Breaking down the risks, rewards of cryptocurrency investing
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
AI not ready to replace in-home care workers
EXAM ROOM President Donald Trump's crackdown on migrants is putting pressure on the eldercare workforce by creating staffing gaps that Americans are unlikely to fill — and neither are robotic caregivers, which have a long way to go before filling the role, if ever. 'I actually think that there is a future where we use more and more hardware to take care of older adults in their home, but we're definitely not there yet,' said Seth Sternberg, CEO of Honor, a home care company and franchise network that uses technology to support its operations and care providers. 'That stuff has a long way to go, especially when you think about things like lifting and transferring into a bath.' The fallout: Sternberg said that although none of his direct staff have faced deportation, it's possible franchisees may have had issues. Still, he said he's heard other companies have lost staff because of Trump's stricter immigration policies. He said the increased scrutiny has also led to notices from federal officials requiring him to regularly confirm his workers are still authorized to work through E-verify, an online system that validates employment eligibility. 'Because what is happening is certain work authorizations are actually being removed,' he said. Immigrants represent 1 in 3 in-home care workers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The stress of working during the pandemic led 400,000 nursing and assisted-living workers to quit. And while those numbers have rebounded, turnover in the profession is still high. Meanwhile: The aging population is growing. The number of Americans over age 65 is expected to grow from 61.2 million in 2024 to 82 million in 2050, comprising nearly a quarter of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 'Japan, much of northern Europe, New Zealand — they have all created visas that specifically target the eldercare workforce, because of the recognition that you've got this massively aging population,' said Sternberg. A population, he adds, that's outpacing the growth of younger generations. He'd like to see lawmakers tackle the issue in the same way other countries have — with a specialized visa for in-home care workers. 'A temporary visa that lets people who've already been in eldercare come in from countries that are stable, so that you don't have to worry about them filing for asylum,' he said. 'That's not a path to citizenship, but [it] lets people earn a good wage, where they send some of that money back home for X -period of time — that would help.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Firefighters on the frontline of the 2024 wildfires in Northern California, likely suffered lung damage, but they may also have harmed their hearts. A new study using an Apple Watch to detect changes in resting heart rate found that firefighters showed an increase of 1.4 beats per minute for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter in particulate matter they were exposed to. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. FORWARD THINKING The National Association for Community Health Centers is turning to the tech industry to help it process the Trump administration's upcoming changes to Medicaid enrollment. 'My hope is developers realize that if they want to build a product for America, they have to include … those who are on Medicaid or uninsured or on Medicare, or a lot of commercial insured folks who are low-income,' Dr. Kyu Rhee, president and CEO of NACHC, told Ruth. A tiger team: NACHC is partnering with the Coalition for Health AI, a member-based organization working to establish industrywide best practices for artificial intelligence adoption in health care. NACHC will co-lead a CHAI-organized tiger team to work with members to develop AI tools that streamline Medicaid enrollment under the requirements in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Currently, much of Medicaid enrollment is conducted with pen, paper and fax, Rhee said. Higher costs on the way: In 2024, NACHC members provided care to more than 16 million Medicaid patients. Now, because of changing Medicaid requirements, community health centers are poised to face significant financial challenges. The organization estimates that 4 million community health center patients will lose coverage, resulting in a $7 billion increase in annual uncompensated care costs. To address those challenges, the tiger team charged with developing AI solutions will comprise top payers, technology startups and five to 10 leaders from community health centers, said Dr. Brian Anderson, CEO of CHAI. U.S. government officials will also join as federal liaisons, though he declined to provide names. The team will include 150 entities in all. AI for all: The NACHC-CHAI partnership extends beyond immediate Medicaid concerns: They'll work to ensure that smaller health centers can adopt the same AI capabilities as larger health systems with bigger budgets. NACHC will develop a playbook of best practices for community health centers that want to adopt AI tools. Additionally, NACHC will refer members to specific apps and negotiate group purchasing agreements for certain tools, all the while seeking to reduce AI costs. 'If you're at the table with Microsoft and Google and these tech — big tech and small tech companies — and yes, Mayo Clinic is there,' said Rhee. 'Maybe they'll say, 'We'll use our buying power to help you with access to this ambient AI or these other solutions.'' He hopes that once tech companies recognize that millions of Americans need this technology, they'll commit to making it accessible — while at the same time addressing the cost issue. 'We need this at an affordable cost,' said Rhee. 'My hope is we'll be able to influence that and reduce the costs.'
