Xorte logo

News Markets Groups

USA | Europe | Asia | World| Stocks | Commodities



Add a new RSS channel

 

Keywords

2025-08-01 18:31:00| Fast Company

If youre interested in understanding the current state of the U.S. economy and corporate America, and what the rest of the year might look like (and who isnt?), this was the week for youwith five days packed full of earnings reports, policy announcements, and economic data. And although the picture that emerged from all that information was arguably more fuzzy than sharp, a couple of things do seem clear: The economy is limping, not booming, and the impact of tariffs is finally being felt.    The most important data point of the week came on Friday morning, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. economy created just 73,000 jobs in July.   More importantly, the BLS also said that the jobs numbers for May and June had been revised dramatically downward: The May number went from an estimated 144,000 jobs created to just 19,000 jobs, while the estimate of jobs created in June fell from 147,000 jobs to just 14,000.   Even assuming that the July number is correct (and that it wont eventually be revised downward as well), that means that the U.S. economy created just 35,000 jobs a month, on average, over the past three months, compared with 168,000 jobs a month last year.   Employers pump the brakes on hiring  The current jobs numbers are not quite as terrible as that comparison suggests, since a drop in immigration and the continued aging of the population mean that the economy needs to create fewer jobs in order to stay at full employment. (Unemployment in Fridays report was still just 4.2%.)   But the jobs number does suggest that, at the very least, businesses are being far more cautious about adding jobs. And thats only confirmed when you look at the details of the jobs report: The U.S. lost manufacturing jobs in each of the past three months, while essentially all of the private-sector job growth since May has come in healthcare and social services.   Not all the news this week was bad: On Wednesday, gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the second quarter came in at a solid 3%. That was a big jump from the negative number we got in the first quarter, even if it still means GDP grew in the first half of the year at a below-average 1.2%.   Average hourly earnings are up 3.9% year over year. And earnings reports gave us blowout earnings numbers from Microsoft and Meta, good numbers from Apple and Amazon and, perhaps most interestingly, excellent numbers from Mastercard, which suggests consumers are continuing to spend.  Still, there were reasons for concern, particularly with that 3% GDP number. Private purchaseswhich are generally thought of as a good measure of domestic demandwere up just 1.2% year over year. Consumption rose 1.4%, which is respectable but not impressive. Business investmentparticularly investment in everything other than computer equipmentactually fell. And spending on imports tumbled sharply.   The AI boom is fueling massive investment in technology and computer equipment, which is boosting overall GDP. But while Big Tech is roaring, much of the rest of the economy seems to be drifting in the doldrums.   Normally, that would have made a strong case for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates at its meeting this week (it didn’t), just as President Donald Trump has been berating Fed chair Jerome Powell to do. The problem for the Fed is that even as the economy seems to be stalling, or at least slowing down, inflation has shown no sign of going away and, in fact, it may be picking up.   In addition to all the other data this week, we heard news about the personal consumption expenditures price indexthe Fed’s preferred measure of inflationwhich jumped 0.3% in July and is now up 2.6% year over year, well ahead of the Feds 2% inflation target. So the Fed is looking at a weak job market and stubbornly high inflation: not a great place to be in.    The elephant in the room  The big complicating factor in all this, of course, is the tariffs that Trump has imposed, paused, rolled back, and now is preparing to impose again.   To begin with, the tariffsand how businesses have responded to themhave a lot to do with those big swings in GDP growth we saw in the first half of the year. Imports spiked in the first quarter as businesses loaded up on inventory before the tariffs hit, helping shrink the GDP. Then they plummeted in the second quarter as businesses worked through that inventory, giving GDP an artificial boost.  The tariffs are also eating into company profits. This week, Black & Decker, Ford, and Procter & Gamble all said that tariffs had hurt their earnings. And theyre starting to feed into inflation: Adidas said this week that it may hike prices to deal with higher costs, and P&G said it would be raising prices on 25% of its products.   The impact of tariffs could also be seen in this weeks economic reports: Goods prices (the prices that tariffs would have the most direct impact on) were up 3% year over year.  The uncertainty surrounding Trumps tariff policyand where rates are going to end uphas also made it difficult for companies to plan and to invest. And theyve made consumersalready unhappy with inflationmore cautious, which you can see in consumer sentiment numbers. The current University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, which was released on Friday, shows that consumer sentiment, while better than it was in April, is still broadly negative, down 7% from a year ago. And consumer expectations of the future are even worse, down 16% year over year.   All of this arguably helps explain why so many businesses seem to have been in a holding pattern: Caution is a logical response to uncertainty.   Trump removed some of that uncertainty Thursday night when he issued a new executive order imposing new tariff rates on almost every country in the worldrates that are scheduled to go into effect on August 7. The rates are in most cases 15%, and often higher. (A few countries got a 10% rate.) Thats better than the original tariff rates that Trump had imposed on what he called Liberation Day back in April. But they still represent a massive hike in import costs from last year.  To be sure, nothing we saw this week says that the economy is headed for disaster. But, at the very least, this weeks numbers make it very hard to be bullish (except, of course, about Big Tech). The U.S. is stuck in neutral, and neither the Trump administration nor the Federal Reserve is doing much to get it back in gear.  


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-08-01 18:15:00| Fast Company

Coinbase, the largest U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange, reported second quarter earnings on Thursday. Why is the stock tumbling? Here’s what to know. What happened? Shares of Coinbase Global (NASDAQ: COIN) were down 15% in morning and midday trading on Friday, the lowest price the stock has hit in more than a month, after it reported lower-than-expected second quarter adjusted profit due to a slowdown in trading, according to Reuters. Coinbase earnings Revenue came in at $1.5 billion, which missed analyst expectations of $1.6 billion, while revenue tied to transactions came in at $764 million, missing StreetAccount estimates of $787 million, according to CNBC. However, other earnings numbers came in strong. In the three months ending June 30, Coinbase net income rose to $1.43 billion, to deliver earnings per share (EPS) of $5.14. A further look at Coinbase’s EPS shows the company beat analyst expectations $1.51 by $3.65. Subscriptions and services offerings which include stablecoins, staking, interest income, and custody grew 9% from the same period a year ago to $655.8 million, short of analysts projection of $705.9 million. Analysts told Reuters that Coinbase could see trading volume improve, according to the company’s revenue estimates. The earnings follow a surge in crypto spurrred on by the Genius Act‘s signing into law. Coinbase on S&P 500 Coinbase joined the S&P 500 stock market index in May, replacing Discover; it is the first time a crypto company has been included on the index. The S&P 500 is one of the worlds best-known stock market indexes.


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-08-01 18:15:00| Fast Company

Millions of student loan borrowers are about to see a jump in their monthly payments. That’s because an interest-free pause under the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan has ended as of Aug. 1. SAVE, rolled out in 2023 under Biden, brought many borrowers’ payments down to $0 a month, ensured borrowers’ balance wouldn’t grow as long as they made timely payments, and massively cut undergraduate loan balances. 7.7 million federal student borrowers enrolled in the plan. But now, the end to a pause in interest under Trumps “Big, Beautiful Bill” means, interest will begin accruing once again on loans. In a press release earlier this month, announcing the upcoming end to the pause, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon called the SAVE program “unlawful.” McMahon asserted, “Congress designed these programs to ensure that borrowers repay their loans, yet the Biden Administration tried to illegally force taxpayers to foot the bill instead.” McMahon continued, “Since day one of the Trump Administration, weve focused on strengthening the student loan portfolio and simplifying repayment to better serve borrowers. As part of this effort, the Department urges all borrowers in the SAVE Plan to quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan such as the Income-Based Repayment Plan (IBR).” What should SAVE enrollees expect? Starting Friday, SAVE participants will see interest charges, even if they arent making payments. The added interest means monthly bills will be higher, but how much higher depends on income. However, if they switch plans to the IBR plan McMahon referenced, borrowers may see their monthly bills rise drastically. While SAVE calculated monthly payments based on 5% of a borrower’s income, the IBR plan takes 10%. For older loans, it ticks up to 15%. (Student loan forgiveness for those with IBR plans was also recently paused under Trump). Some experts believe the transition will pose a massive challenge for borrowers, as they switch to other repayment plans. Nancy Nierman, assistant director of the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program in New York City, said, per CNBC, In severe cases, it could result in people being forced to move, or they will just resign themselves to default and involuntary collections.” Are there any new plans in place? In addition to IBR plans, borrowers will have access to a new republican-led plan, Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), but not until next July. Under the new plan, payments will range from 1% to 10% of a borrower’s earnings, with bills rising the more they earn. Unlike IBR plans, RAP does not shield a portion of the  borrower’s income, and is based on total earnings before taxes.  According to the National Consumer Law Center, the RAP plan is “significantly more expensive for borrowers than the SAVE plan, but will also be more expensive than the other existing IBR plans for low-income borrowers”  What should SAVE enrollees do? The Department of Education said earlier this month that it will begin contacting SAVE enrollees about next steps and that participants should begin determining which plan best suits their needs.  “To compare available repayment plans, the Department encourages borrowers with loans in the SAVE Plan to use the Loan Simulator to estimate monthly payments under available repayment plans, determine repayment eligibility, and learn which option best meets their repayment goals,” it said. The department also noted that in May, it resumed collections on delinquent loans, saying it has “emailed more than 23 million borrowers reminding them of their legal obligation to repay their loans as well as the benefits of making regular progress toward repayment.”SAVE participants also have the option to stay in forbearance, however, the interest they accrue could be significant. Some experts say, in that case, making interest-only payments can help stave off mounting balances down the road.  If you know its going to really financially hurt you to start making payments, then just stay in the forbearance, Megan Walter, senior policy analyst at the National Association of Financial Aid Administrators, said per CNBC. If you can at least pay the interest, I would do that.   Borrowers who can’t afford their monthly payments, can also apply for forbearance or deferment.  SAVE will officially shutter in July 2028.


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-08-01 18:00:00| Fast Company

The International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025 declaring that all countries have a legal obligation to protect and prevent harm to the climate. The court, created as part of the United Nations in 1945, affirmed that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm. But while the ruling is a big global story, its legal effect on the U.S. is less clear. We study climate policies, law and solutions. Heres what you need to know about the ruling and its implications. Why island nations called for a formal opinion The ruling resulted from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. Supporters have called it a turning point for frontline communities everywhere. Small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Barbados and others across the Pacific and Caribbean are among the most vulnerable to climate change, yet they have contributed little to global emissions. For many of them, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit just 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing as waters rise. Saltwater intrusion threatens drinking water supplies and crops. Their economies depend on tourism, agriculture and fishing, all sectors easily disrupted by climate change. For example, coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity and economic sectors such as tourism. When disasters hit, the cost of recovery often forces these countries to take on debt. Climate change also undermines their credit ratings and investor confidence, making it harder to get the money to finance adaptive measures. The Maldives, shown in a satellite image from 2020, has an average elevation of less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level. With limited land where people can live, the country has tried to build up new areas of its islands for housing. [Image: NASA Earth Observatory] Tuvalu and Kiribati have discussed digital nationhood and leasing land from other countries so their people can relocate while still retaining citizenship. Some projections suggest nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands could become largely uninhabitable within decades. For these countries, sea-level rise is taking more than their land theyre losing their history and identity in the process. The idea of becoming climate refugees and separating people from their homelands can be culturally destructive, emotionally painful and politically fraught as they move to new countries. More than a nonbinding opinion The International Court of Justice, commonly referred to as the ICJ or World Court, can help settle disputes between states when requested, or it can issue advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized U.N. bodies such as the General Assembly or Security Council. The advisory opinion process allows its 15 judges to weigh in on abstract legal issues such as nuclear weapons or the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories without a formal dispute between states. While the courts advisory opinions are nonbinding, they can still have a powerful impact, both legally and politically. The rulings are considered authoritative statements regarding questions of international law. They often clarify or otherwise confirm existing legal obligations that are binding. What the court decided The ICJ was asked to weigh in on two questions in this case: What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases? What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system? In its 140-page opinion, the court cited international treaties and relevant scientific background to affirm that obligations to protect the environment are indeed a matter of international environmental law, international human rights law and general principles of state responsibility. The decision means that in the authoritative opinion of the international legal community, all countries are under an obligation to contribute to the efforts to reduce global greenhouse emissions. To the second question, the court found that in the event of a breach of any such obligation, three additional obligations arise: The country in breach of its obligations must stop its polluting activity, which would mean excess greenhouse gas emissions in this case. It must ensure that such activities do not occur in the future. It must make reparations to affected states in terms of cleanup, monetary payment and pologies. The court affirmed that all countries have a legal duty under customary international law, which refers to universal rules that arise from common practices among states, to prevent harm to the climate. It also clarified that individual countries can be held accountable, even in a crisis caused by many countries and other entities. And it emphasized that countries that have contributed the most to climate change may bear greater responsibility for repairing the damage under an international law doctrine called common but differentiated responsibility, which is commonly found in international treaties concerning the environment. While the ICJs opinion doesnt assign blame to specific countries or trigger direct reparations, it may provide support for future legal action in both international and national courts. What does the ICJ opinion mean for the US? In the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have much legal impact, despite a long-standing constitutional principle that international law is part of U.S. law. U.S. courts rarely treat international law that has not been incorporated into domestic law as binding. And the U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in previous climate cases. Contentious cases before international tribunals can be brought by one country against another, but they require the consent of all the countries involved. So there is little chance that the United States responsibility for climate harms will be adjudicated by the World Court anytime soon. Still, the courts opinion sends a clear message: All countries are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and cannot escape responsibility simply because they arent the only nation to blame. The unanimous ruling is particularly remarkable given the current hostile political climate in the United States and other industrial nations around climate change and responses to it. It represents a particularly forceful statement by the international community that the responsibility to ensure the health of the global environment is a legal duty held by the entire world. The takeaway The ICJs advisory opinion marks a turning point in the global effort to hold countries responsible for climate change. Vulnerable countries now have a more concrete, legally grounded base to claim rights and press for accountability against historical and ongoing climate harm including financial claims. How it will be used in the coming years remains unclear, but the opinion gives small island states in particular a powerful narrative and a legal tool set. Lauren Gifford is a faculty of ecosystem science & sustainability, and a director at the Soil Carbon Solutions Center at Colorado State University. Daimeon Shanks-Dumont is a doctoral candidate in law and social policy at the University of California, Berkeley. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-08-01 16:53:37| Fast Company

A federal appeals court has upheld a jury verdict condemning Google’s Android app store as an illegal monopoly, clearing the way for a federal judge to enforce a potentially disruptive shakeup that’s designed to give consumers more choices.The unanimous ruling issued Thursday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivers a double-barreled legal blow for Google, which has been waylaid in three separate antitrust trials that resulted in different pillars of its internet empire being declared as domineering scofflaws monopolies since late 2023.The unsuccessful appeal represents a major victory for video game maker Epic Games, which launched a legal crusade targeting Google’s Play Store for Android apps and Apple’s iPhone app store nearly five years ago in an attempt to bypass exclusive payment processing systems that charged 15% to 30% commissions on in-app transactions.The jury’s December 2023 rebuke of Google’s app store for Android-powered smartphones began a cascade of setbacks that includes monopoly judgements against the company’s ubiquitous search engine last year and the technology underlying its digital ad network earlier this year.Although not as lucrative as Google’s search engine or ad system, the Play Store for Android apps has long been a gold mine that generated billions of dollars in annual revenue by taking a 15% to 30% cut from in-app transactions funneled through the company’s own payment processing system.Following a month-long trial, a nine-person jury determined that Google had rigged its system to thwart alternative app stores from offering better deals to consumers and software developers. That verdict resulted in U.S. District Judge James Donato ordering Google to tear down digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition, triggering the company’s appeal to overturn the jury’s finding and void the judge’s mandated shakeup.But a three-judge panel that heard Google’s appeal in February rejected its lawyers’ contention that Donato erred by allowing the case to be determined by a jury that deviated from the market definition outlined by another federal judge who mostly sided with Apple in Epic’s case against the iPhone maker’s app store.Epic’s lawsuit “was replete with evidence that Google’s anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance, causing the Play Store to benefit from network effects,” the judges wrote in the decision.The ruling “will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem,” Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement.Unless Google can extend the enforcement delay placed on Donato’s order issued last October, the company will have to begin an overhaul that includes making the Play Store’s entire library of more than 2 million Android apps available to would-be rivals and also help distribute the alternative options. Google has argued that the required revisions will raise privacy and security risks by exposing consumers to scam artists and hackers masquerading as legitimate app stores.But Epic’s lawyers have ridiculed Google’s warnings about the changes as scare tactics in a desperate attempt to protect the fortunes of its corporate parent Alphabet Inc.Although Epic fell short in its attempt to have the iPhone’s app store declared a monopoly, that case resulted in a judge issuing an order that required Apple to surrender exclusive control over the payment processing of in-app transactions and allow links to alternative systems without collecting a commission.Besides being hit with Donato’s order, Google still faces further trouble ahead that could leave an even bigger dent in its finances.As part of the effort to address Google’s illegal monopoly in search, a federal judge is weighing a proposal by the U.S. Justice Department that would require the sale of its Chrome web browser and ban the multibillion dollar deals that company has been making with Apple and others to lock-in its search engine as the main gateway to the internet.Google is also facing a proposed breakup of its advertising technology as part of the countermeasures to its monopoly in that business. A trial on that proposal is scheduled to begin in September. Michael Liedtke, AP Technology Writer


Category: E-Commerce

 

Sites : [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] next »

Privacy policy . Copyright . Contact form .