that you could convince a court was legitimate, I think it’s just a risky thing to do.”

    Invoking the 14th Amendment would also open the door to potential abuse of presidential power by allowing the executive branch to circumvent Congress, said Philip Wallach, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. And it could forever end the ability of lawmakers to negotiate with the president over the debt ceiling.

    “Every time you take these actions that empower the president at the expense of Congress and at the expense of the political process, you need to ask yourself, am I going to be happy about the consequences of this the next time, when the other side’s party is sitting in the White House?” Wallach said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden addresses nation after avoiding catastrophic default: ‘The stakes could not have been higher’ | CNN Politics

    Biden addresses nation after avoiding catastrophic default: ‘The stakes could not have been higher’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden declared bipartisanship alive and well during his first ever Oval Office address on Friday, pointing to the compromise measure that raises the federal borrowing limit and avoids a catastrophic default as evidence his sometimes-mocked views of Washington are not a thing of the past.

    Addressing the nation from behind the Resolute Desk, Biden sought to harness the vintage presidential setting to make the case for a style of governing he insisted was not only still relevant but essential to avoiding disaster.

    Encouraging Americans to “treat each other with dignity and respect” and to “stop shouting,” he said the package he brokered with Republicans ensures economic progress going forward and amounts to a “crisis averted” – even though it sparked fury from some in his own party.

    And he vowed to continue working toward priorities that were left out – including raising taxes on the wealthy – in an implicit reelection message.

    “Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher,” he said.

    It’s been several years since Americans have witnessed the type of seated, direct-to-camera speech Biden delivered Friday. Past presidents have employed the Oval Office to deliver statements during moments of crisis, like after the terror attacks on 9/11 or when the space shuttle Challenger exploded.

    Biden was speaking not amid a crisis but having avoided one. Yet by evoking a style of speech used by presidents for decades, he seemed to also harken to an era of government that did not look down on attempts at compromise.

    “I know bipartisanship is hard and unity is hard, but we can never stop trying, because at moments like this one, the ones we just faced where the American economy and the world economy is at risk of collapsing, there is no other way,” he said in his speech.

    The decision to speak in the most formal of presidential settings came after weeks of fraught negotiations over the borrowing limit. The deal ultimately struck between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy raises the debt ceiling for two years, freezes domestic spending, imposes some new work requirements on food stamps and alters certain energy permitting rules.

    Biden had intentionally avoided declaring victory after brokering the agreement, partly in the hopes of securing the necessary Republican votes for the bill to pass.

    That tactic appeared to work; the measure cleared the House and Senate in bipartisan fashion. Biden said he planned to sign the bill Saturday and called the engagements with his Republican interlocutors “respectful.”

    He began his evening address by underscoring his efforts to work across the aisle to secure a positive outcome – an objective he noted had been met with intense skepticism.

    “When I ran for president, I was told that the days of bipartisanship is over and Democrats and Republicans could no longer work together. I refuse to believe that,” Biden said. “The only way American democracy can function is through compromise and consensus.”

    The president said neither Republicans nor Democrats “got everything they wanted but the American people got what they needed.”

    “We averted an economic crisis and an economic collapse,” he said.

    The Treasury Department has said it will run out of cash to pay its bills in full and on time on Monday. Economists had warned of severe consequences of a national default.

    Despite the bill’s passage, the legislation known as the Bipartisan Budget Agreement had detractors on both the left and right. Many liberals and conservatives voted against it, and the most right-wing lawmakers have raised the prospect of trying to oust McCarthy from his leadership role for what they say were insufficient spending cuts.

    On the left, progressive Democrats balked at some of the new work requirements added to the bill, though an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed the measure would likely keep the number of Americans on food stamps at roughly the same levels. The bill lifted work requirements for veterans and those experiencing homelessness.

    Democratic critics have also voiced outrage at approval included in the bill of a natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia.

    Biden and his aides have argued they were successfully able to stave off the most extreme Republican positions to arrive at a bill that ultimately avoided economic disaster.

    Through it all, some Democrats have grumbled at the president’s approach to the situation. While Biden initially said he would not negotiate over raising the debt ceiling, demanding only a “clean increase,” he ultimately entered into talks with McCarthy that tied the borrowing limit to budget cuts.

    Others encouraged Biden to use the 14th Amendment, which states the US debt “shall not be questioned,” to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Biden said it was possible to explore that option in the future, but it was too risky to deploy with the imminent threat of default.

    “Nothing would have been more catastrophic” than a default, Biden said in his remarks.

    This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta could become even more dominant in social media with Threads | CNN Business

    Meta could become even more dominant in social media with Threads | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    In less than 48 hours, Meta’s Twitter rival Threads has surpassed 70 million sign-ups, upended the social media landscape and appears to have rattled Twitter enough that it is now threatening legal action against Meta.

    But even as users signed up for Threads in droves, with some clearly eager to flee the chaos of Elon Musk’s Twitter, the sudden success of Meta’s app could raise a new set of concerns.

    Meta has long been criticized for its market dominance, and for allegedly trying to choke off competition by copying and killing rival applications. Now, some competition experts and even some Threads users worry that if the new app’s traction continues, it may simply lead to the accumulation of even more power and dominance for Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    “The prospect of total monopoly by Meta, yikes,” wrote one user. “It’s a real problem for society when a few dozen people and companies own every single thing so that no alternative paradigms can exist that they don’t co-opt from the cradle,” replied another.

    Twitter had always been much smaller than Meta’s platforms, but it had an outsized influence in tech, media and politics. As Twitter faltered under Musk, though, a cottage industry emerged of smaller apps trying to capture some of its magic. Now more than any of them, Meta seems best positioned to claim the crown.

    Threads’ blockbuster launch this week highlights the uncomfortable reality of the modern digital economy: To potentially beat some of the biggest players in the industry, you might have to be a giant yourself.

    The overnight success of Threads is a testament both to the dissatisfaction with Musk’s ownership of Twitter and to the unique power and reach of one of Meta’s most important properties: Instagram.

    Instagram has more than two billion users, far more than the 238 million users Twitter reported having in the months before Musk took over. When new users sign up for Threads, which they do using an Instagram account, the app prompts them to follow all of their existing Instagram contacts with a single tap. It’s optional, but is easy to accept, and it takes a conscious decision to decline.

    By promoting Threads through Instagram, and by sharing Instagram user data with Threads to let people instantly recreate their social networks, Meta has significantly greased the onboarding process. That frictionless experience has allowed Threads to leapfrog what’s known in the industry as the “cold start” problem, in which a new platform struggles to gain new users because there are no other users there to attract them.

    Thanks to the Instagram integration, “that biggest problem, the chicken-egg problem, has been solved from the jump,” Reddit co-founder and venture investor Alexis Ohanian said in a video Thursday (posted, naturally, on Threads).

    That Threads appeared to clear that hurdle easily, Ohanian said, makes him “bullish” on the new app.

    But that same innovation that made signing up so many users so quickly may raise competition concerns, particularly in Europe where new antitrust rules for digital platforms are set to go into effect in a matter of months.

    “From a competition perspective this can be problematic because Meta can use it to leverage its market power and raise barriers to entry, as other rivals would not have the customer base Meta has via Instagram,” said Agustin Reyna, director of legal and economic affairs at the Brussels-based consumer advocacy organization BEUC.

    Under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), “digital gatekeepers” — a term that’s expected to cover Meta and/or its subsidiaries — will be prohibited from combining a user’s data from multiple platforms without consent, Reyna said. Another restriction forbids requiring users to sign up for one platform as a condition of using another.

    Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri appeared to acknowledge those issues this week in an interview with The Verge. Threads won’t be launching in the EU for now, he said, because of “complexities with complying with some of the laws coming into effect next year” — a statement The Verge suggested was a reference to the DMA.

    The DMA was passed specifically to deal with the antitrust concerns raised by large tech platforms. That Threads apparently cannot (yet) comply with rules designed to protect competition underscores uncertainty about the app’s potential competitive impact.

    Meta’s approach to Threads could also revive longstanding criticisms about the company’s alleged practice of copying and killing rivals, particularly as Twitter has warned Meta it may sue over claims of trade secret theft (an allegation Meta denies).

    The issue isn’t limited to the realm of social media. As the world races to develop artificial intelligence, Threads represents a huge new opportunity for Meta to gather training data for its own AI technology, in a way that could help it catch up to industry leaders such as OpenAI and Google. That could complicate any attempt at a comprehensive analysis of what Threads means for competition in tech.

    Part of what makes the debate so complicated is Threads’ seemingly very real threat to Twitter.

    If Threads puts pressure on Twitter to improve its service, that is a form of competition between apps, said Geoffrey Manne, founder of the Portland, Oregon-based International Center for Law and Economics.

    But, he added, if it leads to a concentration of power in the social media industry more broadly, it could mean a reduction in competition overall. It all depends on how you define the market.

    “I’m inclined to say it does both simultaneously, and the ultimate consequences aren’t so clear,” Manne said.

    Rather than viewing it through the lens of a social media market, one helpful way to look at the issue is from the perspective of the advertising market, he said. It’s possible that once Threads introduces advertising — which Zuckerberg has said won’t happen until the app has increased to significant scale — Threads simply reinforces Meta’s advertising market power, Manne said. That could lead to further antitrust scrutiny for Meta even if the question about competition in social media is ambiguous.

    Jeff Blattner, a former DOJ antitrust official, said it can only benefit consumers to have Threads as a rival to Twitter.

    “Two platforms run by maniac billionaires are better than one,” he wrote on Threads — though if Threads is so successful as to effectively knock out Twitter altogether, then in some ways the original question about Meta’s dominance will still stand.

    Threads has one thing going for it that may nip any competition concerns in the bud: A commitment to integrate with the same open protocols used by other distributed social media alternatives, such as Mastodon.

    That would give users the option to migrate their accounts, along with all their follower data intact, to a rival like Mastodon that isn’t controlled by Meta.

    While that interoperability isn’t available yet, Mosseri has repeatedly highlighted it as a priority on his to-do list.

    When and if it happens, that could be a significant step. What may appear now as an audience grab by Meta could someday wind up being how millions of people were onboarded to a massive, decentralized social networking infrastructure that is not controlled by any single company, individual or organization.

    “This is why we think interoperability requirements are so important,” said Charlotte Slaiman, a competition expert at the Washington-based consumer group Public Knowledge. If users could port their entire social graph from one rival to another whenever they wanted, she said, “we could have more fair competition based on the quality of the product, not just incumbency advantage.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Britain’s ‘profound economic crisis’ gives Rishi Sunak only unpleasant choices | CNN Business

    Britain’s ‘profound economic crisis’ gives Rishi Sunak only unpleasant choices | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    Rishi Sunak, Britain’s third prime minister in seven weeks, took office on Tuesday with a pledge to fix the “mistakes” of predecessor Liz Truss and tackle a “profound economic crisis.”

    The task won’t be an easy one, he acknowledged.

    “This will mean difficult decisions to come,” Sunak said in his first speech from No. 10 Downing Street.

    The United Kingdom was already sliding towards a recession when Truss took office in September, as soaring energy bills ate into spending. Now, Sunak has another headache: He must restore the government’s credibility with investors after Truss’ unfunded tax cuts sparked a bond market revolt, forcing the Bank of England to intervene to prevent a financial meltdown. Borrowing costs, including mortgage rates, shot higher.

    Accomplishing this goal will require delivering a detailed plan to put public finances on a more sustainable path. (A government watchdog warned in July that without major action, debt could reach 320% of the UK’s gross domestic product in 50 years.)

    The problem? There’s little appetite for government spending cuts after years of austerity in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Plus, failing to help households deal with surging living costs could prove politically devastating and further weigh on the economy.

    “It’s not a particularly pleasant economic hand to be dealt [as] a new prime minister,” said Ben Zaranko, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    Finance minister Jeremy Hunt got the ball rolling last week when he reversed £32 billion ($37 billion) in tax cuts that formed the bedrock of Truss’ plan to boost growth.

    Yet Sunak and Hunt — who will stay in his job — still need to find between £30 billion and £40 billion in savings to bring down public debt as a share of the economy in the next five years, according to calculations by IFS, an influential think tank.

    “It is going to be tough,” Hunt said in a tweet. “But protecting the vulnerable — and people’s jobs, mortgages and bills — will be at the front of our minds as we work to restore stability, confidence and long-term growth.”

    Sunak and Hunt won’t have the option of going light on the details. If investors don’t buy into their plan and borrowing costs shoot up again, getting the situation under control would only become trickier, as interest payments on government debt rise.

    “If markets don’t [see] the plans as credible, then filling the fiscal hole could become even harder,” said Ruth Gregory, senior UK economist at Capital Economics.

    One area Sunak may be tempted to tap is the social welfare budget. Questions have swirled about whether the Conservative government may try to avoid boosting state benefits in line with inflation, as is customary. (American recipients of Social Security will receive the biggest cost-of-living adjustment in more than four decades next year.)

    Most UK working-age benefits would typically go up by 10.1% next April based on inflation data. But there’s speculation the increase could be linked instead to average earnings, which are growing at a much slower rate than inflation. That could save £7 billion ($8 billion) in 2023-24, according to IFS.

    Such a move would prove controversial, however — especially since benefits have not kept up with rampant inflation in 2022.

    “I would like to see if we could find a way to increase benefits by inflation, but what I will say is that trade-offs are involved,” former Conservative cabinet minister Sajid Javid told ITV this week.

    A more palatable option, at least for households, would be extracting more taxes from corporations.

    Hunt has already said that corporate taxes will rise from 19% to 25% next spring. The Financial Times has reported that Hunt could also target earnings from oil and gas companies by extending a windfall tax on profits.

    In an interview with the BBC earlier this month, Hunt said he was “not against the principle” of windfall taxes and that “nothing is off the table.” Higher taxes on the financial sector are also under consideration, according to the Financial Times.

    Industry groups are already circling the wagons. Banking trade association UK Finance said its members already pay “a higher rate of taxation overall than any other sector,” and urged the government not to “risk the competitiveness of the UK’s banking and finance industry.”

    Sunak could also walk back Truss’ commitment to boosting defense spending to 3% of the economy by 2030, though that carries its own political risks given Russia’s war in Ukraine. Other countries in the region, such as Germany, have said they will ramp up military investments, and the United Kingdom may be loath to fall behind, Zaranko said.

    Investors and economists expect that the government will announce a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts shortly. Hunt is due to reveal his plans in greater depth on October 31.g

    “Despite the fiscal U-turns, the government will still need to show a fiscally credible path next week in the budget to balance the books,” Sonali Punhani, an economist at Credit Suisse, said in a note to clients this week.

    That could exacerbate the country’s downturn. The Bank of England has projected that the United Kingdom is already in a recession, and a gauge of business activity in October slumped to its lowest level in 21 months.

    “We are seeing quite a dramatic shift in the fiscal outlook from being much looser than we expected just a few weeks ago to being much tighter than we expected,” Gregory of Capital Economics said. “I think the risk is that the recession is deeper or longer than we expect.”

    A weaker economy would present its own complications.

    No one wants to repeat the errors of the brief Truss era, when her gamble that unfunded tax cuts would jumpstart growth backfired spectacularly.

    But business groups are warning that completely abandoning the objective of boosting Britain’s anemic economic growth would create problems, too.

    The austerity of the 2010s produced “very low growth, zero productivity and low investment,” Tony Danker, head of the Confederation of British Industry, told the BBC on Tuesday.

    “The country could end up in a similar doom loop where all you have to do is keep coming back every year to find more tax rises and more spending cuts, because you’ve got no growth.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link