ReportWire

Tag: iab-business

  • Madison Square Garden CEO doubles down on use of facial recognition tech | CNN Business

    Madison Square Garden CEO doubles down on use of facial recognition tech | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The chief executive of the Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corporation has doubled down on using facial recognition at its venues to bar lawyers suing the group from attending events.

    Speaking to Fox 5 on Thursday, MSG Executive Chairman and CEO James Dolan said Madison Square Garden is a private company and therefore entitled to determine who is allowed to enter its venues for events.

    “At Madison Square Garden, if you’re suing us, we’re just asking of you – please don’t come until you’re done with your argument with us,” he said. “And yes, we’re using facial recognition to enforce that.”

    His comments come after New York Attorney General Letitia James on Wednesday sent a letter to MSG Entertainment requesting information regarding its use of facial recognition technology to prohibit legitimate ticketholders from entering venues. The letter said the attorney general’s office has reviewed reports MSG Entertainment has used facial recognition to identify and deny entry to multiple lawyers affiliated with law firms involved in ongoing litigation with the company. The letter indicates thousands of attorneys from around 90 law firms may have been impacted by the policy, and said the ban includes those holding season tickets.

    The attorney general’s letter raised the concern that banning individuals from accessing venues over ongoing litigation may violate local, state, and federal human rights laws, including laws prohibiting retaliation. The letter also questions whether the facial recognition software used by MSG Entertainment is reliable and what safeguards are in place to avoid bias and discrimination.

    In a press release, James said, “MSG Entertainment cannot fight their legal battles in their own arenas. Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall are world-renowned venues and should treat all patrons who purchased tickets with fairness and respect. Anyone with a ticket to an event should not be concerned that they may be wrongfully denied entry based on their appearance, and we’re urging MSG Entertainment to reverse this policy.”

    MSG Entertainment owns and operates several venues in New York, including Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Hulu Theater, and the Beacon Theatre. Madison Square Garden is the home of the New York Knicks, Rangers, professional boxing, and college basketball teams.

    In a statement Thursday, an MSG spokesperson told CNN, “To be clear, our policy does not unlawfully prohibit anyone from entering our venues and it is not our intent to dissuade attorneys from representing plaintiffs in litigation against us. We are merely excluding a small percentage of lawyers only during active litigation.”

    “Most importantly,” the spokesperson added, “to even suggest anyone is being excluded based on the protected classes identified in state and federal civil rights laws is ludicrous. Our policy has never applied to attorneys representing plaintiffs who allege sexual harassment or employment discrimination.”

    In the Fox 5 interview Thursday, Dolan said when the attorneys suing MSG finish their litigation, they will be welcome back to the venues. “If your next door neighbor sues you, if somebody sues you, right, that’s confrontational. It’s adversarial and it’s fine, people are allowed to sue,” he said. “But at the same time, if you’re being sued, right, you don’t have to welcome the person into your home, right?”

    Dolan defended the use of facial recognition technology, saying it’s useful for security and noting that he believes Madison Square Garden to be one of the safest venues in the country. “Basically, anytime that you go out in public, you’re on camera,” he said. “Believe me, you walk down the street, you’re on camera, you’re on 10 cameras. What facial recognition does is looks at, you know, recognizes your face, and says you know, are you someone who’s on this list.”

    Dolan claimed the State Liquor Authority has threatened MSG’s license over its use of facial recognition technology. The New York State Liquor Authority told CNN it issued a “letter of advice” to MSG, after receiving a complaint in mid-November over attorneys engaged in litigation against the company not being allowed to enter its premises.

    “After receiving a complaint, the State Liquor Authority followed standard procedure and issued a Letter of Advice explaining this business’ obligation to keep their premises open to the public, as required by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law,” Joshua Heller, a State Liquor Authority spokesperson, told CNN.

    The SLA told CNN an investigation into the matter is “ongoing”.

    During the Fox interview, Dolan apparently threatened to shut down sales of liquor during an unspecified upcoming New York Rangers game, and said he would direct any upset patrons to the liquor authority to complain.

    Dolan also pushed back at the suggestion that he’s being “too sensitive.”

    “The Garden has to defend itself,” Dolan said. “If you sue us, right, you know we’re going to tell you not to come.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Google’s long period of online dominance could end | CNN Business

    How Google’s long period of online dominance could end | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    For the better part of 15 years, Google has seemed like an unstoppable force, powered by the strength of its online search engine and digital advertising business. But both now look increasingly vulnerable.

    This week, the Justice Department accused Google of running an illegal monopoly in its online advertising business and called for parts of it to be broken up. The case comes a couple of years after the Trump administration filed a similar suit going after the tech giant’s dominance in search.

    Google said the Justice Department is “doubling down on a flawed argument” and that the latest suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.” If successful, however, both blockbuster cases could upend a business model that’s made Google the most powerful advertising company on the internet. It would be the most consequential antitrust victory against a tech giant since the US government took on Microsoft more than 20 years ago.

    But even though the lawsuits drive at the heart of Google’s revenue machine, they could take years to play out. In the meantime, two other thorny issues are poised to determine Google’s future on a potentially shorter timeframe: The rise of generative artificial intelligence and what appears to be an accelerating decline in Google’s online ad marketshare.

    Just days before the DOJ suit, Google announced plans to cut 12,000 employees amid a dramatic slowdown in its revenue growth, and as it works to refocus its efforts partly around AI.

    Google has long been synonymous with online searches; it was one of the first modern tech companies whose name would become a verb. But a new threat emerged late last year when OpenAI, an artificial intelligence research company, publicly released a viral new AI chatbot tool called ChatGPT.

    Users of ChatGPT have showcased the bot’s ability to create poetry, draft legal documents, write code and explain complex ideas, with little more than a simple prompt. Trained on a vast amount of online data, ChatGPT can generate lengthy responses to open-ended questions, though it’s prone to some errors, or answer simple questions – “Who was the 25th president of the United States?” – which one might have previously had to scroll through search results on Google to find.

    ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of data and uses this to generate responses to user prompts. While ChatGPT’s underlying technology has existed for some time, the fact that anyone can create an account and experiment with the tool has led to loads of hype for generative AI and made the technology’s potential instantly understandable to millions in a way that was only abstract before. It has also reportedly prompted Google’s management to declare a “code red” situation for its search business.

    “Google may be only a year or two away from total disruption. AI will eliminate the Search Engine Result Page, which is where they make most of their money,” Paul Buchheit, one of the creators of Gmail, tweeted last year. “Even if they catch up on AI, they can’t fully deploy it without destroying the most valuable part of their business!”

    If more users begin to rely on AI for their information needs, the argument goes, it could undercut Google’s search advertising, which is part of a $149 billion business segment at the company. Media coverage of ChatGPT has doubled down on this notion, with some outlets pitting ChatGPT against Google in head-to-head tests.

    There are some reasons to doubt this nightmare scenario might play out for Google.

    For one thing, Google operates at a vastly different scale. In November, Google’s website received more than 86 billion visits, compared to less than 300 million for ChatGPT, according to the traffic analysis website SimilarWeb. (ChatGPT was released publicly in late November.) For another, even in a world where Google provides specific, AI-generated responses to user queries, it could still analyze the queries to provide search advertising, just as it does today.

    Google has its own investments in highly sophisticated artificial intelligence. One of its AI-driven chat programs, LaMDA, even became a flashpoint last year after an engineer at the company claimed it had achieved sentience. (Google has disputed the claim and fired the engineer for breaches of company policy.)

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai has reportedly told employees that even though Google has similar capabilities to ChatGPT, the company has yet to commit to giving out AI-generated search responses because of the risk of providing inaccurate information, which could be detrimental to Google in the long run.

    Google’s stance highlights both its incredible influence, as the most trusted search engine on earth, and one of the core problems of generative AI: Due to the technology’s black-box design, it’s virtually impossible to find out how the technology arrived at a specific result. For many people, and for many years to come, being able to evaluate different sources of information for themselves may trump the convenience of receiving a single answer.

    All this has taken place against the backdrop of what seems to be an extended, multi-year decline in Google’s online advertising marketshare. Google’s position in digital advertising peaked in 2017 with 34.7% of the US market, according to third-party industry estimates, and is on pace to account for 28.8% this year.

    Google isn’t the only advertising giant to experience this trend. One-off factors like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as fears of a looming recession, have broadly affected the online advertising industry. Others, like Facebook-parent Meta, have been particularly susceptible to systemic changes such as Apple’s app privacy updates restricting the amount of information marketers can access about iOS users.

    But the decline also comes as Google faces new competition in the market. Rivals including Amazon, TikTok and even Apple have been attracting an increasing share of the digital advertising pie.

    Whatever the cause, Google’s advertising business, which is still massive, seems to face growing headwinds. And those headwinds could be exacerbated if some of the predictions about generative AI come to pass, or if the Justice Department’s lawsuits ultimately weaken Google’s grip on digital advertising.

    As part of the case, the US government has asked a federal court to unwind two acquisitions that allegedly helped cement a Google monopoly in advertising. Dismantling Google’s tightly integrated ads machine will restore competition and make it harder for Google to extract monopoly profits, according to the US government.

    This and other antitrust suits — though threatening in their own right — simply add pressure to the broader dilemma facing Google as it stares down a new era of potentially tumultuous technological change.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden delivered a Thursday speech to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.

    Some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Here’s a breakdown of the 14 claims CNN fact-checked.

    Touting the bipartisan infrastructure law he signed in 2021, Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “700,000” figure is wildly inaccurate; it adds an extra two zeros to the correct figure Biden used in a speech last week and the White House has also used before: 7,000 projects. The White House acknowledged his misstatement later on Thursday by correcting the official transcript to say 7,000 rather than 700,000.

    Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that this cap is now in effect and that it came into effect on January 1 are false. The $2,000 annual cap contained in the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed last year – on Medicare Part D enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending on covered prescription drugs – takes effect in 2025. The maximum may be higher than $2,000 in subsequent years, since it is tied to Medicare Part D’s per capita costs.

    Asked for comment, a White House official noted that other Inflation Reduction Act health care provisions that will save Americans money did indeed come into effect on January 1, 2023.

    – CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this item.

    Criticizing former President Donald Trump over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden said, “Back then, only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.”

    Facts First: Biden is free to criticize Trump’s vaccine rollout, but his “only 3.5 million” figure is misleading at best. As of the day Trump left office in January 2021, about 19 million people had received a first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “3.5 million” figure Biden cited is, in reality, the number of people at the time who had received two shots to complete their primary vaccination series.

    Someone could perhaps try to argue that completing a primary series is what Biden meant by “had their first vaccination” – but he used a different term, “fully vaccinated,” to refer to the roughly 230 million people in that very same group today. His contrasting language made it sound like there are 230 million people with at least two shots today versus 3.5 million people with just one shot when he took office. That isn’t true.

    Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the second time in less than a week, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim on Thursday, the White House published a corrected official transcript that uses “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even that 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

    “Biden’s numbers are way too low,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

    Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and “2%” in a speech last week.

    Biden cited a 2021 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy think tank that found that 55 of the country’s largest corporations had made $40 billion in profit in their previous fiscal year but not paid any federal corporate income taxes. Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.”

    Facts First: Biden exaggerated. The new minimum tax will reduce the number of companies that don’t pay any federal taxes, but it’s not true that the days of companies paying zero are “over.” That’s because the minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, only 14 of the companies on its 2021 list of 55 non-payers reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion.

    In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect this year. The exact number is not yet known.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told CNN in the fall that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

    There are lots of nuances to the tax; you can read more specifics here. Asked for comment on Thursday, a White House official told CNN: “The Inflation Reduction Act ensures the wealthiest corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, precisely the corporations the President focused on during the campaign and in office. The President’s full Made in America tax plan would ensure all corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, and the President has called on Congress to pass that plan.”

    Noting the big increase in the federal debt under Trump, Biden said that his administration has taken a “different path” and boasted: “As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.

    Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

    National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote on the White House website last week that the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill “facilitated a strong economic recovery and enabled the responsible wind-down of emergency spending programs,” thereby reducing the deficit; David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told Egan in October that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the recovery that has pushed the deficit downward. And Deese correctly noted that Biden’s signature legislation, last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, is expected to bring down deficits by more than $200 billion over the next decade.

    Still, the deficit-reducing impact of that one bill is expected to be swamped by the deficit-increasing impact of various additional bills and policies Biden has approved.

    Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that wages are up and growing faster than inflation is true if you start the calculation seven months ago; “real” wages, which take inflation into account, started rising in mid-2022 as inflation slowed. (Biden is right that inflation has declined, on an annual basis, every month for the last six months.) However, real wages are lower today than they were both a full year ago and at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021. That’s because inflation was so high in 2021 and the beginning of 2022.

    There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

    Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.”

    Facts First: Biden is correct about how the bill would affect the deficit if it became law. He accurately cited an estimate from the government’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The bill would eliminate more than $71 billion of the $80 billion in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Biden signed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Congressional Budget Office found that taking away this funding – some of which the Biden administration said will go toward increased audits of high-income individuals and large corporations – would result in a loss of nearly $186 billion in government revenue between 2023 and 2032, for a net increase to the deficit of about $114 billion.

    The Republican bill has no chance of becoming law under Biden, who has vowed to veto it in the highly unlikely event it got through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”

    Facts First: This is a fair description of the Republicans’ “FairTax” bill. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes, plus the payroll tax, capital gains tax and estate tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. The bill describes a rate of 23% on the “gross payments” on a product or service, but when the tax rate is described in the way consumers are used to sales taxes being described, it’s actually right around 30%, as a pro-FairTax website acknowledges.

    It is not clear how much support the bill currently has among the House Republican caucus. Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju this week that he opposes the bill – though, while seeking right-wing votes for his bid for speaker in early January, he promised its supporters that it would be considered in committee. Biden wryly said in his speech, “The Republican speaker says he’s not so sure he’s for it.”

    Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

    Facts First: This is true. The unemployment rate was just below 3.5% in December, the lowest figure since 1969.

    The headline monthly rate, which is rounded to a single decimal place, was reported as 3.5% in December and also reported as 3.5% in three months of President Donald Trump’s tenure, in late 2019 and in early 2020. But if you look at more precise figures, December was indeed the lowest since 1969 – 3.47% – just below the figures for February 2020, January 2020 and September 2019.

    Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims are accurate, though it’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities has only been released by the government since 2008.

    The Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in December, not far from the record low of 5.3% that was set in August 2019. (This data series goes back to 1972.) The rate was 9.2% in January 2021, the month Biden became president. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 4.1% in December, just above the record low of 4.0% that was set in September 2019. (This data series goes back to 1973.) The rate was 8.5% in January 2021.

    The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 5.0% in December, the lowest since the beginning of the data series in 2008. The rate was 12.0% in January 2021.

    Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.

    Facts First: Biden is correct. According to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 28,500 people had new foreclosure notations on their credit reports in the third quarter of 2022, the most recent quarter for which data is available; that was down from about 71,420 people with new foreclosure notations in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 74,860 people in the first quarter of 2020.

    Foreclosures plummeted in the second quarter of 2020 because of government moratoriums put in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreclosures spiked in 2022, relative to 2020-2021 levels, after the expiry of these moratoriums, but they remained very low by historical standards.

    Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is accurate. An analysis provided to CNN by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies US health care, found that about 295 million US residents had health insurance in 2021, the highest on record – and Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation’s director for state health reform, told CNN this week that “I expect the number of people with insurance continued to increase in 2022.”

    Tolbert noted that the number of insured residents generally rises over time because of population growth, but she added that “it is not a given” that there will be an increase in the number of insured residents every year – the number declined slightly under Trump from 2018 to 2019, for example – and that “policy changes as well as economic factors also affect these numbers.”

    As CNN’s Tami Luhby has reported, sign-ups on the federal insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, have spiked nearly 50% under Biden. Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan pandemic relief law and then the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act temporarily boosted federal premium subsidies for exchange enrollees, and the Biden administration has also taken various other steps to get people to sign up on the exchanges. In addition, enrollment in Medicaid health insurance has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, in part because of a bipartisan 2020 law that temporarily prevented people from being disenrolled from the program.

    The percentage of residents without health insurance fell to an all-time low of 8.0% in the first quarter of 2022, according to an analysis published last summer by the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. That meant there were 26.4 million people without health insurance, down from 48.3 million in 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law.

    Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”

    Facts First: This is true. There were about 5.4 million business applications in 2021, the highest since 2005 (the first year for which the federal government released this data for a full year), and about 5.1 million business applications in 2022. Not every application turns into a real business, but the number of “high-propensity” business applications – those deemed to have a high likelihood of turning into a business with a payroll – also hit a record in 2021 and saw its second-highest total in 2022.

    Trump’s last full year in office, 2020, also set a then-record for total and high-propensity applications. There are various reasons for the pandemic-era boom in entrepreneurship, which began after millions of Americans lost their jobs in early 2020. Among them: some newly unemployed workers seized the moment to start their own enterprises; Americans had extra money from stimulus bills signed by Trump and Biden; interest rates were particularly low until a series of rate hikes that began in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why urgent care centers are popping up everywhere | CNN Business

    Why urgent care centers are popping up everywhere | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    If you drive down a busy suburban strip mall or walk down a street in a major city, chances are you won’t go long without spotting a Concentra, MedExpress, CityMD or another urgent care center.

    Demand at urgent care sites surged during the Covid-19 pandemic as people searched for tests and treatments. Patient volume has jumped 60% since 2019, according to the Urgent Care Association, an industry trade group.

    That has fueled growth for new urgent care centers. A record 11,150 urgent care centers have popped up around the United States and they are growing at 7% a year, the trade group says. (This does not include clinics inside retail stores like CVS’ MinuteClinic or freestanding emergency departments.)

    Urgent care centers are designed to treat non-emergency conditions like a common cold, a sprained ankle, an ear infection, or a rash. They are recommended if patients can’t get an immediate appointment with their primary care doctor or if patients don’t have one. Primary care practices should always be the first call in these situations because they have access to patients’ records and all of their health care history, while urgent care sites are meant to provide episodic care.

    Urgent care sites are often staffed by physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Many also have doctors on site. (One urgent care industry magazine says, in 2009, 70% of its providers were physicians, but that the percentage had fallen to 16% by last year.) Urgent cares usually offer medical treatment outside of regular doctor’s office hours and a visit costs much less than a trip to the emergency room.

    Urgent care has grown rapidly because of convenience, gaps in primary care, high costs of emergency room visits, and increased investment by health systems and private-equity groups. The urgent care market will reach around $48 billion in revenue this year, a 21% increase from 2019, estimates IBISWorld.

    The growth highlights the crisis in the US primary care system. A shortage of up to 55,000 primary care physicians is expected in the next decade, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

    But many doctors, health care advocates and researchers raise concerns at the proliferation of urgent care sites and say there can be downsides.

    Frequent visits to urgent care sites may weaken established relationships with primary care doctors. They can also lead to more fragmented care and increase overall health care spending, research shows.

    And there are questions about the quality of care at urgent care centers and whether they adequately serve low-income communities. A 2018 study by Pew Charitable Trusts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that antibiotics are overprescribed at urgent care centers, especially for common colds, the flu and bronchitis.

    “It’s a reasonable solution for people with minor conditions that can’t wait for primary care providers,” said Vivian Ho, a health economist at Rice University. “When you need constant management of a chronic illness, you should not go there.”

    Urgent care centers have been around in the United States since the 1970s, but they were long derided as “docs in a box” and grew slowly during their early years.

    They have become more popular over the past two decades in part due to pressures on the primary care system. People’s expectations of wait times have changed and it can be difficult, and sometimes almost impossible, to book an immediate visit with a primary care provider.

    Urgent care sites are typically open for longer hours during the weekday and on weekends, making it easier to get an appointment or a walk-in visit. Around 80% of the US population is within a 10-minute drive of an urgent care center, according to the industry trade group.

    “There’s a need to keep up with society’s demand for quick turnaround, on-demand services that can’t be supported by underfunded primary care,” said Susan Kressly, a retired pediatrician and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    Health insurers and hospitals have also become more focused on keeping people out of the emergency room. Emergency room visits are around ten times more expensive than visits to an urgent care center. During the early 2000s, hospital systems and health insurers started opening their own urgent care sites, and they have introduced strategies to deter emergency room visits.

    Additionally, passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 spurred an increase in urgent care providers as millions of newly insured Americans sought out health care. Private-equity and venture capital funds also poured billions into deals for urgent care centers, according to data from PitchBook.

    Urgent care centers can be attractive to investors. Unlike ERs, which are legally obligated to treat everyone, urgent care sites can essentially choose their patients and the conditions they treat. Many urgent care centers don’t accept Medicaid and can turn away uninsured patient,s unless they pay a fee.

    Like other health care options, urgent care centers make money by billing insurance companies for the cost of the visit, additional services, or the patient pays out of pocket. In 2016, the median charge for a 30-minute new insured patient visit was $242 at an urgent care center, compared with $294 in a primary care office and $109 in a retail clinic, according to a study by FAIR Health, a nonprofit that collects health insurance data.

    “If they can make it a more convenient option, there’s a lot of revenue here,” said Ateev Mehrotra, a professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School who has researched urgent care clinics. “It’s not where the big bucks are in health care, but there’s a substantial number of patients.”

    Mehrotra research has found that between 2008 and 2015, urgent care visits increased 119%. They became the dominant venue for people seeking treatment for low-acuity conditions like acute respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, rashes, and muscle strains.

    Some doctors and researchers worry that patients with primary care doctors – and those without – are substituting urgent care visits in place of a primary care provider.

    “What you don’t want to see is people seeking a lot care outside their pediatrician and decreasing their visits to their primary care provider,” said Rebecca Burns, the urgent care medical director at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

    Burns’ research has found that high urgent care reliance fills a need for children with acute issues but has the potential to disrupt primary care relationships.

    The National Health Law Program, a health care advocacy group for low-income families and communities, has called for state regulations to require coordination among urgent care sites, retail clinics, primary services, and hospitals to ensure continuity of patients’ care.

    And while the presence of urgent care centers does prevent people from costly emergency department visits for low-acuity issues, Mehrotra from Harvard has found that, paradoxically, they increase health care spending on net.

    Each $1,646 visit to the ER for a low-acuity condition prevented was offset by a $6,327 increase in urgent care center costs, his research has found. This is in part because people may be going to urgent care for minor illnesses they would have previously treated with chicken soup.

    There are also concerns about the oversaturation of urgent care centers in higher-income areas that have more consumers with private health care and limited access in medically underserved areas.

    Urgent care centers selectively tend not to serve rural areas, areas with a high concentration of low-income patients, and areas with a low concentration of privately-insured patients, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found in a 2016 study. They said this “uneven distribution may potentially exacerbate health disparities.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prices rose at a slower pace last month, the Fed’s favored inflation gauge shows | CNN Business

    Prices rose at a slower pace last month, the Fed’s favored inflation gauge shows | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge showed prices rose at a slower pace last month, indicating further progress in the central bank’s battle with higher prices.

    The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, or PCE, rose by 5% in December, compared to a year earlier, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

    In December alone, prices rose 0.1% from November.

    On a month-to-month basis, prices for goods decreased 0.7% and prices for services increased 0.5%, according to the PCE price index for December. Within those categories, food prices increased 0.2% and energy prices decreased 5.1%.

    Core PCE, which doesn’t include the more volatile food and energy categories, increased by 4.4% annually, down from November’s annual rate of 4.7%. On a monthly basis, it was up 0.3%.

    Core PCE, which is now at its lowest level since October 2021, is the Fed’s favored inflation gauge as it provides a more complete picture of consumer costs and spending.

    “It’s clear, continued progress on the inflation front — which is something we expected, but good to see,” Joe Davis, Vanguard’s global chief economist, told CNN. “I think you’re seeing continued softening across the entire report.”

    The data showed that consumers pulled back in December, with spending falling by 0.2% from the month before. Personal income rose 0.2% last month, the smallest increase since April.

    Through much of 2022, consumer spending remained robust in spite of high inflation, rising interest rates, and simmering recession fears. However, as the months dragged on, economic data suggested that consumers were running out of dry powder: Reliance on credit grew and delinquencies started to tick up, while savings levels declined.

    Retail sales fell 1.1% in December, the Commerce Department reported earlier this month.

    In Friday’s report, the personal saving rate as a percentage of disposable income increased to 3.4% from 2.9% in November. The savings rate is now up 1 percentage point from its September low.

    The increase is “a sign that consumers are growing cautious after rapidly drawing down their savings last year,” Lydia Boussour, senior economist for EY Parthenon, said in a statement.

    Separately on Friday, a closely watched measurement of consumer attitudes toward the economy showed increased confidence in January for the second consecutive month. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index landed at 64.9 for January, up nearly 9% from December.

    Despite the uptick, the director of the school’s Surveys of Consumers cautioned that there are “considerable downside risks” to sentiment and that two-thirds of consumers surveyed said they expect an economic downturn to occur in the next year.

    Massud Ghaussy, senior analyst of Nasdaq IR Intelligence, said consumer sentiment hinges heavily on the labor market.

    “The big question this year so far is, ‘is the jobs market the next shoe to fall?’” he told CNN. “The economic picture is still quite murky, and the reason why we’re seeing consumer confidence still relatively strong is because of a strong job market.”

    Friday’s PCE report is the last key inflation data before the Federal Reserve meets next week for its first policymaking meeting of 2023.

    Economists and investors are expecting the Fed to raise its benchmark rate by just quarter of a point, signaling another downshift following a spree of blockbuster rate hikes last year.

    The Fed is not expected to pivot simply because inflation is cooling, Davis said, noting that PCE isn’t yet at the Fed’s 2% target.

    The labor market, which has remained strong and tight despite inflation and interest rate hikes, remains a crucial area of focus in the Fed’s inflation fight. The latest data on employment turnover as well as job growth will be released next week.

    “The labor market is clearly Exhibit A in this debate between a soft landing or a mild recession,” Davis said. “The bigger wild card is, do the modest layoffs that we’re seeing in the technology sector in particular spread to other parts of the economy?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China still wants to control Big Tech. It’s just pulling different strings | CNN Business

    China still wants to control Big Tech. It’s just pulling different strings | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Investors have raced back into Chinese tech stocks this year, encouraged by an apparent truce in a two-year battle between some of the country’s most powerful regulators and its biggest internet companies.

    But the enthusiasm may prove to be premature; Beijing is tightening its grip on household names such as Alibaba

    (BABA)
    by acquiring so-called “golden shares” that allow government officials to be directly involved in their businesses, including having a say in the content they provide to hundreds of millions of people.

    Earlier this month, a fund controlled by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) took a 1% stake in Alibaba’s digital media subsidiary in Guangzhou, according to business data platform Qichacha. The subsidiary — Guangzhou Lujiao Information Technology — has a portfolio of businesses under its wing, including mobile browser UCWeb and streaming video site Youku Tudou.

    According to Qichacha, a new board member, who has the same name as a mid-level official at the CAC, was appointed to the subsidiary at the same time. Alibaba didn’t respond to CNN request for comments. Calls to the CAC went unanswered.

    According to a person familiar with the matter, the Chinese government is also discussing taking a similar stake in a mainland Chinese subsidiary of Tencent

    (TCEHY)
    , the group that includes WeChat and a vast gaming business. The terms have not been finalized yet, the person said. Tencent

    (TCEHY)
    declined to comment.

    The moves come as Beijing has signaled that its two-year onslaught on the internet industry is coming to an end. As the economy falters, the ruling Communist Party needs the private sector to boost jobs and growth.

    But that doesn’t mean China is changing its attitude towards companies it believes have become too powerful.

    “It wasn’t a change of heart that caused Beijing to pull back its regulatory push on tech companies, it was a concession to economic reality,” said Brock Silvers, chief investment officer for Kaiyuan Capital in Hong Kong.

    “The goal of furthering state control over sprawling tech empires, however, wasn’t abandoned.”

    Instead, Beijing is returning to the “golden shares” approach, by which the state can still assert control over these firms, while moderating its impact on markets, Silvers added.

    “Golden shares” give their owners, usually governments, some level of control over companies, often those that were previously state-owned.

    In China, such shares are called “special management shares” and give the government decisive voting rights or veto power over certain business decisions or — in the case of internet companies — content.

    The policy could present a “nightmare” scenario for foreign investors, said Alex Capri, a research fellow at the Hinrich Foundation.

    That’s because the Biden administration has issued a series of executive orders limiting securities investments in Chinese entities that the US suspects of aiding China’s military.

    “This represents a murky grey zone for investors, as the CCP’s presence spills over into all areas, both military and civil,” Capri said. “American and other foreign investors will struggle to perform due diligence in an opaque Chinese system.”

    The Chinese government first introduced “golden shares” in 2013 with the aim of strengthening its control over state-backed media firms, which were later opened up to private investors. But as the mobile internet took off, it took such shares in a number of private tech firms operating news and video apps to maintain its grip over information on the internet.

    Between 2018 and 2022, several government entities took 1% stakes in popular news and content platforms, including US-listed Sina Weibo

    (SINA)
    , 36kr

    (KRKR)
    , and Qutoutiao

    (QTT)
    , and Hong Kong-listed Kuaishou, according to company filings or public registration records.

    “Beijing’s Golden Share initiative is about embedding the Chinese Communist Party within the nerve-centers of China’s most important internet-content companies,” said Capri. “It’s about achieving pervasive surveillance, censorship and policing capabilities from the inside out,” he added.

    In April 2021, a government entity acquired a 1% stake in a Beijing subsidiary of TikTok’s parent company Bytedance, according to Qichacha.

    The subsidiary controls some Chinese operating licenses for Douyin and Toutiao. Douyin is the country’s most popular short-video app with more than 600 million active users. Toutiao is a news aggregation app.

    Later that year, an executive at TikTok said at a US congressional hearing that TikTok had “no affiliation” with the Bytedance subsidiary.

    Beijing has tried to arrest a rapid slowdown in the country’s economy by hitting pause on the heavy-handed tech crackdown. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He said at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week that China will support the growth of the private sector, while opening its door further to foreign investment.

    But investors may not be so easily enticed to return to China, analysts said.

    The Communist Party may be easing off on fines and penalties, but the “golden shares” approach seeks the same end, which is “control and tight oversight,” said Capri.

    Silver pointed out that not only will government control of listed entities likely raise risks with an increasingly wary US administration, but Western institutional investors may be reluctant to invest alongside Beijing.

    “The risk is that shareholder interests will remain subservient to state interests,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • We finally know whom FTX owes money to: Wall Street elite, Big Tech, airlines, and many more | CNN Business

    We finally know whom FTX owes money to: Wall Street elite, Big Tech, airlines, and many more | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Newly unsealed bankruptcy documents revealed thousands of creditors to whom FTX owes money after the once-mighty crypto exchange collapsed in November.

    Wall Street heavyweights including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan were named in the creditor list, which includes businesses, charities, individuals and other entities in a 116-page document filed late Wednesday. FTX is now at the center of a massive fraud investigation.

    Also included in the creditors list are media companies, such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, commercial airliners, including American, United, Southwest and Spirit, as well as several Big Tech players, including Netflix, Apple and Meta.

    On Thursday, lawyers for FTX filed an additional document advising the court that the list — known as a creditor matrix — is “intended to be very broad” and “includes parties who may appear in the Debtors books and records for any number of reasons.” Being on the list does not “necessarily indicate that the party is a creditor” of FTX or its affiliates, they wrote.

    Goldman Sachs, for one, is named in the creditor matrix but doesn’t appear to be a creditor. In a statement to CNN on Wednesday, the bank said it had not filed a claim against FTX.

    “This type of creditor matrix is prepared by the debtors for the purpose of providing notice to interested parties in a bankruptcy proceeding and is not necessarily evidence of a creditor relationship,” a spokesperson said.

    The document doesn’t disclose the amount or nature of the debt, and names of individual creditors — mostly customers who deposited funds on FTX — remain redacted at FTX’s request. Inclusion on the creditor list doesn’t necessarily mean the parties had an FTX account.

    FTX is believed to have more than a million creditors, the top 50 of whom are collectively owed more than $3 billion.

    The crypto platform was once of the most popular crypto exchanges on the planet, fueled by celebrity endorsements and high-profile partnerships with sports teams. It marketed itself as a beginner-friendly crypto platform, allowing customers to deposit fiat currency and trade it for digital assets. But FTX came unraveled in November as speculation about its balance sheet sparked investor panic. In the midst of a liquidity crisis, the company filed for bankruptcy, leaving customers in limbo.

    Federal prosecutors investigating FTX say that its founder and former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, orchestrated a massive fraud by stealing customer funds to cover losses at his hedge fund, Alameda Research. They also accuse him of using stolen money to buy luxury real estate and contribute to US poltical campaigns.

    Bankman-Fried, who was indicted in December and remains under house arrest at his parents’ California home, pleaded not guilty to eight criminal counts earlier this month. He has repeatedly denied committing fraud, and is scheduled to go to trial in October.

    Two of his former business partners have pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges and are cooperating with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York. Both associates have implicated Bankman-Fried in the alleged crimes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chevron earnings soar to a record | CNN Business

    Chevron earnings soar to a record | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Chevron reported a record full-year profit of $36.5 billion, buoyed by high oil prices.

    Adjusted earnings for the year more than doubled from the $15.6 billion Chevron earned in 2021 and up 36% from its previous record profit set in 2011.

    The oil company’s fourth-quarter earnings came in at $7.9 billion, up 61% from a year earlier but less than the record quarterly income of $11.4 billion it reported for the second quarter.

    The fourth quarter earnings per share of $4.09 fell short of the forecast of $4.38 a share from analysts surveyed by Refinitiv. But revenue in the quarter of $56.5 billion topped forecasts by nearly $2 billion and was up 17% from a year earlier.

    Full-year revenue of $246.3 billion was up 52% from 2021.

    Shares of Chevron

    (CVX)
    were down slightly more than 1% in premarket trading.

    Ahead of Friday’s report Chevron, the nation’s second largest oil company, behind only ExxonMobil, had announced it was hiking its dividend by 6% along with a massive $75 billion share repurchase plan. The decision brought criticism from those who said oil companies should be investing their money in producing more oil and gasoline to increase supply and drive down prices for inflation-weary drivers.

    “For a company that claimed not too long ago that it was ‘working hard’ to increase oil production, handing out $75 billion to executives and wealthy shareholders sure is an odd way to show it,” said Abdullah Hasan, assistant press secretary at the White House, in a tweet Wednesday evening after the share repurchase was announced.

    Chevron said Friday its investments in operations increased by more than 75% from 2021, and annual US production increased to the equivalent of 1.2 million barrels of oil a day.

    The amount it spent on capital spending and exploration in 2022 was $12.3 billion, up 43% compared with $8.6 billion spent in 2021, but only slightly more than the $11 billion it spent on dividends or the $11.3 billion on share repurchases during the year.

    The record profit came primarily from the soaring oil prices during the year, not its increased production.

    Chevron and other major oil companies all benefited from the spike in oil and gasoline prices during 2022, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While Russia, one of the world’s leading oil exporters, sent relatively little oil to the United States, sanctions placed on Russia following the invasion roiled global commodity prices which set the price of oil.

    Futures for a barrel of Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, hit a record of $123.58 close in early June, up more than 50% from six months earlier ahead of the war, and the average price of a gallon of regular gas in the United States broke the $5 mark a week later to reach a record $5.03.

    But oil and gas prices have fallen substantially since then. Brent closed Thursday at $87.47, slightly below the year-earlier level, while the average price of a gallon of regular gas stands at $3.51 a gallon, only slightly higher from the $3.35 average of a year ago.

    But prices have started to rise once again, partly because Covid lockdown rules in China have been lifted. Traders believe that’s a bullish sign for global demand for oil and gasoline. Refinery problems caused by winter weather are also pushing prices higher.

    The average US price of a gallon of regular gasoline is up nearly 12 cents in just the last week and up 41 cents, or 13%, in the last month. Brent oil is up 12% in the last three weeks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    “There might be someone getting shot tomorrow.”

    That was the warning from Twitter staff at an internal meeting on Jan. 5, 2021, the eve of the deadly attack on the US Capitol. It wasn’t the only stark warning Twitter management received ahead of the insurrection, according to two former Twitter employees who spoke to the House Jan. 6 Committee.

    But now these witnesses, along with some committee staff, are frustrated, saying the committee failed to adequately hold major social media companies to account for the role they played in the worst attack on the Capitol in 200 years.

    It was a “real missed opportunity,” Anika Collier Navaroli, a former Twitter employee turned whistleblower who gave evidence to the committee, told CNN in an interview last week. “I risked a lot to come forward and speak to the committee and to share the truth about these momentous occasions in history,” Navaroli said.

    CNN spoke to half a dozen people who interacted with and were familiar with the Jan. 6 Committee’s so-called “purple team” – a group that included staff with expertise in extremism and online misinformation. Some witnesses and staff said the committee pulled its punches when it came to Big Tech, failing to include critical parts of the team’s work in its final report. The discontent has poured into public view, with an unpublished draft of the team’s findings leaked and obtained by multiple news organizations, including CNN.

    One source familiar with the probe acknowledged that the committee obtained evidence that social media companies like Twitter largely ignored concerns that were raised internally prior to Jan. 6, but while those platforms should have done something at the time, the panel was limited in its ability to hold them accountable. A lawyer who worked on the committee said the panel did its job and focused on the unique and malign role of then-President Donald Trump in an unprecedented attack on American democracy. They also said the final report outlines structural issues across social media and society that need to be studied further.

    Disagreement about social media companies’ role in the Jan. 6 attack comes as 2023 looks to be a pivotal year for Silicon Valley firms in Washington, DC. Spurred in part by the release of Elon Musk’s so-called “Twitter Files,” House Republicans are set to investigate purported Big Tech censorship, particularly as it pertains to social media companies’ handling of a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop. Facebook parent company Meta’s high-stakes decision Wednesday to reinstate Trump on its platforms is also expected to stoke further scrutiny of tech companies’ influence in elections. At the Supreme Court, justices are set to rule this year on a case that could strip key protections afforded to tech companies moderating online speech.

    It isn’t just Navaroli who has taken issue with the committee’s findings. Three of the committee’s own staff members, part of the so-called purple team, published an article earlier this month, sharply criticizing the decisions made by social media companies in the lead up to the attack.

    The final report’s “emphasis on Trump meant important context was left on the cutting room floor,” they wrote.

    “Indeed, the lack of an official Committee report chapter or appendix dedicated exclusively to these matters does not mean our investigation exonerated social media companies for their failure to confront violent rhetoric,” they wrote.

    In wake of the decision, CNN has reviewed thousands of pages of deposition transcripts and other supporting documents the committee has publicly released that provide insight into Silicon Valley’s action and inaction in the critical period between Election Day 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021.

    Navaroli, who worked on Twitter’s safety policy team, told the committee she had repeatedly warned Twitter’s leadership in the lead-up to Jan. 6 about the dangers of not cracking down on what she said was violent rhetoric.

    Navaroli pointed to Trump’s infamous “stand back and stand by” message to the Proud Boys at the first 2020 presidential debate as one instance that incited more violent rhetoric on Twitter.

    Navaroli initially appeared before the committee as an anonymous whistleblower. Part of her testimony was played during the public committee hearings last summer, with her voice distorted to protect her identity. However, she later decided to go public, testifying before the committee for a second time, and speaking to The Washington Post.

    In an interview with CNN, Navaroli said she is speaking out now because she believes it is important for the “truth to be on the record.” She warned that without a full reckoning of social media’s role in the Capitol attack, political violence could once again ignite in the United States and elsewhere around the world, pointing to recent unrest in Brazil where supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the country’s top government offices.

    The final report from the Jan. 6 Committee stated, “Social media played a prominent role in amplifying erroneous claims of election fraud.”

    But a far more blistering assessment was laid out in an unpublished draft document prepared by committee staff that was obtained by several news organizations, including CNN. Its key findings included:

    • “Social media platforms delayed response to the rise of far-right extremism—and President Trump’s incitement of his supporters—helped to facilitate the attack on January 6th.”
    • “Fear of reprisal and accusations of censorship from the political right compromised policy, process, and decision-making.”
    • “Twitter failed to take actions that could have prevented the spread of incitement to violence after the election.”
    • “Facebook did not fail to grapple with election delegitimization after the election so much as it did not even try.”

    Tech companies would broadly dispute these findings and have repeatedly said they are working to keep their platforms safe.

    Twitter’s previous management repeatedly outlined steps it said it was taking to crack down on hateful and violent rhetoric on its platform prior to Jan. 6, 2021, but stressed it didn’t want to unnecessarily limit free expression. Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter no longer has a responsive communications team, and the company did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook parent company Meta, pointed to an earlier statement from the company where it said it was cooperating with the committee.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel, conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli's.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel who conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli’s, told CNN he believes the committee did its job to show “the American public the dangers posed by President Trump’s multilayered attack on our democracy.”

    He said the lack of awareness he believes tech companies have shown about their role in the attack was “stark.”

    “I don’t think social media companies recognize they were dealing with a sustained threat to American democracy,” he said.

    Glick, who now works at the Georgetown Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said the purple team’s report had not been fact-checked, contains some errors, and should not have been leaked.

    Another source familiar with the committee’s work told CNN, “It couldn’t be clearer that Trump was at the center of this plot to overturn the election. Not everything staff worked on could fit into this extensive report and hearings, including some who wanted their work to be the center of the investigation.”

    How social media platforms write and enforce their rules has become a central and ongoing debate, raising the key question of what power the companies should wield when it comes to politicians like Trump.

    While some, including Navaroli, insist Trump repeatedly broke social media platforms’ rules by inciting violent rhetoric that should have resulted in his removal before Jan. 6, others including Musk and Twitter’s previous management, argue that what politicians say should be made available to as many people as possible so they can be held to account.

    Meta and Twitter have both reversed their bans on Trump.

    “We’re moving backwards and it’s concerning to me,” Navaroli said of the return of prominent election conspiracy theorists to major tech platforms. “History has taught us what happens when political speech on social media companies is allowed to fester unchecked.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Southwest posts quarterly loss and warns more losses are ahead after service meltdown | CNN Business

    Southwest posts quarterly loss and warns more losses are ahead after service meltdown | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Southwest Airlines reported a loss for the fourth quarter because of the company’s service meltdown over the holiday travel season, and it warned the costs from those problems will result in another loss in the first quarter.

    The airline was forced to cancel more than 16,700 flights between December 21 and 29, roughly half its schedule during that period. Thursday, Southwest said the meltdown cost the airline about $800 million, resulting in an adjusted net loss in the quarter of $226 million. Still, it managed to report an adjusted annual profit of $723 million, a turnaround from $1.3 billion it lost in 2021.

    It said it expects another loss in the first quarter due to the continued impact and costs associated with meltdown. The first quarter is typically the slowest and least profitable period for US air travel. However, Southwest said it is encouraged by strong bookings for March.

    Southwest

    (LUV)
    ’s quarterly loss of 38 cents a share was far worse than Wall Street analysts’ forecast. Shares of Southwest

    (LUV)
    lost 3% because of that miss and especially its sour outlook.

    The airline said it expected a first quarter loss because of an increase in passengers canceling reservations and a lower level of bookings for January and February, which the airline said “are assumed to be associated with the operational disruptions in December.” Those lost bookings in the current quarter are expected to cost it between $300 million to $350 million.

    To repair customer relations, Southwest has given affected passengers 25,000 bonus points in frequent flier accounts, as well as travel vouchers. And in addition to refunding fares for canceled flights, it is reimbursing those passengers who bought tickets on other airlines or incurred other unexpected travel costs.

    Even with the meltdown, which cost Southwest $410 million in lost revenue when it had to refund tickets to passengers on canceled flights, it still reported record fourth quarter sales of $6.2 billion, up 7% from the same quarter of 2019, just before the pandemic.

    Southwest brought in that record revenue even though the number of seats it was able to fly in the quarter was down 6% from the same period of 2019, before the pandemic, when adjusted for miles flown. But the strong demand meant that Southwest passengers paid 10.6% more for every mile they flew than they were paying in late 2019.

    A massive winter storm started the service problems, but Southwest had a much tougher time recovering from the weather than other airlines because of an antiquated crew scheduling system that was quickly overwhelmed, leaving the airline unable to get the staffing it needed to locations to fly flights. Nearly half of its schedule was canceled during the December 20 to 29 period. Some days, as much as 75% of its scheduled flights were grounded.

    The airline said that it is “conducting a third-party review of the December events and … reexamining the priority of technology and other investments planned in 2023.”

    Southwest has traditionally been the most profitable US airline by a large margin. Many of its rivals were in and out of bankruptcy in recent decades due to losses brought on by recessions and events like the 9/11 attack, but Southwest had put together a string of 47 consecutive profitable years before the pandemic. In 2020, Southwest and all other airlines to reported a loss.

    All other airlines lost money again in 2021, excluding special items such as financial support from the federal government, and most airlines reported another quarterly loss in the first three months of 2022 as the surge in Covid cases caused by the Omicron variant limited demand for travel.

    But demand to fly had been very strong starting with the Spring Break travel season, and air fares soared as passengers paid top dollar to take long-delayed trips. Southwest and most other US airlines reported profits in the second and third quarters, and most have either reported profitable fourth quarters or are forecast to do so – as Southwest had been before the meltdown.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • One news publication had an AI tool write articles. It didn’t go well | CNN Business

    One news publication had an AI tool write articles. It didn’t go well | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    News outlet CNET said Wednesday it has issued corrections on a number of articles, including some that it described as “substantial,” after using an artificial intelligence-powered tool to help write dozens of stories.

    The outlet has since hit pause on using the AI tool to generate stories, CNET’s editor-in-chief Connie Guglielmo said in an editorial on Wednesday.

    The disclosure comes after CNET was previously called out publicly for quietly using AI to write articles and later for errors. While using AI to automate news stories is not new – the Associated Press began doing so nearly a decade ago – the issue has gained new attention amid the rise of ChatGPT, a viral new AI chatbot tool that can quickly generate essays, stories and song lyrics in response to user prompts.

    Guglielmo said CNET used an “internally designed AI engine,” not ChatGPT, to help write 77 published stories since November. She said this amounted to about 1% of the total content published on CNET during the same period, and was done as part of a “test” project for the CNET Money team “to help editors create a set of basic explainers around financial services topics.”

    Some headlines from stories written using the AI tool include, “Does a Home Equity Loan Affect Private Mortgage Insurance?” and “How to Close A Bank Account.”

    “Editors generated the outlines for the stories first, then expanded, added to and edited the AI drafts before publishing,” Guglielmo wrote. “After one of the AI-assisted stories was cited, rightly, for factual errors, the CNET Money editorial team did a full audit.”

    The result of the audit, she said, was that CNET identified additional stories that required correction, “with a small number requiring substantial correction.” CNET also identified several other stories with “minor issues such as incomplete company names, transposed numbers, or language that our senior editors viewed as vague.”

    One correction, which was added to the end of an article titled “What Is Compound Interest?” states that the story initially gave some wildly inaccurate personal finance advice. “An earlier version of this article suggested a saver would earn $10,300 after a year by depositing $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually. The article has been corrected to clarify that the saver would earn $300 on top of their $10,000 principal amount,” the correction states.

    Another correction suggests the AI tool plagiarized. “We’ve replaced phrases that were not entirely original,” according to the correction added to an article on how to close a bank account.

    Guglielmo did not state how many of the 77 published stories required corrections, nor did she break down how many required “substantial” fixes versus more “minor issues.” Guglielmo said the stories that have been corrected include an editors’ note explaining what was changed.

    CNET did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Despite the issues, Guglielmo left the door open to resuming use of the AI tool. “We’ve paused and will restart using the AI tool when we feel confident the tool and our editorial processes will prevent both human and AI errors,” she said.

    Guglielmo also said that CNET has more clearly disclosed to readers which stories were compiled using the AI engine. The outlet took some heat from critics on social media for not making overtly clear to its audience that “By CNET Money Staff” meant it was written using AI tools. The new byline is just: “By CNET Money.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ticketmaster gets grilled: 6 takeaways from hearing over Taylor Swift concert fiasco | CNN Business

    Ticketmaster gets grilled: 6 takeaways from hearing over Taylor Swift concert fiasco | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers grilled a top executive of Ticketmaster’s parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, on Tuesday after the service’s inability to process orders for Taylor Swift’s upcoming tour left millions of people unable to buy tickets late last year.

    During the three-hour hearing, senators pressed Live Nation president and CFO Joe Berchtold and some other witnesses on whether his company was too dominant in the industry, thereby harming rivals, musicians and fans.

    “I want to congratulate and thank you for an absolutely stunning achievement,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said to Berthtold. “You have brought together Republicans and Democrats in an absolutely unified cause.”

    Here’s a look at the big takeaways from the hearing:

    When tickets for Swift’s new five-month Eras Tour went on sale on Ticketmaster in mid November, heavy demand snarled the ticketing site, infuriating fans who couldn’t snag tickets. Unable to resolve the problems, Ticketmaster subsequently canceled Swift’s concert ticket sales to the general public, citing “extraordinarily high demands on ticketing systems and insufficient remaining ticket inventory to meet that demand.”

    In his testimony Tuesday, Berchtold partly blamed the Swift ticketing incident on the bots.

    Ticketmaster, he said, was “hit with three times the amount of bot traffic than we had ever experienced” amid the “unprecedented demand for Taylor Swift tickets.” The bot activity “required us to slow down and even pause our sales. This is what led to a terrible consumer experience that we deeply regret.”

    Berchtold also went on defense more broadly about his company. He emphasized that Ticketmaster does not set ticket prices, does not determine the number of tickets put up for sale and that “in most cases, venues set service and ticketing fees,” not Ticketmaster.

    He also rejected suggestions that its dominance has allowed for soaring fees, citing data from the market intelligence firm Pollstar showing that Live Nation controls about 200 out of approximately 4,000 venues in the United States, or about 5%.

    The venues controlled by Live Nation set fees that are “consistent with the other venues in the marketplace,” he said.

    Members of the entertainment industry and one rival spoke out against Ticketmaster’s dominance in the industry.

    Jack Groetzinger, CEO of SeatGeek, alleged that many venue owners “fear losing Live Nation concerts if they don’t use Ticketmaster” and its services, and argued the company must be broken up.

    “Live Nation controls the most popular entertainers in the world, routes most of the large tours, operates the ticketing systems and even owns many of the venues,” he told lawmakers. “This power over the entire live entertainment industry allows Live Nation to maintain its monopolistic influence over the primary ticketing market.”

    He continued: “As long as Live Nation remains both the dominant concert promoter and ticketer of major venues in the US, the industry will continue to lack competition and struggle,” he said.

    Bandmate Jordan Cohen, right, listens as singer-songwriter Clyde Lawrence, left, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to examine promoting competition and protecting consumers in live entertainment.

    Clyde Lawrence, a singer-songwriter on the witness panel, explained how the company acts as a promoter, a venue and the ticketing company, which eats into performing artists’ revenues. Artists, he said, have no leverage over Live Nation.

    “Since both our pay and theirs is a share of the show’s profits, we should be true partners aligned in our incentives — keep costs low while ensuring the best fan experience,” he said. “But with Live Nation not only acting as the promoter but also the owner and operator of the venue, it seriously complicates these incentives.”

    Lawrence also said with Ticketmaster, “we’ll see a 40%-ish or closer to 50% fee added on top” of the base ticket price.

    The fallout from the ticketing fiasco once again cast a harsh spotlight on Ticketmaster and its power in the industry, more than a decade after it completed its merger with Live Nation despite concerns the deal would create a near monopoly in the ticketing sector.

    “To have a strong capitalist system, you have to have competition,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, said during her opening remarks. “You can’t have too much consolidation — something that, unfortunately for this country, as an ode to Taylor Swift, I will say, we know ‘all too well.’”

    Kathleen Bradish, vice president for legal advocacy at the American Antitrust Institute, called Ticketmaster “a very traditional monopoly” and told lawmakers the lack of competition in the live entertainment industry results in consumers having to pay higher prices.

    “Its dominance in markets up and down the live entertainment supply chain creates the incentive and the ability to limit competition and protect its market position,” she explained. “Customers pay the price for these monopolistic acts with higher ticket prices and fees, lower quality, less choice and less innovation.”

    On the concert side, the company excludes “smaller or independent concert promoters and venues. In digital ticketing, it includes excluding ticket resellers and brokers who provide important competition via the secondary ticketing market,” she said.

    Lawmakers repeatedly questioned the US government’s past handling of the Live Nation merger with Ticketmaster. It involved a legally binding consent agreement that allowed the company to merge with Ticketmaster so long as the combined company abided by a number of behavioral conditions.

    A 2019 Justice Department review found that Live Nation was not meeting its commitments under the order, but instead of suing, the Department modified the agreement and extended it for another five years, according to Bradish at the American Antitrust Institute.

    “DOJ should pursue new enforcement action to obtain effective structural relief,” said Bradish, calling for a breakup of Live Nation under either Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

    A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday examined promoting competition and protecting consumers in live entertainment on Capitol Hill

    Sen. Mike Lee said the way that history has unfolded since the Live Nation merger raises “very serious doubts” about the usefulness of consent agreements imposed by the federal government.

    If the current Justice Department concludes that the consent decree has been violated, “unwinding the merger ought to be on the table,” Blumenthal said.

    In response to Berchtold’s explanation about the bot problem, some lawmakers questioned the company’s security practices, noting many small businesses can determine when bad actors are infiltrating their systems.

    Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn suggested Berchtold strengthen its cyberprotections, get better advice and hire new IT workers to better protect its systems. (Berchtold said the company has poured billions of dollars into security to protect its systems over the years.)

    Another Republican, Sen. John Kennedy, went further in criticizing the company over the Swift ticketing issue. He said whoever at Live Nation was in charge of the incident “ought to be fired.”

    In the back half of the hearing, some of the focus shifted to possible solutions – but there were no easy answers.

    Some lawmakers focused on the ability to resell tickets. While this option can be useful for customers who need to change plans, it can also help prop up the scalping market.

    When senators discussed whether restricting the ability to transfer tickets would help, Live Nation’s exec was in favor of it. But the SeatGeek CEO said this might only entrench Live Nation’s dominance, as it holds the kind of market share that would force consumers to solely transact there in the absence of other resale market options.

    – CNN’s Brian Fung and Aditi Sangal contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft quarterly profit falls 12% but cloud computing business shows strength | CNN Business

    Microsoft quarterly profit falls 12% but cloud computing business shows strength | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft on Tuesday posted weaker-than-expected revenue and a double-digit percentage drop in profit for the final three months of last year amid broader economic uncertainty and reduced demand for personal computers and software.

    The tech giant reported revenue of $52.7 billion for the quarter, a modest 2% increase from the year prior but slightly less than analysts had expected. It reported net income of $16.4 billion, a 12% decline from the year prior.

    The earnings results come at a turbulent moment for Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole. Microsoft said last week that it plans to lay off 10,000 employees as part of broader cost-cutting measures. In his explanation of the cuts, CEO Satya Nadella pointed to changing demand for digital services years into the pandemic as well as looming recession fears.

    Demand for personal computers, and the Microsoft operating systems that power them, has pulled back after experiencing a boom early in the pandemic. Consulting firm Gartner said earlier this month that worldwide PC shipments fell more than 28% in the fourth quarter of 2022 compared to the same period the prior year. This marked the largest quarterly shipment decline since Gartner began tracking the PC market in the mid-90s.

    On Tuesday, Microsoft reported revenue declines from its Windows OEM operations and from its Xbox content and services lines. Microsoft also said it would incur $800 million in severance expenses from the layoffs announced this month, as well as charges from “changes to our hardware portfolio, and costs related to lease consolidation activities.”

    But the earnings report had some bright spots. Revenue from its cloud computing division, a key area of focus for Microsoft in recent years, increased 22% from the prior year. An analyst at Evercore described the results as “a sigh of relief.”

    Shares of Microsoft rose 4% in after-hours trading Tuesday on the news.

    “The next major wave of computing is being born, as the Microsoft Cloud turns the world’s most advanced AI models into a new computing platform,” CEO Satya Nadella said in a statement accompanying the results. “We are committed to helping our customers use our platforms and tools to do more with less today and innovate for the future in the new era of AI.”

    Earlier this week, Microsoft confirmed it is making a “multibillion dollar” investment into OpenAI, the company behind the viral AI-powered chatbot tool ChatGPT. The deepening partnership between the two companies – Microsoft was an early investor in OpenAI – could help catapult Microsoft as an AI leader and pave the way for the company to incorporate elements of ChatGPT into some of its hallmark applications, such as Outlook and Word.

    In his memo to staffers announcing the job cuts, Nadella said the company will continue to invest in “strategic areas for our future” and pointed to advances in AI as “the next major wave” of computing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tesla invests $3.6 billion to expand Nevada complex with two factories | CNN Business

    Tesla invests $3.6 billion to expand Nevada complex with two factories | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Tesla said on Tuesday it would invest more than $3.6 billion to expand its Nevada manufacturing complex with two new factories, including the first facility to mass produce its long-delayed Semi electric truck.

    The other factory will make new battery cells, called 4680, and have the capacity to make enough batteries for 2 million light-duty vehicles annually. Together, the plants will employ about 3,000 people.

    The Elon Musk-led company’s existing complex in the city of Sparks makes lithium-ion batteries, vehicle parts and other products such as Powerwall, a power backup system for consumers.

    Unveiled in 2017, the Semi was initially expected to go into production in 2019 but its first delivery was delayed to December, when Musk handed a vehicle to PepsiCo. The move marked Tesla’s first foray into the trucking business.

    The 18-wheeler truck has a range of 500 miles on a single charge and can carry 81,000 pounds including the cargo. It may qualify for tax credits of $40,000 offered for clean commercial vehicles under the Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law in August.

    Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm said in November that Tesla might produce 100 Semis in 2022, but the company did not disclose any figure in its fourth-quarter production report.

    The EV maker aims to produce 50,000 of the trucks in 2024, Musk had said on a post-earnings call in October.

    PepsiCo plans to roll out 100 Semis in 2023. Other customers for the truck include brewer Anheuser-Busch, United Parcel Service and Walmart.

    The Semi will face competition from Daimler’s Freightliner, Volvo and Nikola Corp, which have also rolled out their own battery-powered trucks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ sues Google over its dominance in online advertising market | CNN Business

    DOJ sues Google over its dominance in online advertising market | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, accusing the company of harming competition with its dominance in the online advertising market and calling for it to be broken up.

    The move marks the Biden administration’s first blockbuster antitrust case against a Big Tech company. The eight states joining the suit include California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia.

    The fresh complaint significantly escalates the risks to Google emanating from Washington, where lawmakers and regulators have frequently raised concerns about the tech giant’s power but have so far failed to pass new legislation or regulations that might rein in the company or its peers.

    For years, Google’s critics have claimed that the company’s extensive role in the ecosystem that enables advertisers to place ads, and for publishers to offer up digital ad space, represents a conflict of interest that Google has exploited anticompetitively.

    In Tuesday’s complaint, a copy of which was viewed by CNN, the Justice Department alleged that Google actively and illegally maintained that dominance by engaging in a campaign to thwart competition. Google gobbled up rivals through anticompetitive mergers, the US government said, and bullied publishers and advertisers into using the company’s proprietary ad technology products.

    As part of the lawsuit, the US government called for Google to be broken up and for the court to order the company to spin off at least its online advertising exchange and its ad server for publishers, if not more.

    Google, the US government alleged, “has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising. Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.”

    The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Tuesday’s suit marks the federal government’s second antitrust complaint against Google since 2020, when the Trump administration sued over Google’s alleged anticompetitive harms in search and search advertising. That case is still ongoing. Google has also been the target of antitrust litigation by state and private actors.

    In a statement, Google said the DOJ suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

    “DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” a Google spokesperson said, adding that a federal judge last year knocked down a claim that Google colluded with Facebook in a separate antitrust suit led by the state of Texas. That judge also ruled, however, that a number of monopolization claims in the Texas case could move forward.

    The lawsuit is a frontal assault against Google’s massive, primary business of advertising. Google generated $209 billion in advertising revenue in 2021, according to its annual report, a figure representing more than 80% of its total revenue. By comparison, the next largest giant in online advertising, Facebook-parent Meta, generated $115 billion in 2021.

    Third-party estimates suggest that Google and Facebook accounted for the majority of US digital ad revenues, hitting a peak around 2017, with Google taking about a third of the market. Since then, however, others including Amazon have begun encroaching on that business.

    The US complaint echoes concerns that have prompted similar antitrust investigations in the United Kingdom and in the European Union.

    Google not only controls the platform publishers use to sell online ad inventory, the Justice Department alleged Tuesday, but also the advertising tools marketers use to claim that inventory and the exchange that facilitates those transactions.

    “Google’s pervasive power over the entire ad tech industry has been questioned by its own digital advertising executives,” the complaint said, “at least one of whom aptly begged the question: ‘[I]s there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE.’”

    Tuesday’s complaint marks an opening salvo against Big Tech by DOJ’s antitrust chief, Jonathan Kanter. Kanter has spent months laying the groundwork for a broader offensive against the tech industry’s most dominant companies, reflecting commitments by President Joe Biden and others in the US government to hold powerful firms accountable. Under Kanter, Justice Department antitrust officials have pushed to bring more cases to trial as well as to prosecute cases involving unconventional legal theories.

    In 2020, House lawmakers released a 450-page report finding that Google, along with Amazon, Apple and Facebook, hold “monopoly power” in key business segments. The report was the result of a 16-month investigation in which congressional staff reviewed corporate documents and interviewed the tech industry’s many customers and rivals. It concluded, among other things, that Google was uniquely positioned to benefit from its powerful role in the online ad industry.

    “With a sizable share in the ad exchange market and the ad intermediary market, and as a leading supplier of ad space, Google simultaneously acts on behalf of publishers and advertisers, while also trading for itself,” the report said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Europe could dodge a recession. But the UK is in a mess | CNN Business

    Europe could dodge a recession. But the UK is in a mess | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Business activity across the 20 countries that use the euro expanded in January for the first time in six months, according to data published Tuesday, providing fresh evidence that Europe’s economy could confound expectations and dodge a recession this year.

    An initial reading of the eurozone’s Purchasing Managers’ Index, which tracks activity in the manufacturing and service sectors, rose to 50.2 in January from 49.3 in December, indicating the first expansion since June. A reading above 50 represents growth.

    The return to modest growth was helped by falling energy prices and an easing of supply chain stress, which helped temper rising input costs for producers.

    The uptick was accompanied by a sharp improvement in optimism about the year ahead, as the recent reopening of China’s economy following the lifting of Covid restrictions helped push confidence to its highest level since last May. Growing optimism in Europe that China’s consumers will start spending again was reflected in Swiss watch maker Swatch

    (SWGAF)
    ’s prediction Tuesday of record sales for 2023.

    “A steadying of the eurozone economy at the start of the year adds to evidence that the region might escape recession,” said Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, the company that publishes the survey of executives at private sector companies.

    Williamson added, however, that a “renewed slide into contraction” should not be ruled out as borrowing costs rise off the back of interest rate hikes by the European Central Bank. But any downturn “is likely to be far less severe than previously feared,” he said.

    Berenberg chief economist Holger Schmieding said in a research note that “the still-low level of consumer confidence and the lagged impact of ECB rate hikes still point to a slight contraction in eurozone GDP near-term before the recovery can start to take hold.”

    Consumer sentiment in Germany, the region’s biggest economy, looks set to improve for a fourth consecutive month in February from a very low base, according to a separate survey published by GfK Tuesday.

    The picture looks far less promising in the United Kingdom, however, where January’s PMI survey showed the steepest decline in business activity since the national Covid lockdown two years ago, as higher interest rates and low consumer confidence depressed activity in the dominant services sector.

    The initial reading fell to 47.8 in January, from 49 in December, to remain in a state of contraction for the sixth consecutive month. The UK survey is conducted in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply.

    “Weaker-than-expected PMI numbers in January underscore the risk of the UK slipping into recession,” Williamson said. “Industrial disputes, staff shortages, export losses, the rising cost of living and higher interest rates all meant the rate of economic decline gathered pace again at the start of the year,” he added.

    The UK economy lost more working days to strikes between June and November 2022 than in any six-month period over the previous 30 years, according to data published last week by Britain’s Office for National Statistics.

    Williamson said Tuesday’s data reflected not only short-term hits to growth, such as strike action, but “ongoing damage to the economy from longer-term structural issues such as labor shortages and trade woes linked to Brexit.”

    Despite the gloomy start to the year, UK business expectations for the year ahead hit their highest level for eight months, driven by hopes of an improving global economic backdrop and cooling inflation.

    Separate data published by the ONS on Tuesday showed that UK government borrowing hit £27.4 billion ($33.7 billion) in December, the highest figure for that month since records began in 1993. This was driven by a sharp increase in spending on support for household energy bills, as well as the soaring cost of paying interest on government debt.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Winter is more than halfway over, and many Northeast cities still await their first snow day | CNN

    Winter is more than halfway over, and many Northeast cities still await their first snow day | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: A version of this article originally appeared in the weekly weather newsletter, the CNN Weather Brief, which is released every Monday. You can sign up here to receive them every week and during significant storms.



    CNN
     — 

    While the western US has been piling up snowfall over the past several weeks, it has been the complete opposite across the Northeast and New England.

    We are more than halfway through meteorological winter, which runs from December through February, and cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, DC have yet to see measurable snow, defined as at least 0.1 inches.

    And it’s not just the coastal cities. Many locations across interior New England and the Northeast are seeing significantly below normal snowfall to date.

    “With the exception of some areas downwind of Lakes Erie and Ontario, and very small areas of interior New England, the East is certainly in a snow drought with some locations that normally have snow, down by as much as one to more than three feet,” the Weather Prediction Center Branch Chief Greg Carbin told CNN.

    Buffalo, New York was inundated with several feet of heavy snowfall earlier this winter.

    Carbin went on to explain there are two types of snow drought:

    • The first type is when there is an overall lack of winter precipitation, rain or snow, which contributes to drought conditions.
    • The second type is when overall precipitation amounts are near normal but instead of falling as snow, it falls mostly as rain.

    “Along the I-95 corridor from DC to Boston, the latter type of snow drought has been measured so far this winter,” Carbin said. “Precipitation amounts have been normal to slightly above normal, but it’s generally been too warm for precipitation to fall in the form of snow.”

    The period between snow events is likely to increase as the climate warms, and it may be especially true for coastal Northeastern cities. As the Northeast temperatures warm, the rain-snow line shifts farther north, leading to more rainy winter day along the coast and less snow, according to the US National Climate Assessment.

    And it’s not just the Northeast, winter (December, January, February) is also the fastest-warming season for 75% of 238 US locations, according to Climate Central’s data analysis.

    319

    Central Park in New York City has gone 319 days without measurable snow through Sunday, which currently ties for their third-longest streak. Central Park would have to be snowless through February 5, 2023, to break the record streak of 332 days set back in 2020.

    316

    Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC have all gone 316 days without measurable snow through Sunday, which rank 6th, 12th, and 19th respectively.

    1973

    Central Park is also approaching the latest date in the season for their first measurable snowfall since record keeping began in 1869.

    “The current record is Jan. 29, 1973, which went on to become the least-snowy winter in NYC history, with just 2.8 inches total snow accumulation,” Carbin said.

    “The pattern has been fairly consistent with the typical La Nina pattern across the Northeastern US so far this winter,” meaning the track of the storms and cold air have remained to the north and west of the Northeast, meteorologists at the National Weather Service office in New York City told CNN.

    Watch: Meteorologist Jennifer Gray explains the effects of La Niña

    La Niña, the counterpart of El Niño, is characterized by below-normal sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean near the equator, a result of shifting wind patterns in the atmosphere, which has a direct effect on weather seen across the US in the winter.

    “There are of course variations in this pattern due to short term factors that are not predictable more than one to two weeks in advance, such as the arctic outbreak during Christmas,” the weather service office in New York City said. “But these variations have been brief.”

    The most active weather and heaviest snowfall in recent weeks have been focused across the West and California, where more than 15 feet of snow have fallen across portions of the Sierras from December 26, 2022, through January 17, 2023.

    “While the jet stream meanders and can occasionally quickly change to support snowstorms just about anywhere during the winter, this winter has been quite active across the West, with a weak but broad area of high pressure (and warmer than average temperatures) over the eastern 2/3rds of the contiguous United States,” Carbin said.

    There is a chance Central Park could see some light accumulating snow Wednesday but there is still some uncertainty in the forecast, the weather service office in New York City said.

    If the city does not see snow this week, their streak will stay alive. After Wednesday, the weather service is currently forecasting dry conditions through January 29.

    “We need to make up the whole seasonal snowfall since none has accumulated, which is 29.8 inches,” the weather service office in New York City said. “The record storm total snowfall is 27.5 inches on January 22 to 24, 2016, so that is very close to our seasonal snowfall. All it may take is one storm to get us back on track.”

    While this scenario is certainly possible, it is not very likely. There have only been seven storms on record to dump 20 inches of snow or more across Central Park in recorded history, according to the weather service.

    “February and March are months in which big snows have fallen in the cities of the Northeast, so there remains some hope for snow lovers,” Carbin said. “Although, the later in the season you get started, the more likely you are to finish the season with lackluster snowfall.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Asia’s richest man Gautam Adani is addicted to ChatGPT | CNN Business

    Asia’s richest man Gautam Adani is addicted to ChatGPT | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New Delhi
    CNN
     — 

    Asia’s richest man Gautam Adani says he is addicted to ChatGPT, the powerful new AI tool that interacts with users in an eerily convincing and conversational way.

    In a LinkedIn post last week, the 60-year-old India tycoon said that the release of ChatGPT was a “transformational moment in the democratization of AI given its astounding capabilities as well as comical failures.”

    The billionaire admitted to “some addiction” to ChatGPT since he has started using it.

    The tool, which artificial intelligence research company OpenAI made available to the general public late last year, has sparked conversations about how “generative AI” services — which can turn prompts into original essays, stories, songs and images after training on massive online datasets — could radically transform how we live and work.

    Some claim it will put artists, tutors, coders, and writers out of a job. Others are more optimistic, postulating that it will allow employees to tackle to-do lists with greater efficiency.

    “But there can be no doubt that generative AI will have massive ramifications,” Adani wrote in his post, adding that generative AI holds the “same potential and danger” as silicon chips.

    “Nearly five decades ago, the pioneering of chip design and large-scale chip production put the US ahead of rest of the world and led to the rise of many partner countries and tech behemoths like Intel, Qualcomm, TSMC, etc,” Adani, who has businesses in sectors ranging from ports to power stations, wrote.

    “It also paved the way for precision and guided weapons used in modern warfare with more chips mounted than ever before,” he added. The race in the field of generative AI will quickly get as “complex and as entangled as the ongoing silicon chip war,” he said.

    Chipmaking has emerged recently as a new flashpoint in US-China tensions, with Washington blocking sales of advanced computer chips and chip-making equipment to Chinese companies. Some Chinese investments in European chipmaking have also been blocked.

    The Indian infrastructure magnate believes that China has an edge over the United States in the AI race because Chinese researchers published twice as many academic papers on the subject as their American counterparts in 2021, he wrote in the post published on Friday after attending the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    Back home, Adani is also considering taking five new businesses to the stock market in the next five years, according to his conglomerate’s chief financial officer Jugeshinder Singh.

    Speaking to reporters on Saturday in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad — where the Adani empire is headquartered — Singh said the group’s metals and mining, energy, data center, airports, and roads businesses will likely be spun off between 2025 to 2028.

    Adani Enterprises, the conglomerate’s flagship company, functions as an incubator for Adani’s businesses. Once they have matured, they are often given their independence via a stock market listing. Many of Adani companies have become leading players in their respective sectors.

    Later this month, Adani Enterprises is also raising 200 billion rupees ($2.5 billion) by issuing new shares. It would be India’s biggest ever follow-on public share offering.

    A college dropout and a self-made industrialist, Adani is worth over $120 billion, making him the world’s third richest man, ahead of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.

    Shares of Adani’s seven listed companies — in sectors ranging from ports to power stations — have seen turbocharged growth in the last few years. But some analysts fear that this growth comes at a huge risk as Adani’s $206 billion juggernaut has been fueled by a $30 billion borrowing binge, making his business one of the most indebted in the country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Shou Zi Chew? Mounting scrutiny on TikTok could put new spotlight on its CEO | CNN Business

    Who is Shou Zi Chew? Mounting scrutiny on TikTok could put new spotlight on its CEO | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When TikTok was the title sponsor last summer for Vidcon, an annual convention for the creators and brands that make up a key part of the short-form video app’s audience and business, it was Chief Operating Officer Vanessa Pappas who got on stage for the industry keynote event.

    Months later, when TikTok was grilled by Congress over privacy and security concerns, Pappas was the TikTok executive in the hot seat fielding questions.

    But while Pappas has arguably been the public face of the company for much of the past few tumultuous years, she has done so while acting as TikTok’s second-in-command. The person who has actually served as the CEO of one of the most popular apps on the planet for nearly two years is a longtime tech finance executive named Shou Zi Chew, based thousands of miles away from Washington, in Singapore.

    In Silicon Valley, it’s common for tech CEOs to be household names and the faces of the company’s they lead. Mark Zuckerberg is synonymous with Facebook and Jack Dorsey was the bearded face of Twitter, before Elon Musk acquired it. But Chew, who took over as TikTok CEO in April 2021, has largely stayed out of the spotlight at a time when the app he leads can’t seem to avoid it.

    After averting a threat of a ban in 2020, TikTok has increasingly found itself under scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers in the United States over concerns about its ties to China through its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, as well as over fears that it could have a harmful impact on younger users.

    Some US lawmakers have once again renewed calls to ban the app outright, while the Biden administration is still said to be negotiating with TikTok over a deal to let it continue to operate in the United States. Meanwhile, officials in the European Union have also begun toughening their rhetoric toward TikTok.

    That could put greater pressure on Chew. Already, he has had to respond to pointed letters from US senators, and just last week he made the rounds in Brussels to meet with EU officials. At the same time, Chew, who previously was CFO of ByteDance, is reportedly constrained in how much control he has over TikTok and how much power rests with its parent company.

    In a rare interview at the New York Times DealBook summit in late November, Chew was asked whether he worked “at the behest of the folks at ByteDance and therefore at the behest of the Chinese government.” In response, he said, “I am responsible for all the strategic decisions at TikTok.”

    Shou Zi Chew, chief executive officer of TikTok Inc., speaks during the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, on Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2022.

    But he added that ByteDance is “organized the way you would expect an internet company to be organized,” featuring global investors and a board of shareholder and employee representatives. “I am responsible for the decisions at TikTok,” Chew re-emphasized, “but, ultimately, I have to be responsible to the shareholders and to the board as well.”

    TikTok did not make Chew available for this story or respond to requests for comment.

    In interviews, Chew has described himself as a a 40-year-old father of two who likes to golf and read books on theoretical physics. But it’s his national origin that TikTok seems to like to highlight most.

    In a letter to US lawmakers in June, TikTok appeared to try and distance itself from ByteDance’ reach and said it was led by “its own global CEO, Shou Zi Chew, a Singaporean based in Singapore.”

    It’s not the first time TikTok has played up the nationality of its CEO. In 2020, as it faced growing pressure from the Trump administration, TikTok repeatedly defended itself against critics by touting its “American CEO,” Kevin Mayer, a former executive at one of the most iconic US companies, Disney.

    Mayer held the chief executive position at TikTok for just three months before stepping down. Pappas, an Australian based in Los Angeles with experience at other big US tech platforms like Google’s YouTube, then served as interim global head of TikTok for less than a year.

    Then Chew took over as CEO.

    “I think they brought him in specifically because, frankly, he’s not a Chinese national, and Singapore traditionally straddles the fence of these worlds,” said Ivan Kanapathy, a former director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia on the White House’s National Security Council staff and current senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “And they’re quite good at it, geopolitically.”

    “Ultimately, I don’t think it’s going to be enough for Washington,” Kanapathy added of Chew’s Singaporean origin offering comfort to lawmakers concerned about China’s reach over TikTok. “For now, I don’t think it makes much of a difference because at the end of the day, he still answers to ByteDance, and so there’s only so much he can do.”

    After completing his mandatory military service in Singapore, Chew attended university in London before graduating with an MBA from Harvard Business School in 2010. He was exposed to Silicon Valley while at Harvard, after he interned one summer at a “startup” that “was called Facebook,” as he put it in an alumni spotlight.

    He eventually went on to become the CFO of Chinese tech giant Xiaomi, which he helped take public in 2018.

    In 2013, he led a group that became one of ByteDance’s earliest investors. In an interview with business magnate David Rubenstein, Chew said he stayed in contact with the ByteDance team throughout his career and they eventually reached out to offer him the CFO position. He took over as CEO of TikTok in April 2021, with Pappas named COO.

    As CEO of TikTok, “I’m most focused on trust building,” Chew told Rubenstein. “We are a young company and I think trust is something that we have to earn, through actions.”

    Chew doesn’t tweet and has a private, but verified, Instagram account with zero posts. He has shared a handful of videos on TikTok, mostly short clips of his travels and visits to various TikTok offices. But despite running one of the most popular apps on the planet, Chew largely keeps his own life private.

    In some ways, it can be a refreshing break from certain US tech executives who can’t seem to help tweeting their every thought. But it might also stem from cultural differences that come from leading a massive tech company with a Chinese parent company, according to Matthew Quint, the director of the center on global brand leadership at Columbia Business School. While Chew is not a Chinese national, Quint noted Chinese tech companies and leaders that have drawn too much attention to themselves have faced tough government crackdowns.

    Even if Chew does become more of a public figure and attempt to go on a charm offensive, it may not matter much for TikTok’s future in the United States. Ultimately, Quint said, “I don’t think the CEO of TikTok has much relevance at all” for US lawmakers scrutinizing its ties to China.

    “We’ve seen a rotating group, many of whom are not born-Chinese nationals, and that has not swayed the pressure around TikTok from a regulatory, national security perspective over the course of the last 18 months or so,” Quint said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s what will happen to the economy as the debt ceiling drama deepens | CNN Business

    Here’s what will happen to the economy as the debt ceiling drama deepens | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    After the United States hit its debt ceiling on Thursday, the Treasury Department is now undertaking “extraordinary measures” to keep paying the government’s bills.

    A default could be catastrophic, causing “irreparable harm to the US economy, the livelihoods of all Americans and global financial stability,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned.

    Yellen on Friday told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the impacts would be felt by every American.

    “If that happened, our borrowing costs would increase and every American would see that their borrowing costs would increase as well,” Yellen said. “On top of that, a failure to make payments that are due, whether it’s the bondholders or to Social Security recipients or to our military, would undoubtedly cause a recession in the US economy and could cause a global financial crisis.”

    She added: “It would certainly undermine the role of the dollar as a reserve currency that is used in transactions all over the world. And Americans — many people — would lose their jobs and certainly their borrowing costs would rise.”

    Dire warnings of debt ceiling trouble aren’t new. Federal lawmakers have reached agreements in the past, and this Congress has some time — until at least early June, according to Yellen’s public estimates — to reach an agreement on whether to raise or suspend the debt limit.

    Many economists say they expect an agreement will be reached. However, given the current “extremely fractious political environment,” it could be a long process that would contribute to “flare-ups” in financial market volatility, Moody’s Investors Service said in a note Thursday.

    Such volatility is coming at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to bring down inflation while navigating a soft (or softish) landing with minimal harm to the economy.

    So what happens to the economy in a worst-case scenario of default?

    It’s an understandable question with an unsatisfying answer, said Michael Pugliese, vice president and economist with Wells Fargo’s corporate and investment bank.

    “The honest truth is, no one knows,” he said. “A widespread default by the US government is not something we’ve ever experienced and not something we’ve ever even come close to experiencing.”

    While a default isn’t something that can be modeled in the way a more historically common economic event such as a recession can be, the events of 2011 could lend some perspective as to what would happen if the debt ceiling drama turns into a debacle, said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

    “2011 was the first time in a long time that we came close to a debt ceiling breach,” he said. “And that was a time when there was a lot of political fragmentation and there was a strong desire to essentially attach spending cuts to any debt ceiling increase.”

    The current environment includes similar brinksmanship and desires to attach spending cuts, he said.

    But some fear this fight may be tougher than those in the past, a concern reinforced by the fact it took 15 ballots to elect the Speaker of the House in what is normally the easiest vote taken by a new Congress.

    The economy nearly 13 years ago was different, as well.

    At the time, the Fed was in an easy monetary policy mode and the economy in a weaker position, as it was still recovering from the Great Recession of 2008, Pugliese said. Unemployment was north of 9% in July 2011.

    That same year, Treasury projected the “X date” — the date on which it would be unable to pay its obligations on time — would fall on August 2, 2011. That ultimately was the date when Congress passed, and President Barack Obama enacted, a law increasing the ceiling.

    The actual economic impact of the debt ceiling run-up in 2011 is hard to isolate and quantify, Pugliese said, noting how the sluggish US economic recovery also experienced spillover effects from global events, notably Europe’s sovereign debt crisis.

    Still, there were some indications that the protracted congressional battle contributed to a shake-up in the economy then, he said. Real GDP growth was a weak -0.1% on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis in the third quarter of 2011. Financial markets were roiled, consumer confidence weakened, the US economic policy uncertainty index set a new high and Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency downgraded the United States to AA+ from AAA.

    “I think you would be hard pressed to say [the debt ceiling debacle] was a positive thing,” he said. “I think of it more as one other hurdle among a lot of other hurdles for the economy as it emerged from 9% unemployment at the time.”

    This time, if the X date were to come without a resolution, there is speculation that the Treasury could prioritize principal and interest payments to prevent a technical default, Pugliese said. There are potentially other “break the glass” options from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, but those are untested and short-term solutions, he added.

    “Someone, somewhere is going to get shortchanged if the government doesn’t have all of its money, whether that’s Social Security beneficiaries, defense contractors, civil service employees, veterans, [etc.],” he said.

    Joggers run past the Treasury Department on January 18, 2023, in Washington, DC.

    Adding to the uncertainty is the current economic climate, Daco said.

    “We are going into this delicate period at a time when the US economy is clearly slowing down and at a time when the global economic backdrop is also weakening … so the economic environment against which this debt ceiling debacle is unfolding is one of increased economic softening.”

    While a self-inflicted recession would be likely after the point when an X date is hit, some upheaval could come sooner, Daco said.

    “Financial markets and private sector actors tend to react ahead of that date,” he said. “If there is the anticipation that we will get very close to that drop-dead date, then financial market volatility generally tends to increase, stock prices tend to react adversely.”

    A Treasury default would undermine the global financial system, said Louise Sheiner, policy director at the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy and former senior economist with the Fed and the Council of Economic Advisers.

    “If Treasuries become something that people are worried about holding, then that has ripple effects throughout capital markets throughout the world, in ways that are really difficult to predict,” she said.

    Considering the potential consequences in the United States and abroad, Sheiner believes the debt ceiling will be lifted or suspended — eventually.

    “There’s no other way around it,” she said. “There’s no way that Congress is going to cut spending 20% in the middle of the year. It would plunge the economy into a recession. It would be a terrible policy.”

    She added: “If you care about the long-term debt, you have to actually change different laws, Social Security law, Medicare, or the tax law … you want to do that in the appropriate process, you want to do it well thought out. It’s not the kind of thing that should be done under duress.”

    CNN’s Maegan Vazquez, Matt Egan and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link