Complexities of Trump's movie tariffs difficult to navigate, says Vue CEO
Monday - Friday, 08:00 - 11:00 CET | 14:00 - 17:00 HK/SG Squawk Box Europe Podcast
Tim Richards, founder and CEO of Vue, discusses the potential impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's movie tariffs on the European film industry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump promises to respond with 'full strength and might' of US military if Iran attacks America
U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said the U.S. had "nothing to do with" Israel's attack against Iran but warned that any attack against the U.S. would be met with the "full strength and might" of the U.S. military. "The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight," Trump wrote on Truth Social in the early morning hours of Sunday. "If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before," he continued. "However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!" Trump's comments came hours after the Israel Defense Forces claimed responsibility for a series of strikes on the headquarters of the Iranian Defense Ministry and a nuclear project, while Tehran unleashed a fresh barrage of deadly strikes. "The IDF completed an extensive series of strikes on targets in Tehran related to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons project," the IDF wrote on X. "The targets included the Iranian Ministry of Defense headquarters, the headquarters of the SPND nuclear project, and additional targets, which advanced the Iranian regime's efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon and where the Iranian regime hid its nuclear archive." Despite Trump's statement, Iran says it has evidence that the U.S. was involved in the attack. "We have solid proof of the support of the American forces and American bases in the region for the attacks of the Zionist regime military forces," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told foreign diplomats in a meeting broadcast on state TV. The attacks traded by Israel and Iran represented the latest violence since a surprise offensive by Israel two days earlier seeking to decimate Tehran's nuclear program. At least 10 Israeli victims were killed and at least 180 were injured in Iranian missile strikes overnight, while casualty figures were not immediately available in Iran, where Israel targeted Tehran's Defense Ministry headquarters as well as locations it alleged were associated with the country's nuclear program. The Israeli military alleged the locations were "related to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons project." U.S. intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly said Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon before Israel unleashed its offensive targeting Iran starting on Friday. Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed that Iranian missiles targeted fuel production facilities for Israeli fighter jets, although this has not been acknowledged by Israel. Planned negotiations between Iran and the U.S. over Tehran's nuclear program were canceled amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, raising questions about when and how an end to the fighting could come.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left
As President Trump was leaning toward appointing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court five years ago, some advisers shared doubts about whether she was conservative enough. But he waved them away, according to someone familiar with the discussions. He wanted a nominee religious conservatives would applaud, and with an election approaching, he was up against the clock. Soon after Justice Barrett arrived at the court she began surprising her colleagues. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. assigned her to write a majority opinion — among her first — allowing the seizure of state property in a pipeline case, according to several people aware of the process. But she then changed her mind and took the opposite stance, a bold move that risked irritating the chief justice. In another early case, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to further his decades-long quest to expand the role of religion in public life, she preferred a more a restrained route, setting off a clash in their approaches that continues. And in a key internal vote, she opposed even taking up the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to abortion, though she ultimately joined the ruling. Now Mr. Trump is attacking the judiciary and testing the Constitution, and Justice Barrett, appointed to clinch a 50-year conservative legal revolution, is showing signs of leftward drift. She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president. Conservative decisions 100% 91% 84% 80% 60% Liberal decisions 40% 20% 2020-21 term 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Conservative decisions 100% 91% 84% 80% 60% Liberal decisions 40% 20% '20-'21 term '21-'22 '22-'23 '23-'24 Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times 100% Alito 80% Thomas Kavanaugh Gorsuch 60% Roberts Barrett 40% Jackson Kagan 20% Sotomayor 2020–22 2022–present 100% Alito 80% Thomas Kavanaugh Gorsuch 60% Roberts Barrett 40% Jackson Kagan 20% Sotomayor 2020–22 2022–present Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times 100% Kavanaugh 80% Roberts Thomas Alito 60% Gorsuch Kagan Sotomayor Jackson 40% 20% 2020–22 2022–present 100% Kavanaugh 80% Roberts Thomas Alito 60% Gorsuch Kagan Sotomayor Jackson 40% 20% 2020–22 2022–present Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
The Scared Stiff Economy
There's no such thing as the perfect time for a big decision. But when I reached out to Julia Coronado, the president of the economics consulting firm MacroPolicy Perspectives, to ask whether it's a good moment to take a significant financial risk, at least in the relative sense, her succinct email reply was telling: "Lol, short answer is no!" Given how complicated major transactions can be, there are plenty of caveats and counterexamples. On the whole, however, it is a particularly bad time for many major moves financially. Given everything that's going on right now, economists and personal finance gurus say that if you're treading water or feeling extra uneasy, you're not alone. " Uncertainty" is the word of the moment. America's tariff policies have shifted dozens of times since President Donald Trump took office. The stock market has been all over the place. The volatility emanating from the White House on immigration, government spending, and the federal workforce is palpable. There are rumblings of a recession and a return of high inflation. Consumer sentiment is in the basement. Across the economy, people feel like they're stuck in place. It's not a great time to change jobs, given the cooling labor market. The housing market isn't terrible — there's a growing amount of inventory out there — but if you're looking to buy now, you're probably lamenting having missed the dirt-cheap mortgage rates of a few years back. People thinking about retiring soon are doing some rethinking, given the current economic and financial market precarity. "It's not that when there's uncertainty or more uncertainty that people stop and don't act, don't make the big purchase, don't make the investment," says Claudia Sahm, the chief economist at New Century Advisors, an investment management firm. "It's often that the bar is higher." The issue at the moment is that while it may be appealing to adopt a wait-and-see approach, later is not synonymous with better. That's the calculation many Americans are facing now: Do I hold out on making a move now while things settle down, or do I take the risk that things will take a turn for the worse? "All we can do now is kind of read tea leaves on the future," says Chris Woods, a financial advisor who founded Silvis Financial. There's that old Wayne Gretzky quote about skating "to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." The issue is that it's hard to guess where things are headed. When you're building up to a major financial leap, you typically sit on it until some level of certainty hits. That's especially true in scenarios where there are serious penalties for changing your mind. I mean, sure, you can offload that new car six months later, but you'd probably rather not. Jonathan Parker, a finance professor at MIT, tells me that a big spike in uncertainty will cause people to delay major spending such as upgrading to a new car, noting that "you might want that money for other purposes." When people make a big financial decision, such as buying a house, investing, or retiring, they want some level of buffer. They leave space for the possibility that some unexpected need will pop up — a medical emergency, an unexpected broken-down car or leaky roof, a lost job, a death in the family. Ideally, consumers don't want to just barely make their mortgage, wind up suddenly tapping the money they stowed away in their stock portfolio, or skimp on their day-to-day needs in retirement. When they take leaps, they want to leave a little side pot available to avoid an unforeseen circumstance. There's only so much a person can control — doing the best job possible at work doesn't insulate you from layoffs or guarantee your pay will increase with prices. Uncertainty makes that buffer harder to calculate and feel confident about having in the future. "In a time of great uncertainty, it's probably not the time you want to stretch with a purchase," Sahm says. This uncertainty may be headache-inducing for individuals trying to make up their minds, but what it might mean for the broader economy is tricky. Consumer spending is America's economic engine — personal expenditures account for about two-thirds of GDP. Ironically, people being worried is, in part, supporting the economy. When consumers are concerned about prices going up, they may pull forward big purchases to get them out of the way now before they get more expensive later. If you're nervous about your washing machine or car going kaput soon or are just looking to upgrade, it may feel prudent to replace them sooner rather than later in case prices go up. This year, consumer spending has jumped because of people trying to get ahead of tariffs. Crummy feelings about the future of the economy have actually been a good thing, spending-wise. "This is one thing that has helped consumer spending stay up while sentiment has really cratered," says Scott Baker, an associate finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. At the same time, once people have made these anticipatory purchases or start to batten down the hatches, they could bring down the economy with them. If someone decides to put off renovating their kitchen, it means the contractor, the workers, and the store selling the materials miss out on money. "Just the fact that all of this is happening generates a wave of uncertainty," Parker says. "It's a significant drag on the economy, and it's not clear how big, but it certainly is a drag." Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying. To be sure, there are some areas where sitting on your hands is usually the way to go, such as investing. When the going gets tough in the stock market, one of the worst things people can do is panic and cash out at the bottom. If someone had done that, say, in the wake of Trump's "Liberation Day," they'd probably regret it now. "Markets fluctuate all the time, they will go up and down," says Siavash Radpour, the associate director of the Retirement Equity Lab at The New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. "Not doing anything is often a good policy for people who don't know what's going on." My colleagues at Business Insider recently did a series of stories attempting to answer whether it's a good time to make big life decisions. They looked at starting a business (the answer was yes), buying a home (if you must, but maybe rent), changing jobs (no), investing in stocks (go for it, within reason), buying a new car (hop to it), and retiring (hold off). The advice in the stories is all helpful and enlightening, but it can also go only so far. Every decision in life involves risks, and the truest answer to "Should I do X, Y, Z?" is, "It depends!" There's no denying we're in a time of heightened uncertainty. Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying. And it really feels like things could break in any direction. While the safest advice is probably that you should snap up that new car before tariffs push up prices by thousands of dollars, Trump could declare the tariff thing over tomorrow, and all of a sudden you've overpaid for no reason. "The market this year has been driven less by fundamentals and just more by the different news we're getting from week to week on what's going on," Woods says. Maybe you do hold off on buying a house and come to regret it five years from now when prices are even higher. Or, you don't retire, and you miss out on time with your grandkids, or you're so risk-averse about jumping ship from your company that you miss out on your dream job. Those decisions are harder to make now with more factors in play. It's not just whether a recession is coming, but also what the AI revolution means for the structural future of the labor market. The question for retirees isn't just whether they've saved enough; it's also what might happen with public assistance programs they'd long planned around. "There is the risk of what's going to happen to Medicaid, what's going to happen to Social Security," Radpour says. "Health expenses are really scary in retirement." Starting a new business is always risky — statistically speaking, half of new businesses fail in five years. Loans for starting said business are more expensive and harder to come by. While it may be a decent time for a startup, no plan is foolproof. Many people who start a company during downturns and turmoil are doing so because they've lost their job or someone in their household has, not because they're jazzed about the future. "The jump is made for them, in some sense," Baker says. Still, if you see a market opportunity and want to make the jump, the idea that economy could get bad shouldn't preclude taking action. Thinking through all of the ambiguity and confusion isn't fun. Financial risks are always scary, whether big or small. Now it feels like the anxiety is extra heightened, given the context. For many people, it's going to feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
