Latest news with #Mr.SmithGoestoWashington
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia CEO turns heads with stern warning about China AI market
Nvidia CEO turns heads with stern warning about China AI market originally appeared on TheStreet. Move over, Jimmy Stewart. Jensen Huang's got this one covered. In the classic 1939 film 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' Stewart portrays Jefferson Smith, a naive, newly appointed U.S. senator who takes on government corruption. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰💵 While nobody is likely to call Huang naive, the co-founder and CEO of AI-chip juggernaut Nvidia () spoke bluntly about the Trump administration's ban on sales of the company's H20 chips to China. That prompted Wedbush analysts to issue a research note titled "Mr. Huang Goes to Washington." "China is one of the world's largest AI markets and a springboard to global success," Huang said during the company's earnings call. "With half of the world's AI researchers based there, the platform that wins China is positioned to lead globally." He wasn't kidding. A recent Morgan Stanley report found that China's AI industry and related sectors could grow into a market valued at $1.4 trillion by 2030. U.S. export controls could create barriers for AI development in China but won't stop its progress, the investment firm said, noting that "AI is at the center of business priorities, consumer behavior and economic growth in China." "Today, however, the $50 billion China market is effectively closed to US industry," Huang said. "The H20 export ban ended our Hopper data center business in China. We cannot reduce Hopper further to comply. "As a result, we are taking a multibillion-dollar write-off on inventory that cannot be sold or repurposed. We are exploring limited ways to compete, but Hopper is no longer an option. China's AI moves on with or without US chips. It has to compute to train and deploy advanced models." More Nvidia: Analysts issue rare warning on Nvidia stock before key earnings Analysts double price target of new AI stock backed by Nvidia Nvidia CEO shares blunt message on China chip sales ban The Santa Clara, Calif., company, which posted better-than-expected fiscal-Q1 earnings and revenue, said it had missed out on $2.5 billion in sales during the quarter due to the export restrictions on H20. "The question is not whether China will have AI; it already does," Huang said. "The question is whether one of the world's largest AI markets will run on American platforms." "Shielding Chinese chipmakers from US competition only strengthens them abroad and weakens America's position," he noted. "Export restrictions have spurred China's innovation and scale." The Morgan Stanley report said that over the next five years, China aims to achieve full independence from foreign countries in its AI development. Since it's subject to U.S. export restrictions, the report said, the nation is prioritizing more efficient and less expensive AI technologies, most notably DeepSeek. That's the Chinese startup that shivered the tech world's timbers back in January with an AI model that was reportedly much cheaper than those of its American counterparts. "The US has based its policy on the assumption that China cannot make AI chips," Huang said. "That assumption was always questionable and now it's clearly wrong. China has enormous manufacturing capability." Wedbush, which reiterated its $175 price target and outperform rating on Nvidia shares, said the company executed well despite the loss of H20 representing a greater headwind than the investment firm and investors expected."While NVDA did talk to the significance of the lost opportunity in China," the investment firm said, "Jensen also appeared to make a concerted effort to credit the current administration for recent sovereign deals, talk to NVDA's plans to further US investment (a key touch point for President Trump), while also suggesting management has faith in the US government's likely future actions with regards to trade and AI." Wedbush said this approach was likely best suited to minimizing potential political headwinds for Nvidia. But "it also highlights that political decisions (AI diffusion, tariff, and China policies) are seemingly the only potential significant stumbling blocks for NVDA over the next 12+ months." DA Davidson boosted its price target on Nvidia to $135 from $120 and affirmed a neutral rating on the shares, according to The Fly. The Q1 results were mixed, with better-than-expected revenue numbers but a notable impact from the lack of H20 sales into China in Q1 and Q2, the firm said. The firm said Wall Street was underaccounting the Chinese contribution to Nvidia revenue and that this topic represents the largest overhang on the stock. Davidson said this will continue until the Trump administration provides an official position that resolves the matter in one direction or the other. Stephen Guilfoyle says Nvidia's results were impressive and "much, much better than feared given the mid-quarter change in the restrictions on what kinds of technology can be exported to China and other nations." "This pressured sales, suppressed margins and forced the firm to take an inventory-related charge against these earnings that fortunately was smaller than what the firm had warned it might be," he veteran trader, whose career dates back to the 1980s on the New York Stock Exchange, reiterated his stock price target of $165 on NVDA. "What's clear is that demand for all things AI-related has not let up in the least," Guilfoyle said. "What's also clear is that the Chinese market makes a material impact on the firm's overall performance. Cash flows are golden, and the balance sheet is simply fortress-like." Nvidia CEO turns heads with stern warning about China AI market first appeared on TheStreet on May 29, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on May 29, 2025, where it first appeared. 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
Miami Herald
29-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Nvidia CEO turns heads with stern warning about China AI market
Move over, Jimmy Stewart. Jensen Huang's got this one covered. In the classic 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Stewart portrays Jefferson Smith, a naive, newly appointed U.S. senator who takes on government corruption. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter While nobody is likely to call Huang naive, the co-founder and CEO of AI-chip juggernaut Nvidia (NVDA) spoke bluntly about the Trump administration's ban on sales of the company's H20 chips to China. That prompted Wedbush analysts to issue a research note titled "Mr. Huang Goes to Washington." "China is one of the world's largest AI markets and a springboard to global success," Huang said during the company's earnings call. "With half of the world's AI researchers based there, the platform that wins China is positioned to lead globally." He wasn't kidding. A recent Morgan Stanley report found that China's AI industry and related sectors could grow into a market valued at $1.4 trillion by 2030. U.S. export controls could create barriers for AI development in China but won't stop its progress, the investment firm said, noting that "AI is at the center of business priorities, consumer behavior and economic growth in China." "Today, however, the $50 billion China market is effectively closed to US industry," Huang said. "The H20 export ban ended our Hopper data center business in China. We cannot reduce Hopper further to comply. "As a result, we are taking a multibillion-dollar write-off on inventory that cannot be sold or repurposed. We are exploring limited ways to compete, but Hopper is no longer an option. China's AI moves on with or without US chips. It has to compute to train and deploy advanced models." More Nvidia: Analysts issue rare warning on Nvidia stock before key earningsAnalysts double price target of new AI stock backed by NvidiaNvidia CEO shares blunt message on China chip sales ban The Santa Clara, Calif., company, which posted better-than-expected fiscal-Q1 earnings and revenue, said it had missed out on $2.5 billion in sales during the quarter due to the export restrictions on H20. "The question is not whether China will have AI; it already does," Huang said. "The question is whether one of the world's largest AI markets will run on American platforms." "Shielding Chinese chipmakers from US competition only strengthens them abroad and weakens America's position," he noted. "Export restrictions have spurred China's innovation and scale." The Morgan Stanley report said that over the next five years, China aims to achieve full independence from foreign countries in its AI development. Since it's subject to U.S. export restrictions, the report said, the nation is prioritizing more efficient and less expensive AI technologies, most notably DeepSeek. That's the Chinese startup that shivered the tech world's timbers back in January with an AI model that was reportedly much cheaper than those of its American counterparts. "The US has based its policy on the assumption that China cannot make AI chips," Huang said. "That assumption was always questionable and now it's clearly wrong. China has enormous manufacturing capability." Wedbush, which reiterated its $175 price target and outperform rating on Nvidia shares, said the company executed well despite the loss of H20 representing a greater headwind than the investment firm and investors expected. Related: Nvidia stock surges after earnings surprise "While NVDA did talk to the significance of the lost opportunity in China," the investment firm said, "Jensen also appeared to make a concerted effort to credit the current administration for recent sovereign deals, talk to NVDA's plans to further US investment (a key touch point for President Trump), while also suggesting management has faith in the US government's likely future actions with regards to trade and AI." Wedbush said this approach was likely best suited to minimizing potential political headwinds for Nvidia. But "it also highlights that political decisions (AI diffusion, tariff, and China policies) are seemingly the only potential significant stumbling blocks for NVDA over the next 12+ months." DA Davidson boosted its price target on Nvidia to $135 from $120 and affirmed a neutral rating on the shares, according to The Fly. The Q1 results were mixed, with better-than-expected revenue numbers but a notable impact from the lack of H20 sales into China in Q1 and Q2, the firm said. The firm said Wall Street was underaccounting the Chinese contribution to Nvidia revenue and that this topic represents the largest overhang on the stock. Davidson said this will continue until the Trump administration provides an official position that resolves the matter in one direction or the other. Stephen Guilfoyle says Nvidia's results were impressive and "much, much better than feared given the mid-quarter change in the restrictions on what kinds of technology can be exported to China and other nations." "This pressured sales, suppressed margins and forced the firm to take an inventory-related charge against these earnings that fortunately was smaller than what the firm had warned it might be," he said. Related: Veteran stock trader takes hard look at Nvidia ahead of earnings The veteran trader, whose career dates back to the 1980s on the New York Stock Exchange, reiterated his stock price target of $165 on NVDA. "What's clear is that demand for all things AI-related has not let up in the least," Guilfoyle said. "What's also clear is that the Chinese market makes a material impact on the firm's overall performance. Cash flows are golden, and the balance sheet is simply fortress-like." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Cory Booker's long speech offers a strategy for Trump opponents in a fragmented media landscape
Sen. Cory Booker's record-breaking, 25-hour Senate floor speech, which began on March 31, 2025, and ended on April 1, momentarily snatched the national spotlight from President Donald Trump. The ever-churning national news cycle has already moved on from the spectacle. But as communication studies scholars, we believe Booker's speech offers important lessons for Trump opponents in a fragmented political and media landscape. Our analysis of Booker's speech, its media coverage and Booker's use of online platforms to promote his marathon performance illustrate one way to disrupt the constant public spotlight on Trump. In research published in 2023, we compared filibusters and long speeches in the United States and overseas. The long speeches we examined took place in national parliaments and political party meetings across the world. Our research uncovered three patterns. Long speeches incorporate varied topics and texts. Whether or not these digressions are relevant to the issue at hand, they make the speaker's remarks last longer. In Sen. Rand Paul's nearly 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's CIA nomination in 2013, for example, he read articles on drone warfare alongside a portion of 'Alice in Wonderland.' And Sen. Alfonse D'Amato's 1986 filibuster of a military spending bill included a partial reading of the District of Columbia phone book.' Long speeches also include expected interruptions to the speaker's performance and address a variety of audiences. That's what happened during Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1957 filibuster of the Civil Rights Act – the longest speech on the Senate floor before Booker's performance. When Thurmond needed a bathroom break during his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster, Sen. Barry Goldwater assisted by stalling with a report on military preparedness. These patterns of topical digression and expected interruption challenge the image of filibusters as individual acts of continuous endurance promoted in films such as 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.' And they apply to Booker's Senate speech. Our research also demonstrated how the media reframes the complexity of long speeches into simplified narratives. This coverage sometimes differs as different outlets target varied audiences. News reports on Thurmond's filibuster bolstered an image of him as the lone senator defending segregation while the rest of the Senate slept. After state Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of a 2013 anti-abortion bill in Texas, supporters linked the filibuster to her rising political prospects, while opponents disparaged her with the nickname Abortion Barbie. These reactions do not grapple directly with the wide-ranging content of long speeches. But they do allow them to reach audiences in ways that can shape popular memory of the event. Like other long speeches we have studied, Booker's Senate speech addressed several topics. Booker read a passage from the Federalist Papers that advocated for constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. At another point, he quoted federal appellate Judge Learned Hand, who was called the "Tenth Justice' of the Supreme Court in the first half of the 20th century. Booker also used personal anecdotes that linked his parents to the civil rights struggle and reflected on his first senate campaign. But mainstream news stories covering Booker's speech produced a largely coherent summary of the overall point of the marathon talk – as they saw it, it was a stand against Trump. Booker's speech also aligned with another convention of long speeches – his monologue was broken up by the parliamentary questions of fellow senators. Numerous Democratic allies gave Booker a break as they introduced issues of their own interest. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, for example, used her time to discuss Bob Dylan. After the speech, however, many news outlets focused on Booker's physical feat. This directed attention away from the hodgepodge of voices and sources in the speech. Fielding reporters' questions after yielding the Senate floor, Booker discussed his use of fasting to prepare. And The New York Times reported on the effects of standing for so long and not sleeping. Debates about whether or how speakers stop to use the bathroom are a source of enduring fascination surrounding long speeches. It's something that Thurmond biographer Joseph Crespino calls the 'urological mystery.' Media fixation on Booker's body reimagined him as the sole speaker. When Booker broke the record, roughly 115,000 people were streaming the speech on YouTube. A TikTok livestream of the event received 350 million likes by the end of the day. Booker was prepared for this online attention. Throughout the speech, he repeated a strategic set of phrases. Those ranged from 'Let's get in good trouble' – a reference to the late John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who served in the U.S. House of Representatives, that appeals to Booker's political base – to 'This is a moral moment,' a slogan that evokes Rev. William Barber II's broad-based 'moral movement.' After the speech, Booker repeated these taglines on social media, at a New Jersey town hall and in interviews with national media. Trump's 'flood the zone' approach to policymaking, which occupies media coverage through overwhelming activity, has been widely discussed by the media. Booker's speech demonstrates that for resistance to be effective, it must be noticed. His use of easily excerpted catchphrases targeted media platforms built around short, viral video clips. The length of Booker's speech made it newsworthy, but short clips are necessary to sustain attention online. On April 2, news commentators and media outlets posed a number of questions that were not about Trump: Why did Booker speak that long? How did he prepare? Was he wearing a diaper? These questions are part of the simplifications that occur in response to long speeches, and the media briefly paused from constant Trump coverage to ask them again. Other coverage has noted that Google searches for Booker have increased since the speech – and it has speculated whether the speech might improve Democratic Party approval ratings. More recently, an April 13 op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution picked up on Booker's use of 'good trouble' and declared, 'Cory Booker is following in footsteps of Rep. John Lewis.' By grabbing hold of a stage and not letting go, Booker became a figure of focus for at least one news cycle. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Erik Johnson, Stetson University and Matthew deTar, Ohio University Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Warwick McKibbin on trying to model economic certainty in uncertain times Donald Trump's nonstop news-making can be exhausting, making it harder for people to scrutinize his presidential actions Most US states don't have a filibuster – nor do many democratic countries The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
New York Times
02-04-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
The Movie That Can Help You Understand Cory Booker's 25-Hour Senate Speech
Late in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' Frank Capra's 1939 ode to democracy, free speech and the filibuster, a CBS newsman is trilling into his microphone near the Senate chamber. Inside that august room, he tells his listeners, is a man engaging in 'the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form.' 'The rrrrright,' he calls it, rolling that r, 'to talk your head off!' He is referring to Jefferson Smith (played by a 30-ish Jimmy Stewart, all big eyes and gee-willikers wonder), the fish-out-of-water junior senator from some unnamed Western state and political party, who's held the Senate floor all night and is still at it. He's filibustering an appropriations bill to protest graft and injustice, specifically injustice against himself and more generally against the people of his state, his country and heck, why not, the whole world. I thought of Smith and his idealism while watching Senator Cory Booker on Tuesday, 24 hours into his own record-setting speech to protest the actions of the Trump administration. (Technically it wasn't a filibuster because it did not come during a debate over a specific bill or nominee.) Stewart's performance is calibrated to heightened Hollywood standards, to be sure, but by the end of the movie's daylong filibuster, Smith looks as if he's got the flu: sweaty, haggard, staggering around, voice reduced to a painful rasp. By contrast Booker, who's about 25 years older than that character, remained coherent and composed and also audible, even when he concluded at the 25-hour mark. Cory Booker emerging from the Senate after his record-setting filibuster. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In truth, I always think of 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' (for rent on Apple TV+) when this kind of speech comes up. I saw it dozens of times as a teenager, as it was a favorite in the home-school community to which my family belonged. It's both very funny and profoundly idealistic, with its underlying belief that anybody who tries a feat this athletic and grueling — as the CBS newsman reminds the crowd, sitting down ends the filibuster — must be in the right. 'Either I'm dead right or I'm crazy!' Smith hollers at one point. 'You wouldn't care to put that to a vote, would you, senator?' one of his irritated colleagues replies. We know the movie's answer. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
02-04-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
The Movie That Can Help You Understand Cory Booker's Senate Speech
Late in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' Frank Capra's 1939 ode to democracy, free speech and the filibuster, a CBS newsman is trilling into his microphone near the Senate chamber. Inside that august room, he tells his listeners, is a man engaging in 'the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form.' 'The rrrrright,' he calls it, rolling that r, 'to talk your head off!' He is referring to Jefferson Smith (played by a 30-ish Jimmy Stewart, all big eyes and gee-willikers wonder), the fish-out-of-water junior senator from some unnamed Western state and political party, who's held the Senate floor all night and is still at it. He's filibustering an appropriations bill to protest graft and injustice, specifically injustice against himself and more generally against the people of his state, his country and heck, why not, the whole world. I thought of Smith and his idealism while watching Senator Cory Booker on Tuesday, 24 hours into his own record-setting speech to protest the actions of the Trump administration. (Technically it wasn't a filibuster because it did not come during a debate over a specific bill or nominee.) Stewart's performance is calibrated to heightened Hollywood standards, to be sure, but by the end of the movie's daylong filibuster, Smith looks as if he's got the flu: sweaty, haggard, staggering around, voice reduced to a painful rasp. By contrast Booker, who's about 25 years older than that character, remained coherent and composed and also audible, even when he concluded at the 25-hour mark. In truth, I always think of 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' (for rent on Apple TV+) when this kind of speech comes up. I saw it dozens of times as a teenager, as it was a favorite in the home-school community to which my family belonged. It's both very funny and profoundly idealistic, with its underlying belief that anybody who tries a feat this athletic and grueling — as the CBS newsman reminds the crowd, sitting down ends the filibuster — must be in the right. 'Either I'm dead right or I'm crazy!' Smith hollers at one point. 'You wouldn't care to put that to a vote, would you, senator?' one of his irritated colleagues replies. We know the movie's answer. Smith is no politician: He's the grown-up leader of the Boy Rangers, a pseudo Boy Scout organization devoted to instilling love for America and the great outdoors in its young charges. But he accidentally lands a political appointment to the upper chamber of Congress against the will of the political machine of his state, run by the cigar-chewing fat cat Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), who has everyone in his pocket from the news media and minor politicians to the eminent Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). After some hemming and hawing, Taylor realizes Smith might just be the guy they want there. He's honest, he's patriotic, he's unknown. In memory of his late journalist father — who was, in younger days, best friends with Senator Paine — he is devoted to what he calls 'lost causes.' And most of all, he's unlikely to stumble on their plans to line Taylor's pockets with some scheme involving a creek and a dam. Oops. Of course, not every filibuster is righteous. The record for the longest Senate speech was previously set by Strom Thurmond, the ardent segregationist who filibustered the Senate for 24 hours and 18 minutes to stall the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But still, the theatricality of a filibuster — amplified in an age when we can all watch it on whatever device is handy — gives the idiosyncratic maneuver some extra oomph. It's a demonstration of something remarkable about the American system of government. In the film, the CBS newsman notes that among the observers in the packed gallery are representatives from two 'dictator powers,' as he puts it, though they remain unnamed. (It is 1939, after all, a time to be circumspect about your politics in Hollywood.) 'They have come here to see what they can't see at home: democracy in action,' he intones. That throwaway line indicates a bit of the film's history. During production, the Hays Code was in full effect. That censorship mechanism was designed to bar movies that might degrade the morals of the youths — by, for instance, casting aspersions on law enforcement or American government officials. Initially the screenplay was rejected by the code's enforcers, though eventually it was approved. When 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' finally reached theaters, critics and audiences tended to like it. The Times named it one of the best films of 1939, with the critic Frank Nugent noting that Capra was 'operating, of course, under the protection of that unwritten clause in the Bill of Rights entitling every voting citizen to at least one free swing at the Senate.' But not everyone agreed. Senate Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley, a Democrat, said that it 'made the Senate look like a bunch of crooks.' Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, father of John and Robert, wired Will B. Hays, the keeper of the censorship code, that 'to permit this film to be shown in foreign countries and to give people the impression that anything like this could happen in the United States Senate is to me nothing short of criminal.' Yet it's become a patriotic classic, for good reason. If 'Mr. Smith' takes a particularly romantic view of the filibuster, it's also sneakily realistic. Yes, it has a kind of Hollywood ending, but not an entirely optimistic one: Smith collapses on the floor, surrounded by 50,000 telegrams from constituents who've been manipulated by Taylor into demanding an end to his starry-eyed quest. That's dark. But filibustering is just good, the movie suggests, to do for its own sake. That's part of a refrain in much of Capra's most patriotic work: The point of a democratic system isn't to line one person's pockets, but to bolster the good of all. 'I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if behind them they didn't have a little bit of plain ordinary everyday kindness, and a little looking out for the other fella, too,' Smith says. Up in the gallery are a cadre of men in uniforms that indicate they're Union veterans of the Civil War as well as World War I — and they applaud thunderously. Near the end, Smith once again invokes those 'lost causes,' which he learned from his father were the only causes worth fighting for because of the rule to love they neighbor. 'In this world today full of hatred,' he croaks, glaring at Senator Paine, 'the man who knows that one rule has a great trust.' I suppose that's why 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' still holds up, and why I found myself once again thinking about it this week. Booker's invocation of John Lewis's 'good trouble' sounds like an echo of this screenplay. At the same time, anyone who talks around the clock, whether it's Jefferson Smith or Cory Booker, knows they'll have to stop sometime, and that business will continue as usual, and the world will move on. It's an act at once bold and quixotic. To fill time on the floor in the wee hours, Smith reads from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, occasionally editorializing. Addressing his colleagues, who are assiduously ignoring him, he tells them that the rules won't work 'if you haven't got men that have learned to tell human rights from a punch in the nose!' The gallery bursts into applause, but one jaded journalist smiles wryly. 'That's good for a headline,' he says.
