Latest news with #Substack
Economic Times
13 hours ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Constitutionally unsound: Does Trump have legal authority to push his tariffs through? Not really
What, me tariff? Donald Trump continues to rattle the world economy with unilateral tariffs and tariff threats. This includes Wednesday's executive order imposing an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25% on India for buying Russian oil. Globally, businesses and policymakers are watching with great concern at the possible consequences. But does the president even have the constitutional authority to impose these tariffs? Apparently, not. 'Just about everything Trump has been doing on trade is illegal,' writes Paul Krugman in his August 1 Substack column, 'Trump/Brazil: Delusions of Grandeur Go South'. Krugman isn't alone. In the US, a dozen state governments, several businesses and individuals have sued the Trump regime for using executive orders to slap tariffs, overstepping the legislative process. This overuse of presidential authority, they argue, has caused immense harm to American businesses and economy. Their plea to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: pronounce Trump tariffs illegal and stop government agencies and officials from enforcing them. During hearings, federal appeals court judges have expressed scepticism on the president's authority to impose tariffs, and called it an unprecedented use of emergency powers. Strange as it may sound, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, the law that Trump has used to justify his sweeping tariffs, does not mention the word 'tariff'. The Trump regime says that the country is under 'an unusual and extraordinary threat', arising from trade deficits and drug trafficking, and this threat validates the use of IEEPA. The plaintiffs, in turn, have called these threats bogus. They argue that the US economy has been dealing with trade deficits for decades, and yet has continued to prosper. They add that there is little evidence of drug trafficking from most countries that are subject to Trump some cases, it's just Trump's personal vendetta against certain world leaders that is the cause of high tariffs. For instance, Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil, citing the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a former Trump ally, an emergency. Critics claim this is a blatant misuse of the US presidential powers and interference in the governance of another US Constitution grants the president authority to impose tariffs in three exceptional circumstances. None of them holds true in the current case: Security reasons In his first term, Trump had imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium, and then raised them further in his second term, using the excuse of national security. But legal experts say that since there is no imminent threat to American security, use of tariffs to address a bogus threat is baloney. Unfair trade There is no evidence that the world is dumping its produce in the US at less than market prices. So, this is not a valid justification for sweeping duties across countries. Anti-dumping duties would require evidence of dumping against specific countries and specific goods. Economic emergency Trump has bragged many times that the US economy during his presidency is the greatest, ever. Surely, it can't be the 'greatest economy ever' and be in an emergency at the same in May, US Court of International Trade, based in NYC, ruled that the Trump regime had exceeded the authority granted by Congress to the president and ordered blocking enforcement of Trump tariffs. But the regime appealed that ruling in the federal circuit, which allowed the government to continue enforcing tariffs while the case legal battle questioning Trump's authority to impose tariffs will likely continue for his term. It will probably come before the Supreme Court. While it has a majority of conservative judges, the court may not necessarily rule in Trump's favour, as most conservative judges are constitutionalists. Therefore, they'll be unlikely to pass a judgment that clips the Congress' authority and grants unprecedented powers to can seek Congress' legislative approval. But the process is time-consuming, and it's not clear that even Republican legislators will give him the authority, given his haphazard and reckless ways. Republican support for Trump tariffs may decline once the latter's adverse effects on the US economy become more what should GoI do as it faces threats of tariffs and penalties? At the start of Trump 2.0, pundits suggested that New Delhi avoid getting into a trade war with the US. That advice is still valid. GoI has conveyed that it won't allow Trump to dictate its foreign policy, or be bullied into deciding who it should buy crude oil in India's economic interest to keep buying crude from Russia. If Russian oil is pushed out of the global market - as Trump intends by pressuring countries to stop imports - prices could rise above $100 a barrel, sharply increasing India's import bill. Meanwhile, GoI should use the opportunity that Trump's tariff threats present to lower tariffs to improve India's competitiveness with the world at large. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Berlin to Bharuch: The Borosil journey after the China hit in Europe FIIs are exiting while retail investors stay put. Will a costly market make them pay? BlackRock returns, this time with Ambani. Will it be lucky second time? Paid less than plumbers? The real story of freshers' salaries at Infy, TCS. Stock Radar: Down 27% from highs! Hero MotoCorp stock shows signs of momentum after breaking out from 11-week consolidation For those prepared for the long game: 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of 14 to 33% in one year Financial services: Time to look at a new set for the next cycle? 5 stocks from the financial services space with upside potential of up to 37% These 8 banking stocks can give more than 29% returns in 1 year, according to analysts
The Advertiser
14 hours ago
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
The entitlement of the rich leaves the rest of us in the drink
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The marvellous journalist Tina Brown has a very telling story in her latest column on Substack. Very shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, she and hyper-rich, former media mogul and current convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein managed to get into the still-smoking ruins of Ground Zero, she as a journalist, he as a voyeur. "He was itching for the inside track, as if it was a VIP area at a U2 concert. 'Get us in,' he commanded Matt Hiltzik, his comms guru and fixer, who could have secured an all-access pass to Kim Jong Un's private compound in 20 minutes, if that was Harvey's demand. "It was raining, so the dust stuck to our feet as we tramped past the ghostly figures of ash-covered first responders and gazed up at the anguished, twisted metal that was once the Twin Towers. It was here, in this epic site of tragedy and loss, that I heard Harvey yell at his Afghan driver, 'Assan! Get me a Diet Coke!' It arrived, of course, but was deemed 'not cold enough'." Tina Brown's observation is: "Everyday asshole behavior becomes a badge of power." Forgive the crudity and the American spelling - but I think she has a point. Not all rich people behave badly, but there is an unattractive sense of entitlement among many of them. Where once the rich behaving badly seemed disgraceful, now it seems a badge of pride. Think of Jeff Bezos' disgusting wedding, which, to my mind, showed a contempt for ordinary people through its flaunting of gross wealth. Maybe I'm just being a snob but wealth now seems more showy and vulgar. Trump's golden toilets might be symbols of our time. The Australian psychologist Martina Luongo wrote (citing an article in an American academic journal): "The research highlights that people with more money tend to have an increased sense of self-importance and inflated self-esteem. They often feel that they are entitled to more positive experiences than others, which can lead to feelings of superiority and grandiosity." It's true that we in Australia don't have the shocking examples of moneyed entitlement evident in the United States - no Weinstein, Epstein, or, let's face it, Trump. But, all the same, we do have entitlement - that sense that the rich are entitled to jump the queues that the little people must stay in. Or not dirty their hands too much. Billionaire eco-warrior and private jet traveller Mike Cannon-Brookes recently told more than a hundred staff they were surplus to requirements, according to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian. He did so, they said, over a video message. "The progressive billionaire couldn't even set aside some time for a Zoom, or organise a town hall," the Financial Review reported. "He delivered the bad news dead-eyed, then screen-to-black, followed by employees locked-out of their laptops." Mr Cannon-Brookes did nothing illegal. And he's no doubt a very busy man - but what signal does that "dead-eyed" message send about his concern for the mere minions in his company? The chasm between the rich and the rest of us is widening. A study done at the University of NSW found that "the gap between those with the most and those with the least has blown out over the past two decades, with the average wealth of the highest 20 per cent growing at four times the rate of the lowest 20 per cent". There was a time when people with serious money still seemed to believe they were part of the general community. It still felt like they were in the same boat as the rest of us - maybe in a cabin on an upper deck rather than steerage, but at least in the same boat. That is no longer true. We live in a world where wealth seems untrammelled, a world of flaunted money; private schools; private hospitals; private jets; gated communities; special access; special treatment in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge. Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? HAVE YOUR SAY: Send your thoughts to echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - News Corp's revenue rose by 2 per cent to US$8.5 billion (A$13.1 billion), despite fading income from its news media. - Australian music legend Col Joye, famous for his hit single Bye Bye Baby, has died aged 89. The ARIA Hall of Fame inductee, whose career spanned almost 67 years, was the first homegrown rock and roll singer to have a number one record Australia-wide. - A woman charged with selling Friends star Matthew Perry the dose of ketamine that killed him is headed for a September trial. THEY SAID IT: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." - F. Scott Fitzgerald. YOU SAID IT: I opined, slightly tongue in cheek I thought, that the voting age should be raised, Many of you agreed. But Christopher did not: "Calling it the 'cult of youth' tells us all we need to know about your biases. This Echidna is not the Echidna I like to read each morning - middle-aged drivel." I should say that I dream of being middle-aged. Andrea (68) also disagreed, though with less anger: "My partner (73) and I would prefer to lower the voting age - in our experience, most young people are thoughtful and caring and concerned for their future - while at the same time introducing an age cap on voting, say 70 or 75." Others agreed with me. Brian went a step further, suggesting a test: "There should be some form of exam to show that a person understands the fundamentals of what they're voting for." Lynette said: "I wouldn't have wanted my children or grandchildren to vote at 16. They think they know everything about life but know very little. Twenty-one is a better age." Deb felt: "Lower the voting age? Sounds like the only answer that the many scared, weak and shallow politicians have to try to protect themselves from the scrutiny of an ageing and much wiser population." John said: "Let them grow up first, we, when younger were a little fast to judge everything. Some maturity solves these problems and common sense fights back. So NO to younger age voting." I should say, finally, that I have some sympathy with Christopher's view. "The point of democracy (like a jury) is that it gathers the views of all to get a better collective decision - and worthwhile differing perspectives come from all groups, young and old, male and female, black and white, poor and rich." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The marvellous journalist Tina Brown has a very telling story in her latest column on Substack. Very shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, she and hyper-rich, former media mogul and current convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein managed to get into the still-smoking ruins of Ground Zero, she as a journalist, he as a voyeur. "He was itching for the inside track, as if it was a VIP area at a U2 concert. 'Get us in,' he commanded Matt Hiltzik, his comms guru and fixer, who could have secured an all-access pass to Kim Jong Un's private compound in 20 minutes, if that was Harvey's demand. "It was raining, so the dust stuck to our feet as we tramped past the ghostly figures of ash-covered first responders and gazed up at the anguished, twisted metal that was once the Twin Towers. It was here, in this epic site of tragedy and loss, that I heard Harvey yell at his Afghan driver, 'Assan! Get me a Diet Coke!' It arrived, of course, but was deemed 'not cold enough'." Tina Brown's observation is: "Everyday asshole behavior becomes a badge of power." Forgive the crudity and the American spelling - but I think she has a point. Not all rich people behave badly, but there is an unattractive sense of entitlement among many of them. Where once the rich behaving badly seemed disgraceful, now it seems a badge of pride. Think of Jeff Bezos' disgusting wedding, which, to my mind, showed a contempt for ordinary people through its flaunting of gross wealth. Maybe I'm just being a snob but wealth now seems more showy and vulgar. Trump's golden toilets might be symbols of our time. The Australian psychologist Martina Luongo wrote (citing an article in an American academic journal): "The research highlights that people with more money tend to have an increased sense of self-importance and inflated self-esteem. They often feel that they are entitled to more positive experiences than others, which can lead to feelings of superiority and grandiosity." It's true that we in Australia don't have the shocking examples of moneyed entitlement evident in the United States - no Weinstein, Epstein, or, let's face it, Trump. But, all the same, we do have entitlement - that sense that the rich are entitled to jump the queues that the little people must stay in. Or not dirty their hands too much. Billionaire eco-warrior and private jet traveller Mike Cannon-Brookes recently told more than a hundred staff they were surplus to requirements, according to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian. He did so, they said, over a video message. "The progressive billionaire couldn't even set aside some time for a Zoom, or organise a town hall," the Financial Review reported. "He delivered the bad news dead-eyed, then screen-to-black, followed by employees locked-out of their laptops." Mr Cannon-Brookes did nothing illegal. And he's no doubt a very busy man - but what signal does that "dead-eyed" message send about his concern for the mere minions in his company? The chasm between the rich and the rest of us is widening. A study done at the University of NSW found that "the gap between those with the most and those with the least has blown out over the past two decades, with the average wealth of the highest 20 per cent growing at four times the rate of the lowest 20 per cent". There was a time when people with serious money still seemed to believe they were part of the general community. It still felt like they were in the same boat as the rest of us - maybe in a cabin on an upper deck rather than steerage, but at least in the same boat. That is no longer true. We live in a world where wealth seems untrammelled, a world of flaunted money; private schools; private hospitals; private jets; gated communities; special access; special treatment in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge. Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? HAVE YOUR SAY: Send your thoughts to echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - News Corp's revenue rose by 2 per cent to US$8.5 billion (A$13.1 billion), despite fading income from its news media. - Australian music legend Col Joye, famous for his hit single Bye Bye Baby, has died aged 89. The ARIA Hall of Fame inductee, whose career spanned almost 67 years, was the first homegrown rock and roll singer to have a number one record Australia-wide. - A woman charged with selling Friends star Matthew Perry the dose of ketamine that killed him is headed for a September trial. THEY SAID IT: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." - F. Scott Fitzgerald. YOU SAID IT: I opined, slightly tongue in cheek I thought, that the voting age should be raised, Many of you agreed. But Christopher did not: "Calling it the 'cult of youth' tells us all we need to know about your biases. This Echidna is not the Echidna I like to read each morning - middle-aged drivel." I should say that I dream of being middle-aged. Andrea (68) also disagreed, though with less anger: "My partner (73) and I would prefer to lower the voting age - in our experience, most young people are thoughtful and caring and concerned for their future - while at the same time introducing an age cap on voting, say 70 or 75." Others agreed with me. Brian went a step further, suggesting a test: "There should be some form of exam to show that a person understands the fundamentals of what they're voting for." Lynette said: "I wouldn't have wanted my children or grandchildren to vote at 16. They think they know everything about life but know very little. Twenty-one is a better age." Deb felt: "Lower the voting age? Sounds like the only answer that the many scared, weak and shallow politicians have to try to protect themselves from the scrutiny of an ageing and much wiser population." John said: "Let them grow up first, we, when younger were a little fast to judge everything. Some maturity solves these problems and common sense fights back. So NO to younger age voting." I should say, finally, that I have some sympathy with Christopher's view. "The point of democracy (like a jury) is that it gathers the views of all to get a better collective decision - and worthwhile differing perspectives come from all groups, young and old, male and female, black and white, poor and rich." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The marvellous journalist Tina Brown has a very telling story in her latest column on Substack. Very shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, she and hyper-rich, former media mogul and current convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein managed to get into the still-smoking ruins of Ground Zero, she as a journalist, he as a voyeur. "He was itching for the inside track, as if it was a VIP area at a U2 concert. 'Get us in,' he commanded Matt Hiltzik, his comms guru and fixer, who could have secured an all-access pass to Kim Jong Un's private compound in 20 minutes, if that was Harvey's demand. "It was raining, so the dust stuck to our feet as we tramped past the ghostly figures of ash-covered first responders and gazed up at the anguished, twisted metal that was once the Twin Towers. It was here, in this epic site of tragedy and loss, that I heard Harvey yell at his Afghan driver, 'Assan! Get me a Diet Coke!' It arrived, of course, but was deemed 'not cold enough'." Tina Brown's observation is: "Everyday asshole behavior becomes a badge of power." Forgive the crudity and the American spelling - but I think she has a point. Not all rich people behave badly, but there is an unattractive sense of entitlement among many of them. Where once the rich behaving badly seemed disgraceful, now it seems a badge of pride. Think of Jeff Bezos' disgusting wedding, which, to my mind, showed a contempt for ordinary people through its flaunting of gross wealth. Maybe I'm just being a snob but wealth now seems more showy and vulgar. Trump's golden toilets might be symbols of our time. The Australian psychologist Martina Luongo wrote (citing an article in an American academic journal): "The research highlights that people with more money tend to have an increased sense of self-importance and inflated self-esteem. They often feel that they are entitled to more positive experiences than others, which can lead to feelings of superiority and grandiosity." It's true that we in Australia don't have the shocking examples of moneyed entitlement evident in the United States - no Weinstein, Epstein, or, let's face it, Trump. But, all the same, we do have entitlement - that sense that the rich are entitled to jump the queues that the little people must stay in. Or not dirty their hands too much. Billionaire eco-warrior and private jet traveller Mike Cannon-Brookes recently told more than a hundred staff they were surplus to requirements, according to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian. He did so, they said, over a video message. "The progressive billionaire couldn't even set aside some time for a Zoom, or organise a town hall," the Financial Review reported. "He delivered the bad news dead-eyed, then screen-to-black, followed by employees locked-out of their laptops." Mr Cannon-Brookes did nothing illegal. And he's no doubt a very busy man - but what signal does that "dead-eyed" message send about his concern for the mere minions in his company? The chasm between the rich and the rest of us is widening. A study done at the University of NSW found that "the gap between those with the most and those with the least has blown out over the past two decades, with the average wealth of the highest 20 per cent growing at four times the rate of the lowest 20 per cent". There was a time when people with serious money still seemed to believe they were part of the general community. It still felt like they were in the same boat as the rest of us - maybe in a cabin on an upper deck rather than steerage, but at least in the same boat. That is no longer true. We live in a world where wealth seems untrammelled, a world of flaunted money; private schools; private hospitals; private jets; gated communities; special access; special treatment in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge. Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? HAVE YOUR SAY: Send your thoughts to echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - News Corp's revenue rose by 2 per cent to US$8.5 billion (A$13.1 billion), despite fading income from its news media. - Australian music legend Col Joye, famous for his hit single Bye Bye Baby, has died aged 89. The ARIA Hall of Fame inductee, whose career spanned almost 67 years, was the first homegrown rock and roll singer to have a number one record Australia-wide. - A woman charged with selling Friends star Matthew Perry the dose of ketamine that killed him is headed for a September trial. THEY SAID IT: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." - F. Scott Fitzgerald. YOU SAID IT: I opined, slightly tongue in cheek I thought, that the voting age should be raised, Many of you agreed. But Christopher did not: "Calling it the 'cult of youth' tells us all we need to know about your biases. This Echidna is not the Echidna I like to read each morning - middle-aged drivel." I should say that I dream of being middle-aged. Andrea (68) also disagreed, though with less anger: "My partner (73) and I would prefer to lower the voting age - in our experience, most young people are thoughtful and caring and concerned for their future - while at the same time introducing an age cap on voting, say 70 or 75." Others agreed with me. Brian went a step further, suggesting a test: "There should be some form of exam to show that a person understands the fundamentals of what they're voting for." Lynette said: "I wouldn't have wanted my children or grandchildren to vote at 16. They think they know everything about life but know very little. Twenty-one is a better age." Deb felt: "Lower the voting age? Sounds like the only answer that the many scared, weak and shallow politicians have to try to protect themselves from the scrutiny of an ageing and much wiser population." John said: "Let them grow up first, we, when younger were a little fast to judge everything. Some maturity solves these problems and common sense fights back. So NO to younger age voting." I should say, finally, that I have some sympathy with Christopher's view. "The point of democracy (like a jury) is that it gathers the views of all to get a better collective decision - and worthwhile differing perspectives come from all groups, young and old, male and female, black and white, poor and rich." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The marvellous journalist Tina Brown has a very telling story in her latest column on Substack. Very shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, she and hyper-rich, former media mogul and current convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein managed to get into the still-smoking ruins of Ground Zero, she as a journalist, he as a voyeur. "He was itching for the inside track, as if it was a VIP area at a U2 concert. 'Get us in,' he commanded Matt Hiltzik, his comms guru and fixer, who could have secured an all-access pass to Kim Jong Un's private compound in 20 minutes, if that was Harvey's demand. "It was raining, so the dust stuck to our feet as we tramped past the ghostly figures of ash-covered first responders and gazed up at the anguished, twisted metal that was once the Twin Towers. It was here, in this epic site of tragedy and loss, that I heard Harvey yell at his Afghan driver, 'Assan! Get me a Diet Coke!' It arrived, of course, but was deemed 'not cold enough'." Tina Brown's observation is: "Everyday asshole behavior becomes a badge of power." Forgive the crudity and the American spelling - but I think she has a point. Not all rich people behave badly, but there is an unattractive sense of entitlement among many of them. Where once the rich behaving badly seemed disgraceful, now it seems a badge of pride. Think of Jeff Bezos' disgusting wedding, which, to my mind, showed a contempt for ordinary people through its flaunting of gross wealth. Maybe I'm just being a snob but wealth now seems more showy and vulgar. Trump's golden toilets might be symbols of our time. The Australian psychologist Martina Luongo wrote (citing an article in an American academic journal): "The research highlights that people with more money tend to have an increased sense of self-importance and inflated self-esteem. They often feel that they are entitled to more positive experiences than others, which can lead to feelings of superiority and grandiosity." It's true that we in Australia don't have the shocking examples of moneyed entitlement evident in the United States - no Weinstein, Epstein, or, let's face it, Trump. But, all the same, we do have entitlement - that sense that the rich are entitled to jump the queues that the little people must stay in. Or not dirty their hands too much. Billionaire eco-warrior and private jet traveller Mike Cannon-Brookes recently told more than a hundred staff they were surplus to requirements, according to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian. He did so, they said, over a video message. "The progressive billionaire couldn't even set aside some time for a Zoom, or organise a town hall," the Financial Review reported. "He delivered the bad news dead-eyed, then screen-to-black, followed by employees locked-out of their laptops." Mr Cannon-Brookes did nothing illegal. And he's no doubt a very busy man - but what signal does that "dead-eyed" message send about his concern for the mere minions in his company? The chasm between the rich and the rest of us is widening. A study done at the University of NSW found that "the gap between those with the most and those with the least has blown out over the past two decades, with the average wealth of the highest 20 per cent growing at four times the rate of the lowest 20 per cent". There was a time when people with serious money still seemed to believe they were part of the general community. It still felt like they were in the same boat as the rest of us - maybe in a cabin on an upper deck rather than steerage, but at least in the same boat. That is no longer true. We live in a world where wealth seems untrammelled, a world of flaunted money; private schools; private hospitals; private jets; gated communities; special access; special treatment in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge. Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? HAVE YOUR SAY: Send your thoughts to echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - News Corp's revenue rose by 2 per cent to US$8.5 billion (A$13.1 billion), despite fading income from its news media. - Australian music legend Col Joye, famous for his hit single Bye Bye Baby, has died aged 89. The ARIA Hall of Fame inductee, whose career spanned almost 67 years, was the first homegrown rock and roll singer to have a number one record Australia-wide. - A woman charged with selling Friends star Matthew Perry the dose of ketamine that killed him is headed for a September trial. THEY SAID IT: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." - F. Scott Fitzgerald. YOU SAID IT: I opined, slightly tongue in cheek I thought, that the voting age should be raised, Many of you agreed. But Christopher did not: "Calling it the 'cult of youth' tells us all we need to know about your biases. This Echidna is not the Echidna I like to read each morning - middle-aged drivel." I should say that I dream of being middle-aged. Andrea (68) also disagreed, though with less anger: "My partner (73) and I would prefer to lower the voting age - in our experience, most young people are thoughtful and caring and concerned for their future - while at the same time introducing an age cap on voting, say 70 or 75." Others agreed with me. Brian went a step further, suggesting a test: "There should be some form of exam to show that a person understands the fundamentals of what they're voting for." Lynette said: "I wouldn't have wanted my children or grandchildren to vote at 16. They think they know everything about life but know very little. Twenty-one is a better age." Deb felt: "Lower the voting age? Sounds like the only answer that the many scared, weak and shallow politicians have to try to protect themselves from the scrutiny of an ageing and much wiser population." John said: "Let them grow up first, we, when younger were a little fast to judge everything. Some maturity solves these problems and common sense fights back. So NO to younger age voting." I should say, finally, that I have some sympathy with Christopher's view. "The point of democracy (like a jury) is that it gathers the views of all to get a better collective decision - and worthwhile differing perspectives come from all groups, young and old, male and female, black and white, poor and rich."
Axios
16 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
For AI and stock bubbles, the party has to stop sometime
If you follow markets and the economy, the only thing you've heard over the last few days is that AI spending is propping everything up, from GDP to the S&P, and that can't last forever. Why it matters: When bubbles burst, they don't do it gently. The big picture: Like every land rush in history, from railroads to websites with sock puppet mascots, investor faith in AI is strong enough to ignore all the warning signs around them. Barring the data center boom, underlying economic growth isn't that strong. Valuations in the stock market are stretched beyond all historic norms, and the best earnings growth comes from just a few megacap companies. Tariff policy is starting to show up in inflation data, which threatens to weigh on consumers, the real engine of the economy. What they're saying: " While you can quibble with this or that estimate or figure, the order of magnitudes make it pretty clear that AI itself is not enough to buoy the economy, sales, or earnings ahead," Bob Elliott, chief investment officer at Unlimited Funds, wrote in a Substack post yesterday. "Instead it is going to require an overall economic productivity rise to meet the bulls hopes (and then some)." The intrigue: AI has so far been very good at getting companies to spend on things like chips, buildings and electricity. The spend on all that stuff runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. But it's not translating to spending on people. As Callie Cox, chief market strategist at Ritholtz Wealth Management, put it this week, "The human economy is stumbling, but the robot economy is flourishing." In fact, some employers are touting how many humans they've been able to fire with AI. Less so how many they've been able to keep paying and retrain into more productive work. Reality check: There is no sign yet that any of the biggest players in the market are at all inclined to pull back on spending. If anything, the demand looks to be strengthening, inspiring the most magnificently performed of the Mag 7 — Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia — to continue a voracious pace of talent hiring and infrastructure building. What to watch: How the back and forth plays out between the optimists and the pessimists. A stew of bad headlines caused a sharp market selloff last Friday. There was an equally enthusiastic rebound on Monday before a dip yesterday. "This week will be a telling one: a tug-of-war is unfolding between traditional institutional seasonality, which suggests weakness, and retail investors who may see a dip as a buying opportunity. It's a good test for who's really in control," wrote Mark Hackett, chief market strategist at Nationwide, on Monday.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Jim Acosta Defends AI Interview of Parkland Shooting Victim
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta has been forced to defend his decision to host an interview with an AI avatar meant to mimic a 17-year-old victim of the 2018 Parkland school shooting. Acosta, who left CNN earlier this year to start The Jim Acosta Show, posted the video with the AI avatar to his Substack on Monday. It shows him conversing with an avatar representing Joaquin 'Guac' Oliver, who was one of the 17 victims of the mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. The independent journalist referred to the AI avatar as his 'first guest' on the hour-long show, and said that Oliver's parents created an 'AI version' of their son in order to deliver a 'powerful message on gun violence.' During the five-minute conversation between Acosta and the AI version of Joaquin—which spoke in a somewhat monotone voice that jumped multiple octaves at times—the two discussed Joaquin's death, solutions to gun violence, and Joaquin's hobbies while he was alive. The facsimile of Joaquin seemed to be responding in real time to Acosta's questions. 'I was taken too soon due to gun violence at school,' AI Joaquin said after Acosta asked it 'Can you explain what happened to you?' 'It's important to talk about these issues so that we can create a safer future for everyone.' At another point in the exchange, the AI avatar said, 'I'm all about love, laughter, and living life to the fullest. Though my life was cut short, I want to keep inspiring others to make change.' In addition to answering questions from Acosta, the AI version of Joaquin asked multiple questions itself, inquiring as to Acosta's favorite basketball team and his favorite moment from the Star Wars movies. As they spoke, the AI avatar resembled a human speaking, and the model generating it seemed to spontaneously generate imagery corresponding to the current topic of conversation. After the conversation with the AI avatar ended, Manuel Oliver joined the show to discuss the AI model of his son and its potential future. Acosta told Oliver it was 'inspiring' to 'finally' speak to one of the children involved in a school shooting. 'We've heard from the parents. We've heard from the politicians. Now we're hearing from the kids, which is so important.' Several of the Parkland survivors, including David Hogg and X Gonzalez, went on to found the organization March for Our Lives, which held nationwide protests against gun violence in 2018 and 2022. Notably, Hogg appeared on CNN several times while Acosta was a reporter at the network. Oliver, whom Acosta referred to as a 'good friend,' said that the avatar was 'just the beginning' of what AI could do to represent his late son. 'Joaquin is going to start having followers. He's going to start uploading videos. It's just the beginning,' Oliver said. Oliver told Acosta that he has no illusions about the AI avatar actually being his late son. 'I don't want anyone to think in any way I'm trying to bring my son back. Sadly, I can't. I wish I could.' Joaquin's father told the Daily Beast that a New York-based AI company produced the avatar, and that the interview with Acosta was 'the first ever interview with a victim of gun violence that's not here.' To make the avatar, Oliver provided the company with written materials Joaquin produced before he died, including fictional stories he wrote. Oliver said that he understands why some parents would be hesitant to use the technology, however, he thinks the AI avatar of Joaquin could help bolster advocacy for gun reform. On a deeper level, Oliver said that he savors his own interactions with the avatar. 'As a father, just to be able to hear my son's voice, that's worth it, no matter the criticism,' Oliver said. Still, some critics found the AI-fueled interaction disturbing and disrespectful. Ryan Saavedra, a reporter for the conservative outlet The Daily Wire, hammered Acosta on X for using an 'AI chat bot' to 'push partisan politics.' On the left-leaning social media platform Bluesky, more than 3000 users responded to Acosta's post announcing the episode—many of them critical of the episode. In a comment that received more than 300 likes, one user lambasted Acosta as 'an actual opportunistic ghoul.' Another user, who received 900 likes, addressed Acosta directly and wrote, 'You're interviewing ChatGPT, not Joaquin Oliver. Don't p— on my leg and tell me it's raining." The backlash was sufficiently strong that Acosta posted a video on his Bluesky account of Manuel Oliver defending the creation of the AI avatar and its use on the show. 'His son would be 25 today,' Acosta wrote in the caption accompanying the video, referring to Joaquin's birthday of August 4. 'If the problem you have is with the AI, then you have the wrong problem,' Manuel Oliver said in the video. In recent years, Oliver has become an outspoken advocate for gun reform and founded the organization Change the Ref. 'The real problem is that my son was shot 8 years ago.' Acosta defended his choice to do the AI interview to The Independent and reiterated that Joaquin's family reached out to him to arrange it. 'My heart goes out to them and I was honored to help them in this moment.'
New York Post
a day ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
AI version of Parkland massacre victim isn't the answer to any of our problems
On Monday night, former CNN blowhard Jim Acosta interviewed a slain victim of the 2018 Parkland, Florida, massacre. You read that correctly. Acosta, who now has his own Substack and accompanying YouTube channel, spoke with an artificial intelligence avatar of Joaquin Oliver — one of 17 victims senselessly gunned down by a deranged former classmate at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Advertisement 5 Former CNN reporter Jim Acosta interviewed an AI avatar of Joaquin Oliver (above) who was murdered in the 2018 Parkland massacre. The Jim Acosta Show Joaquin was only 17 when he died. Monday would have been his 25th birthday, surely a difficult day for his loved ones and a moment to lament his stolen future. 'Remembering Joaquin: AI Brings Voice to gun Victims' was the title of the episode. A rather strange summation from Acosta, who has made himself into a warrior against so-called disinformation. Advertisement In reality, it was more of a bizarre AI demonstration than an interview. Acosta asked the computer-generated stand-in about his own 'solution for gun violence.' 'Great question,' said the avatar. 'I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think about that?' Despite the likeness sounding robotic, Acosta acted like he was having a thoughtful human interaction. He went on to ask 'Joaquin' about his favorite movies and sports. Advertisement 5 Jim Acosta (left) also interviewed Manny Oliver about plans for his late son's AI avatar. The Jim Acosta Show ''Star Wars' is such an epic saga. The adventures, the characters and that iconic music are unforgettable,' the avatar responded, adding that he also likes the Miami Heat and LeBron James. 'Joaquin' ended each answer by tossing an automated-sounding question back to Acosta — bringing to mind the computer in the 1983 Matthew Broderick movie 'War Games.' And yet Acosta continued with the unsettling charade. He noted that we've heard politicians' takes on the shooting, but 'now we're hearing from one of the kids. That's important.' Advertisement It's also false. And grotesque. Like a dystopian plot come to life. We were hearing not from a victim but an uncanny-valley likeness uploaded with activist talking points and, according to his father, Manny Oliver, some of Joaquin's own writings and social media posts. 5 Joaquin Oliver, who was killed in the Parkland shooting, is seen on the right with his parents Manny and Patricia. The Jim Acosta Show Acosta was rightly and roundly criticized for 'interviewing' an AI avatar. In response to the backlash, the victim's father said, 'If the problem you have is with the AI, then you have the wrong problem. The real problem is my son was shot.' No one is arguing that last part. The massacre in Parkland was the result of many systemic failures, and a bloody stain on our history. I understand that the Oliver family's grief must be so immense that they'll do anything to keep their son's legacy alive. However, it's not about how Joaquin died, but the decision to resurrect their son as an activist with Acosta aiding and abetting this dangerous delusion. The whole endeavor raises ethical questions and further muddies our already twisted reality. 5 The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School left 17 innocent people dead. AFP/Getty Images Advertisement Are we really hurtling toward transhumanism this quickly? Do the dead have any say in how they are used after they leave this Earth? Joaquin's father emphasized that he understood this is indeed AI and that he cannot bring back his son. But, he said, hearing his child's voice brings comfort to him and his wife. No one should deny them that private pursuit of comfort. But he is also hoping his son's AI becomes an influencer. In 2024, Manny Oliver and his gun-control group 'Change the Ref' also used his son's voice to send a message to members of Congress, urging them to vote for more gun control measures. Advertisement 5 Manuel Oliver, seen with his wife Patricia Oliver and a photo of their son Joaquin, also formed the gun-control activist group Change the Ref. Larry Marano 'Now Joaquin is gonna start having followers … He's going to start uploading videos. This is just the beginning,' said Manny, adding that 'moving forward, we will have Joaquin on stage in the middle of a debate. And knowledge is solid. His knowledge is unlimited.' But can a computer really know the thoughts and soul of a human being? Advertisement Using AI as a vessel isn't going to save the world or stop gun violence. From what I've seen thus far, it will just add more well-meaning but ultimately nonsubstantive sentiments to this contentious subject. Let's not be like Acosta and pretend otherwise.
