Latest news with #WhiteHouse
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump touts foreign policy wins during Scotland golf course visit: 'Stopped about five wars'
President Donald Trump said during a visit to his gold course in Aberdeen, Scotland, that he "stopped about five wars" and would soon return to Washington, D.C., because that's "much more important than playing golf."
Daily Mail
15 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Investor who called 2008 crash delivers grim warning to the US
Billionaire hedge fund titan Ray Dalio (pictured), who famously predicted the 2008 financial crash, has sounded a stark alarm over America's spiraling debt. Dalio warned that without swift action to slash the federal deficit, the US could face an 'economic heart attack' in the next three years. 'If the US doesn't cut the deficit to 3 percent of the GDP, and soon, we risk facing an economic heart attack in the next three years,' Dalio wrote on X. 'The good news is that these cuts are possible.' The national debt is nearing $37 trillion — equal to 99 percent of GDP — and the Congressional Budget Office projects it could hit 150 percent by 2055. Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates — the world's biggest hedge fund — said a 4 percent adjustment to spending and tax revenues could stabilize the economy and even lower interest rates. 'We know this kind of balance is possible because it happened between 1991 and 1998,' he wrote, pointing to previous bipartisan deficit deals. 'My fear is that we will probably not make these needed cuts due to political reasons, and will have even more debt and debt service encroaching on our spending that will ultimately lead to a serious supply-demand problem.' Dalio has repeatedly warned that economic decisions made by the White House will end in economic catastrophe. In April the billionaire spoke against Trump's decision to launch a global trade war via tariffs on America's trading partners. 'Some people believe that the tariff disruptions will settle down as more negotiations happen and greater thought is given to how to structure them to work in a sensible way,' Dalio wrote in a post on social media site X. 'I am now hearing from a large and growing number of people who are having to deal with these issues that it is already too late.' JPMorgan's CEO Jamie Dimon (pictured) warned last month that the US economy was on shifting 'tectonic plates' and warned that inflation could once again rear its ugly head. 'You have all these really complex, moving tectonic plates around trade, economics, geopolitics, and future factors, which I think are inflationary: military, restructuring of trade, ongoing fiscal deficits,; he told the Morgan Stanley US Financials Conference. The co-founder of Home Depot Ken Lagone also raised concerns about US debt, and said it is a 'scary' indicator for the state of the economy. The billionaire said he hoped Washington would heed his warning that 'we have to be mindful of the importance of our status in the world economy and the world markets. 'If we fritter that away, we're in trouble,' the 89-year-old said. 'Four weeks ago, we couldn't float a 20-year bond. They were unbiased. That's a dangerous signal. That's the beginning,' Langone said referencing recent crises in the bond market.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
William Watson: Government-managed trade is sure to fail again
Those are some trade deals Donald Trump is shaking hands on — but so far not releasing details about. The U.S. gets tariff-free access to other countries while other countries pay stiff across-the-board tariffs going into the U.S. The U.K. pays 10 per cent, the EU and Japan 15 per cent, Indonesia and the Philippines 19 per cent and Vietnam 20 per cent. What China will pay remains to be determined. It typically pushes back more in response to Trump's jibes and jabs. Perhaps President Xi Jinping read the sections of the Art of the Deal about the need to stand up to bullies. Silly question: If a virtue of tariffs is that they're clean and simple, as the U.S. president always says, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the same across-the-board rate for all countries? And whatever happened to 'reciprocity,' which the White House was big on a couple of months ago? Tariffs of 10-20 per cent for other countries' goods going into the U.S. but zero for American goods entering other countries are hardly 'reciprocal.' Yes, the rates chosen supposedly reflect the amount of procedural protectionism or non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that countries impose on U.S. goods. Except that no systematic study of that in fact much-studied problem has produced numbers that look like the pattern the deals reveal. And of course the U.S. itself is no stranger to NTBs and procedural protectionism. Just ask our softwood lumber industry. What the emerging regime looks like most is affirmative action for American businesses. They evidently can't compete with wily foreigners deploying unfair practices against them. And they're unwilling to abide by the (presumably rigged) decisions of international trade tribunals set up, under U.S. leadership actually, to make sure governments discriminate as little as possible against one another's firms. Even as the Trump administration abolishes affirmative action from U.S. society in general, it imposes it in international trade. Also strange are the commitments by other countries to invest given dollar amounts in the U.S. and to buy given amounts of U.S. goods, especially Boeing aircraft. Japan's going to buy 100 Boeing planes (not clear yet whether doors will be extra) and invest $550 billion in the U.S., with the U.S. somehow getting 90 per cent of the profit on this investment. Details to follow. When we economists teach international trade theory we customarily talk about (to cite the classic example) Portugal selling wine to the U.K. in return for wool. But in the real world, the non-communist parts of it at least, countries generally don't buy and sell goods and services to each other. Rather, people and companies in their millions and billions decide what goods and services to buy and their accumulated choices generate the trade flows we see. That type of trade system accords very well with the traditionally very American view that governments should not run economies, people and businesses should, with the government restricting itself to policing property rights and providing good public services at a reasonable tax price. But now governments, America's included, apparently want to manage the intricate details of the supply chain. In support of the Trump tariffs, some American politicians say it's simply not efficient for car parts to cross the Canada-U.S. or U.S.-Mexico border several times before cars are complete, as sometimes happens. But who are they to say? Since 1965's Canada-U.S. Auto Pact car companies have decided, free of tariffs, how best to put cars together. If it made economic sense to make and assemble all the parts in one location — if that's what maxed out their profits — you can bet that's what they'd do. If they don't do that, it's because that isn't the most efficient way to do things, given costs, technologies and transportation costs. Politicians should stick to matters such as Jeffrey Epstein and let car companies figure out how best to make cars. Why have Americans traditionally resisted government micro-management of the economy? Have a listen to the soundtrack of Hamilton. Because they abhor the concentration of power in a politico-industrial complex. Because not even a stable genius in the White House — not to suggest that's what we have now — would be smart enough to outsmart the combined intelligence and creativity of the entire American population when channelled through price- and efficiency-revealing markets. And, finally, because the invisible hand of competition is the best way to restrain the grasping hand of corruption. Corruption is not unknown in the private sector, of course. Humans are humans everywhere and always prey to temptation. But if you have competition — which in a small country like Canada is often provided by imports and foreign investors — companies or individuals that go astray get punished in the marketplace. And decisions don't get made for political reasons. Donald Trump always says he wants Canadian auto jobs to move to Michigan and Ohio, which, no coincidence, are two battleground states. Every president, not just the transparently venal, will favour places he wants his party to win in the next election, whenever that is. The only way to avoid such corruption is to remove power from politicians and vest it in markets. William Watson: All checks, no balances here in Nastyland William Watson: Our better-funded military will need to be more lethal I do understand such arguments are in disfavour at the moment. I bet the future vindicates them, as it always does. But the process won't be fun. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Trump doubles down on claims Harris paid for endorsements, says she should be ‘prosecuted'
President Trump on Saturday doubled down on his accusations that former Vice President Harris paid celebrities to endorse her during the 2024 presidential election. The president, echoing previous claims that Harris paid Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton to support her White House bid throughout the campaign trail, said Harris and the celebrities involved should be 'prosecuted.' 'YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out,' the president wrote in a Truth Social post. 'Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added. Trump made similar claims about the former vice president earlier this year and late last year. 'Beyoncé didn't sing, Oprah didn't do much of anything (she called it 'expenses'), and Al is just a third rate Con Man,' he said in December. In Saturday's post, the president claimed Harris paid $11 million to Beyoncé, $3 million to Oprah, and $600,000 to Sharpton. Oprah previously said she 'was not paid a dime' to appear alongside Harris at a live-streamed event. Production fees were covered by the campaign, however. 'The people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story,' she wrote last fall. The Harris campaign previously denied paying Beyoncé for an endorsement. Records from the Federal Elections Commission show the Harris campaign did pay Beyonce's production company Parkwood Production Media LLC $165,000. Such reimbursements are frequently associated with large event production and cannot be donated to political campaigns. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
NHK
17 hours ago
- Politics
- NHK
Kim Jong Un's sister suggests talks with the US are possible but with conditions
The sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has suggested the possibility of new summit talks with the US, but ruled out Pyongyang giving up its nuclear-weapons program. Kim Yo Jong, vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party, issued a statement via the state-run media on Tuesday. She said, "I do not want to deny the fact that the personal relationship between the head of our state and the present US president is not bad." But Kim added that if the personal relations of the two are to serve the purpose of denuclearization, "it can be interpreted as nothing but a mockery of the other party." She reiterated North Korea's "irreversible position" as a nuclear-weapons state. Kim stressed that "it is by no means beneficial to each other for the two countries possessed of nuclear weapons to go in a confrontational direction," suggesting that fresh talks with the US are possible. But her remarks are viewed as a rejection that any future talks would be based on the premise of North Korea's denuclearization. US President Donald Trump met Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019 during his first term. Trump was not able to reach agreement with Kim but is still willing to meet him again in his current term. Reuters news agency quoted a White House official as saying, "Trump remains open to engaging with Kim to achieve a fully de-nuclearized North Korea."
