“if tariffs are linked to prosperity, it’s an inverse relationship, according to a recent report on America’s declining economic freedom for Canada’s Fraser Institute. The authors, Robert A. Lawson of Southern Methodist University and Fraser’s own Matthew D. Mitchell, write: “High-tariff countries are generally low-income countries while low-tariff countries are generally high-income countries. In the high-tariff countries, average GDP per capita is just $9,703 per year,” while “in low-tariff countries, it is $43,502 per year.”
In 2023, the U.S. had an average tariff rate of 3.3 percent, which put us in the company of such countries as Singapore and Hong Kong (zero percent each), Brunei (0.5 percent), Israel (1.3 percent), New Zealand (1.9 percent), Australia (2.4 percent), and Iceland (3.3 percent). This year’s tariff shift has been marked by wild fluctuations. But the average tariff rate on April 15 was 28 percent and is now around 19 percent. That puts the U.S. amongst the likes of Zimbabwe (18 percent), Chad (18.1 percent), Republic of the Congo (18.1 percent), Algeria (18.9 percent), and Egypt (19 percent).”
“Though job growth was low, layoffs were also relatively low. That said, people who have been fired or laid off have struggled to get back on their feet: “The number of people with continued unemployment claims has been elevated since April,” reports The New York Times.”
Private equity sometimes takes a loan to buy a company, gives the company the debt of the loan, sells things of value from the company to put in private equity’s pocket, then let the company fail and wash their hands clean of all the debt. This also means a company that may have been able to survive and continue serving customers, is destroyed.
“many of Kirk’s most ardent fans are now engaged in one of the largest mass cancellation efforts of all time: Some Republican legislators, MAGA activists, and conservative media figures are assembling watchlists with the explicit aim of silencing, firing, expelling, and perhaps even criminalizing any and all anti-Kirk sentiment.
…
There is also a big difference between canceling someone for justifying violence against Kirk and canceling someone who merely objects to his views, behavior, and political project. Furthermore, there’s a major difference between canceling someone in a public-facing communications role and canceling someone who is otherwise obscure.
…
Opposing cancel culture does not mean there should be zero accountability for anyone in a public role. It only means that those of us who denounced the excesses of woke enforcement during the late 2010s should similarly reject a rightwing counterreaction that seeks to unperson anyone who does not hold Kirk in sufficient esteem.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that Kirk disdained cancel culture and loved debate—seriously, he relished the fray more than most, and enjoyed mixing it up with people who obviously disliked him. Launching a vast and unscrupulous campaign to silence everyone who shares an unkind thought about Kirk is a poor way to honor his legacy.”
Trump has repeatedly suggested that broadcast stations that air things he doesn’t like should get their licenses revoked. Two late night hosts appear to have been suspended or let go at the desire of Trump and his administration. Where are the free speech warriors now? Was it all a lie?
These companies also need federal approval for desired mergers.
“Monday night on his ABC talk show, Jimmy Kimmel said something dumb about Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah last week. Two days later, ABC, which is owned by Disney, announced that it was “indefinitely” suspending the comedian’s show.
Maybe the Disney executives who made that decision—CEO Robert A. Iger and Dana Walden, who oversees the company’s television division—were simply reacting to public outrage at Kimmel’s remarks. But the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! was announced several hours after Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), suggested that TV stations might be fined or lose their licenses for broadcasting the show. That constitutionally dubious threat shows how the FCC can abuse its regulatory powers to suppress speech that offends President Donald Trump and his allies…
If the First Amendment means anything, it means that federal bureaucrats may not punish private companies for giving a forum to politically disfavored speakers.”
“In addition to not being very funny, the observation rested on a false assumption—that the presumed killer, 22-year-old Utah man Tyler Robinson, is a conservative…
Brendan Carr, chair of Federal Communications Commission (FCC), weighed in on the matter; not only did he criticize what Kimmel had to say, he also implicitly threatened the broadcasters. (Kimmel’s show appears on ABC.)…
This was not an idle threat. The FCC licenses broadcast channels, and can fine them or even take them off the air. Moreover, the FCC oversees mergers of companies in the communications space. Nexstar Media, which owns many of the ABC local affiliate stations that air Kimmel, is attempting to acquire Tegna Inc., a rival firm; the FCC needs to okay the deal. There’s a lot at stake, and FCC can make life very difficult for companies that defy it.
And so, on Wednesday night, both Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group—another major telecommunications company—informed ABC that they would not air Kimmel on their affiliate stations. ABC then opted to place the show on indefinite hiatus….
This is outrageous. Not because Kimmel is gone: Private companies have the right to determine their programming as they see fit…
But it shouldn’t be a government decision. By inserting itself into the controversy and appearing to twist the arms of private companies so that they would make editorial decisions that please the Trump administration, the FCC is clearly engaged in a kind of censorship.
As Glenn Greenwald put it, “This shouldn’t be a complicated or difficult dichotomy to understand. Jimmy Kimmel is repulsive, but the state has no role in threatening companies to fire on-air voices it dislikes or who the state believes is spreading “disinformation,” which is exactly what happened here.””