Nearly half of Americans say economy worsening: Poll
Forty-eight percent of respondents said they believe the economy is getting worse while 19 percent said it is getting better.
The poll took place between March 9 and 11, a period that included rough days for the stock market. On Monday, the stock market started the week with intense losses. That day, the Dow Jones Industrial average closed with a loss of 890 points, dropping 2.1 percent.
Since the start of the month, stocks had been dropping steadily due to underwhelming economic data and President Trump's tariff plans, but the selloff escalated Monday.
Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser to President Trump, chalked up the stock market dip and consumer sentiment on Wednesday to the transition away from 'Bidenomics' to 'Trumpnomics.'
The poll also found that most respondents were split on Trump's approach to the economy. Forty-three percent approved while 47 percent disapproved.
Also on Thursday, a Quinnipiac University poll found that most Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the economy. Another survey, from Reuters/Ipsos, found that most find Trump's economic plans to be 'erratic.'
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick doubled down on Navarro's view, stating that any economic troubles could be blamed on former President Biden.
'The only reason there could possibly be a recession is because of the Biden nonsense that we had to live with,' Lutnick said during a Tuesday interview.
The Thursday poll from The Economist/YouGov found that Americans are divided on whether the U.S. economy is experiencing a recession. Thirty-seven percent said they think so, while 32 percent said the opposite. A third of respondents said they were unsure.
The poll featured 1,699 people and plus or minus 3.2 percentage points as its margin of error.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jessica Tarlov also wasn't the least bit concerned about Barack Obama's prosecution.
Fox News host Jessica Tarlov shut down the Trump administration's 'preposterous' attacks on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others amid questions about the president's relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On The Five, Tarlov first dismissed co-host Kennedy's suggestion that the former president may have to 'worry' about being prosecuted. 'No, I actually don't think that anybody is sweating any piece of this,' Tarlov said, citing the protection that former presidents have from prosecution thanks to the Supreme Court.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Hong Leong Asia Ltd.'s (SGX:H22) Stock's Recent Performance Being Led By Its Attractive Financial Prospects?
Hong Leong Asia (SGX:H22) has had a great run on the share market with its stock up by a significant 55% over the last three months. Given the company's impressive performance, we decided to study its financial indicators more closely as a company's financial health over the long-term usually dictates market outcomes. In this article, we decided to focus on Hong Leong Asia's ROE. ROE or return on equity is a useful tool to assess how effectively a company can generate returns on the investment it received from its shareholders. Simply put, it is used to assess the profitability of a company in relation to its equity capital. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How To Calculate Return On Equity? Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Hong Leong Asia is: 6.2% = S$152m ÷ S$2.5b (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). The 'return' is the amount earned after tax over the last twelve months. Another way to think of that is that for every SGD1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn SGD0.06 in profit. See our latest analysis for Hong Leong Asia What Has ROE Got To Do With Earnings Growth? Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don't share these attributes. A Side By Side comparison of Hong Leong Asia's Earnings Growth And 6.2% ROE On the face of it, Hong Leong Asia's ROE is not much to talk about. Although a closer study shows that the company's ROE is higher than the industry average of 4.2% which we definitely can't overlook. Consequently, this likely laid the ground for the decent growth of 10% seen over the past five years by Hong Leong Asia. Bear in mind, the company does have a moderately low ROE. It is just that the industry ROE is lower. So there might well be other reasons for the earnings to grow. Such as- high earnings retention or the company belonging to a high growth industry. As a next step, we compared Hong Leong Asia's net income growth with the industry and found that the company has a similar growth figure when compared with the industry average growth rate of 10% in the same period. Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. It's important for an investor to know whether the market has priced in the company's expected earnings growth (or decline). By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. One good indicator of expected earnings growth is the P/E ratio which determines the price the market is willing to pay for a stock based on its earnings prospects. So, you may want to check if Hong Leong Asia is trading on a high P/E or a low P/E, relative to its industry. Is Hong Leong Asia Efficiently Re-investing Its Profits? Hong Leong Asia has a three-year median payout ratio of 27%, which implies that it retains the remaining 73% of its profits. This suggests that its dividend is well covered, and given the decent growth seen by the company, it looks like management is reinvesting its earnings efficiently. Besides, Hong Leong Asia has been paying dividends for at least ten years or more. This shows that the company is committed to sharing profits with its shareholders. Our latest analyst data shows that the future payout ratio of the company over the next three years is expected to be approximately 28%. Still, forecasts suggest that Hong Leong Asia's future ROE will rise to 11% even though the the company's payout ratio is not expected to change by much. Summary Overall, we are quite pleased with Hong Leong Asia's performance. In particular, it's great to see that the company has seen significant growth in its earnings backed by a respectable ROE and a high reinvestment rate. That being so, the latest analyst forecasts show that the company will continue to see an expansion in its earnings. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, appeals court says
A federal appeals court said Wednesday that President Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The policy, which has been the subject of a complicated monthslong legal back-and-forth, is currently on hold. But Wednesday's decision appears to mark the first time that an appellate court has weighed in on the merits of Mr. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for many children of undocumented immigrants by executive order. A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote that Mr. Trump's order is "invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'" White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to CBS News: "The Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated on appeal." On the first day of Mr. Trump's second term, he signed an executive order that said people born in the United States should not automatically get citizenship if one parent is undocumented and the other isn't a citizen or green-card holder, or if both parents are in the U.S. on temporary visas. The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents within 30 days to people who fall into those categories. The order drew a flurry of lawsuits, as most legal experts have said the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 — automatically offers citizenship to virtually everybody born within the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, with extremely narrow exceptions. The Trump administration argues the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to people whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily — citing a clause that says citizenship is granted to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those parents do not necessarily have "allegiance" to the country, the government argues, so they therefore aren't "subject to the jurisdiction." The 9th Circuit disagreed. It wrote Wednesday that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment suggests that citizenship was meant to be granted to anybody who is "subject to the laws and authority of the United States." "The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868," the judges wrote. "Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution," the opinion said. The issue reached the 9th Circuit after a lower court in Washington state blocked the birthright citizenship executive order in February, responding to a lawsuit from several Democratic states. The Trump administration in March appealed that ruling. It reasserted its arguments about who the 14th Amendment applies to, called the ruling "vastly overbroad" and argued the states did not have standing to sue over the order. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said the states did have the right to sue, pointing to the risk that states would be financially harmed by a federal policy that narrows who qualifies for citizenship. The appellate judges also upheld the district court's finding that the states are likely to succeed in showing the order violates the Constitution. The 9th Circuit's ruling was written by Clinton-appointed Judge Ronald Gould, and joined by Obama-appointed Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. A third member of the panel — Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term — dissented in part, writing that the states don't have standing and adding "it's premature to address the merits of the citizenship question or the scope of the injunction." Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on merits of birthright citizenship — yet The birthright citizenship issue reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, but not in a case involving the merits of the Trump administration's policy. Instead, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether the district courts that issued nationwide blocks against Mr. Trump's executive order were exceeding the scope of their power — a perennial topic of debate in legal circles that has frustrated presidents of both parties. The high court's ruling last month limited the use of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, it granted a request by the administration to narrow the injunctions against the birthright citizenship order, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief." That doesn't mean the birthright citizenship order will take effect. Shortly after the ruling, a New Hampshire court paused the executive order nationwide in a lawsuit that was brought as a class action, after the Supreme Court's decision left the door open to that option. The Supreme Court also did not directly address whether states can still sue over the order. In the case that the 9th Circuit ruled on Wednesday, the government has argued that courts can just block the birthright citizenship order for residents of the states that sued, rather than issuing a nationwide injunction. But the states argue that would provide them with incomplete relief because people move from state to state. Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison for murders of Idaho students Trump reacts to DOJ reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer on Jeffrey Epstein files Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76
