Latest news with #GreatDepression
South Wales Argus
11 hours ago
- Entertainment
- South Wales Argus
Bonnie and Clyde brought to life by Newport theatre group
The musical, based on the lives of the infamous couple, tells the story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow and their life of crime across southern Texas amid the Great Depression. The pair earn the fame and notoriety they so desperately crave through their deadly antics. The musical features a score written by Frank Wildhorn and lyrics by Don Black combining blues, gospel and rockabilly music with songs including 'Raise a Lttle Hell ', 'You Love Who You Love' and 'The World Will Remember Us. Founded by local musical stalwart Victoria Bryant and choreographer Emily John, Glass Ceiling Theatre has developed a well-earned reputation as one of Wales' leading musical theatre groups attracting talent from across South Wales from Neath to Abergavenny with some members even travelling from as far as Somerset for the weekly rehearsals. Andre-Paul Spring joins the production team for Bonnie and Clyde as co-director bringing his skills and experience gathered working with other theatre groups, including his own. Glass Ceiling Theatre, which was set up eight years ago, recently celebrated a sell-out run of the Disney classic Beauty and the Beast at Newport's Dolman Theatre. It has also staged shows including Footloose and Legally Blonde. Victoria Bryant, Glass Ceiling Theatre musical director, said: "Bonnie and Clyde is a demanding show in terms of the emotional performance needed throughout the musical, and our cast give their all to ensure this comes across." Nicole Cleaton and Jamie Davis take on the lead roles. Clyde's brother, Buck Barrow, is played by Evan Davies and his hard-suffering wife, Blanche, is played by Jessica Doolan. Bonnie and Clyde is on at Newport's Dolman Theatre from Thursday June 19 to Saturday June 21, 2025. Tickets are available at
New York Post
18 hours ago
- Business
- New York Post
Don't fear the AI reaper — jobs panic is way off base
ChatGPT is coming for your job. That's the fear about the rapid advances in artificial intelligence. In a headline the other day, Axios warned of a 'white-collar bloodbath.' Advertisement The CEO of the artificial intelligence firm Anthropic told the publication that AI could destroy half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next one to five years and drive the unemployment rate up to 10% or 20% — or roughly Great Depression levels. This sounds dire, but we've been here before. In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes thought that labor-saving devices were 'outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labor.' Advertisement Analysts thought the same thing in the 1960s, when President John F. Kennedy warned 'the automation problem is as important as any we face' — and in our era, too. If a prediction has been consistently wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will forever be wrong. Still, we shouldn't have much confidence in the same alarmism, repeated for the same reasons. If technological advance was really a net killer of jobs, the labor market should have been in decline since the invention of the wheel. Advertisement Instead, we live in a time of technological marvels, and the unemployment rate is 4.2%. Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation points out that the average unemployment rate in the United States hasn't changed much over the last century, despite productivity — the ability to produce more with the same inputs — increasing by almost 10 times. Technology increases productivity, driving down costs and making it possible to invest and spend on other things, creating new jobs that replace the old. This is the process of a society becoming wealthier, and it's why nations that innovate are better off than those that don't. Advertisement The rise of personal computers collapsed the demand for typists and word processors. These positions were often held by women. Did this decimate the economic prospects of women in America? No — they got different, and frequently better, jobs. Spreadsheets drastically reduced the demand for bookkeepers and accounting clerks. Did this end the profession of accounting? No — there was an increase in more sophisticated accounting roles. Advertisement The job market has never been stuck in amber. The MIT economist David Autor co-authored a study that found the majority of current jobs are in occupational categories that arose since 1940. It's true that artificial intelligence is projected to affect white-collar jobs — computer programming, consulting, law and the like — more than prior waves of technological change. But these kind of jobs shouldn't be immune from the effects of automation any more than factory work has been. Advertisement AI will end up augmenting many jobs — helping workers become more efficient — and there will be a limit to how much it can encroach on human work. It's hard to imagine, say, Meta ever giving over its legal representation in an antitrust case to artificial intelligence. Lawyers handling such a case will, however, rely on AI for more and more support, diminishing the need for junior lawyers. This will be a significant disruption for the legal profession, yet legal services will also become cheaper and more widely available, in a benefit to everyone else. Advertisement There's no doubt that the changes wrought by technology can be painful, and it's possible that artificial intelligence eventually gets so good at so many tasks that people have no ready recourse to new, better jobs, as has always happened in the past. The potential upside, though, is vast. After strong productivity growth for about a decade beginning in the mid-1990s, we shifted into a lower gear in the mid-2000s. Advertisement It will be a boon if artificial intelligence puts us on a better trajectory. An era of high productivity growth will, among other things, make it easier to deal with the budget deficit and the fiscal strain of retiring Baby Boomers. Like anything else, AI will have its downsides, but it's not an inherent threat — any more than computers or the internet were. Twitter: @RichLowry
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Charlie Munger Snubbed Paramount And Hollywood: 'I Don't Like The Unions, Agents, Lawyers, Or The Crazy Movie Stars —Always Gives Me The Willies'
lived near Paramount Studios—and never once took the bait. While others got starstruck by Hollywood, he stayed unimpressed and uninvested. At the 2023 Daily Journal meeting, months before his passing, Munger didn't just dodge questions. He dropped truth bombs. By then, he'd seen it all: the Great Depression, tech booms, dot-com busts, and Bitcoin hype. But nothing rattled him quite like showbiz. So when CNBC's Becky Quick asked him about Disney, she got the kind of answer only Munger could give. "Practically every business that Disney has has gotten tougher than it used to be," he said. "Again, welcome to human life." Don't Miss: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — That's how he opened. No dramatic buildup. Just a clear, cold observation: nothing stays easy forever—not even for a company that once "owned the world," as Munger put it. He recalled Disney's era of dominance—"The Lion King" conquering Broadway, content triumphs stacking up, victory after victory. "They went from triumph to triumph, marching, marching, marching," he said. "All of a sudden, on practically every front, it's more difficult. This is what happens." Munger wasn't writing Disney off. He noted the company still had real assets. But he didn't sugarcoat what they're up against. "How would you like running the sports, ESPN, now at Disney compared to its heyday?" he asked. "It's going to be way harder for them." Even the movie business, he warned, looked grim. "Movies look, to me, like it's going to be a bloodbath, too. It's not a bit easy." Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . That wasn't nostalgia talking. It was analysis. "In the heyday of ESPN, Disney made nothing but money out of ESPN. It was a total goldmine," he said. When the conversation shifted to Paramount—a large Berkshire holding at the time—Munger distanced himself fast. "I live within a few blocks from Paramount Studios and I don't even know anybody at Paramount," he said. "I have avoided the movies like the plague as an investor all my life." He was just getting started. "I've never made an investment in the movie business in any way, shape, or form. It always gives me the willies," he said. Then came the Munger rundown: "I don't like the unions, I don't like the crazy agents, I don't like the goddamn crazy lawyers, I don't like the crazy movie stars." Even after his passing, his instincts seemed to echo. At the 2024 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, Warren Buffett revealed he had finally pulled the plug on Paramount —and paid the price. "I was 100% responsible for the Paramount decision," Buffett admitted. "It was 100% my decision, and we've sold it all and we lost quite a bit of money."While Munger had taken a lifelong stance against Hollywood, Buffett took a position—then an exit. For Munger, it wasn't just the numbers—it was the culture. "Everything about it is not my culture," he said. "I liked those old English actors when they came over. I grew up with them. But, basically, movies are not my scene, so I've avoided it." He wasn't against performers or artists making a living. "It may be a very good place to make a living as an actor or a writer or a musician," he allowed. "But it's a hard place to make money if you're an investor." Munger never had time for chaos, hype, or industries run on personalities and promises. He wanted a margin of safety, cash flow, and predictability—and for him, the movie business had none of it. Even in his final year, he kept doing what made him a legend: stripping things down to what they really were—and walking away when they didn't make sense. Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Charlie Munger Snubbed Paramount And Hollywood: 'I Don't Like The Unions, Agents, Lawyers, Or The Crazy Movie Stars —Always Gives Me The Willies' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Thousands of Veterans to March on DC Over Benefits Cuts-'Will Not Stand By'
Thousands of veterans are expected to march on Washington, D.C., to protest expected cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second-largest U.S. government department, employing around 470,000 people. There are some 6.2 million veterans in the United States who receive disability benefits from the VA. In its budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, the Trump administration called for a 4 percent discretionary spending increase at the VA, largely targeting improvements to medical care and records technology. However, that number is expected to decrease after VA Secretary Doug Collins recently informed Congress that, to offset costs, 15 percent of the VA workforce will be reduced in the coming years. The Trump administration is arguing that technology advances will help the agency function despite staffing cuts. The cuts come amid a broader effort to reduce costs and streamline government services. Earlier this month, Federal News Network reported that over 14,000 VA employees in health care positions applied to leave their jobs through separation incentives offered by the federal government. However, veterans have expressed concerns that job cuts will compromise their ability to access benefits due to the reduced staffing levels. The rally will take place at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on June 6 at 2 p.m. ET. It coincides with the 81st anniversary of D-Day, when Allied forces launched the invasion of Normandy, France, during World War II. The campaign website said it expected "thousands of veterans, military families, and their allies" to attend the march. Rally leaders described themselves as the "Bonus Army of 2025," referencing the 1932 protest in which World War I veterans and their supporters marched on Washington to demand payment of their promised bonuses amid the Great Depression. The Unite For Veterans website said: "America made a promise to its veterans. It's a promise we intend to keep." It added: "We are coming together to defend the benefits, jobs, and dignity that every generation of veterans has earned through sacrifice." Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins, at a Senate hearing in early May: "We have been emphatic that we will not be cutting benefits and health care, only improving them." Margaret Cooney, senior campaign manager at the nonpartisan Center for American Progress, wrote on May 23: "Overall, these cuts to staffing and funding will damage public health and safety; harm economic interests and programs, such as like the VA's Armed to Farm program that support veterans' transition into faming; and leave U.S. veterans without the support they were promised for serving their country." The cuts are expected to take place in August, according to a memo from the VA chief of staff, seen by The Wall Street Journal. Whether the administration reacts to the backlash remains to be seen. Related Articles Veteran's Daughter Living in US 48 years Locked Up by ICEVA Disability Benefits: Payment Worth up to $4,544 Due This WeekVeteran Spent 40 Years Looking for Friend He Served With-Then Gets SurpriseVeterans Group Attacks Trump Cuts in Memorial Day Message 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. [Conor Friedersdorf: Striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup] The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree. Article originally published at The Atlantic
