Lids by LV? Louis Vuitton branches into beauty products, taps make-up star Pat McGrath
Advertisement
It has tapped British make-up artist Pat McGrath to lead creative direction for the new venture, which expands its offer as the industry seeks new avenues of growth to offset a current slump.
The move by
the LVMH-owned label comes as the fashion industry, including LVMH, faces its slowest sales in years, struggling in particular to reignite interest from younger, inflation-weary shoppers.
A number of high-end fashion houses including Hermès, Valentino and Celine, which is also owned by LVMH, have branched out in recent years into make-up, which – even at the high end, where lipsticks can cost over US$50 – is more affordable than fashion handbags that are priced upwards of US$1,000.
Lipsticks from Pat McGrath Labs. Pat McGrath has been tapped to be creative director of Louis Vuitton's beauty venture. Photo: Instagram/patmcgrathlabs
McGrath, whose make-up company Pat McGrath Labs sells concealers in over 30 colour shades, is well-known for her influence in the fashion industry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Wrong time, wrong direction for gas tax cut in Japan
Japan stands at a critical crossroads in its climate policy. While the world accelerates toward electric vehicle (EV) adoption to combat the climate crisis, seven opposition parties—including the Constitutional Democratic Party, Japan Innovation Party, and Democratic Party for the People—have submitted a bill to abolish the provisional gasoline tax rate. If enacted, this legislation would not only reverse Japan's climate progress but also cast doubt on the nation's commitment to the Paris Agreement. The proposed abolition represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what Japan needs to achieve its climate goals. Instead of reducing taxes on fossil fuels, Japan should be gradually strengthening its gasoline tax and using the revenue to accelerate the transition to EVs. This approach represents the only realistic path toward a decarbonized society. Japan currently imposes a tax of 53.8 yen (36 US cents) per liter on gasoline (including the volatile oil tax), but this level remains merely moderate among OECD countries and falls far short of European nations that have implemented comprehensive carbon pricing policies. To accelerate decarbonization, Japan should gradually increase its gasoline tax to 80 yen per liter and strategically invest the revenue in renewable energy and EV infrastructure. With Japan's annual gasoline consumption estimated at approximately 44.6 billion liters, a 26.2 yen increase would theoretically generate about 1.17 trillion yen ($7.9 billion) in additional revenue annually. Even accounting for reduced demand, this could yield 800-900 billion yen in new funding for climate initiatives. This revenue should be redistributed across four key areas: Enhanced EV Purchase Support: Increase current new car subsidies from 900,000 yen to 1.5 million yen, while expanding support to used EVs and corporate fleet renewals. Charging Infrastructure Expansion: Accelerate nationwide deployment by establishing 30,000 rapid charging stations by 2030, with 150 billion yen allocated specifically for addressing charging deserts in rural areas. Power Grid Decarbonization: Maximize the environmental value of EV adoption by supporting 100% renewable energy for EV charging and promoting residential solar-plus-storage systems. Just Transition Support: Address public concerns about price increases through burden reduction measures for low-income households and rural residents, plus electrification support for the transport industry. The environmental impact is clear. Japan's greenhouse gas emissions total 1.135 billion tons (CO2 equivalent), with the transport sector accounting for 192 million tons (20%). Automobiles represent 85.7% of transport emissions, meaning about 17% of Japan's total CO2 emissions come from vehicles. As the world's fifth-largest CO2 emitter, Japan's action in this sector directly impacts global climate crisis mitigation. A 26.2 yen tax increase would send a clear price signal and could potentially reduce transport sector CO2 emissions by 2% annually (approximately 2.2 million tons)—a level consistent with international carbon tax effectiveness studies. Japan's gasoline tax burden ranks 29th among 35 OECD countries, with a tax rate of 41.5%—significantly lower than European leaders: Netherlands: 58.4% (1st) Italy: 58.2% (2nd) Ireland: 57.3% (3rd) Germany: 57.2% (5th) Japan: 41.5% (29th) United States: 15.5% (35th) European countries consistently exceed 50% tax rates, prioritizing environmental and fiscal policy through fuel taxation. Abolishing the provisional rate would cost Japan approximately 1.25-1.5 trillion yen annually in lost revenue—equivalent to 2% of general account tax revenue—while other nations strengthen their climate policies. Beyond climate concerns, gasoline tax reduction would undermine Japan's automotive industry competitiveness: Global EV Acceleration: The EU plans to ban gasoline and diesel car sales by 2035, China achieved 37% EV market share for new registrations in 2023 and the US Inflation Reduction Act provides up to $7,500 in EV tax credits. Competitive Risk: Reducing gasoline taxes would diminish consumer incentives for fuel efficiency and EV adoption, allowing Chinese manufacturers like BYD—already among the world's largest EV producers—to further extend their global market leadership. Strategic Necessity: Gradually increasing gasoline taxes while expanding EV support would accelerate domestic market electrification, strengthen Japan's industrial base, and maintain technological competitiveness essential for global market success. Rather than viewing gasoline tax as merely a revenue source, Japan should position it as the cornerstone of carbon pricing policy, creating a virtuous cycle of climate action and economic investment. European countries with 50-60% gasoline tax rates demonstrate how fuel taxation can effectively drive decarbonization. Japan must embrace a comprehensive approach: raise gasoline taxes to encourage behavioral change and invest the revenue in next-generation social infrastructure. This taxation-and-reinvestment package represents the foundation for genuine Green Transformation (GX). Abolishing gasoline taxes would create dual risks: climate crisis acceleration and automotive industry competitiveness decline. If Japan is serious about achieving Paris Agreement goals, policies that break fossil fuel dependence are essential. The time has come for courageous decisions that ensure a sustainable society for future generations. The choice is clear: Japan can either retreat into short-term populism or advance toward long-term sustainability. The world is watching, and history will judge accordingly. Yoneyuki Sugita holds a PhD in US diplomatic history and has previously served as executive director of strategic relationships at Temple University Japan, a senior trade policy advisor at the UK Embassy in Tokyo and professor at Osaka University.
The Standard
3 hours ago
- The Standard
17 heat records broken in Japan
Japan says profits from US investments in trade deal to be shared according to contributions
AllAfrica
4 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's tariffs to hurt the US more than most others
The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase. President Donald Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods. On July 31, however, the Trump administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively. The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. Niven Winchester is professor of economics, Auckland University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
