SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " industry " 3,165 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Small Business Technology News This Week: AI Shopping Searches Surges, Thryv And Wix Partner, Gemini Notebook Gets An Upgrade
AI adoption is accelerating across commerce and industry, as new partnerships and tools help businesses improve sales, cash flow, productivity and efficiency.
Watchdog for $46 billion tribal gambling industry can't enforce the law without a chairperson
The Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma opened its new Harrah’s-branded casino in April.
How Texas is courting Wall Street with ‘Y’all Street’
Texas has spent a decade luring the finance industry to Dallas with tax incentives, new laws and a stock exchange of its own. Inside the rise of “Y’all Street.”
Can Science Applications International (SAIC) Justify Its Valuation After New Defense Contract Wins?
Science Applications International (SAIC) recently announced a $400 million recompete contract with a U.S. Intelligence Agency, along with a $70 million U.S. Navy radar task order. These deals underscore fresh contract momentum in government and defense work. See our latest analysis for Science Applications International. These fresh contract wins come as Science Applications International shares trade at US$126.54, with a 90-day share price return of 36.58% and a 5-year total shareholder...
GungHo Online Entertainment (TSE:3765) P/E Premium Clashes With Shrinking Margins
GungHo Online Entertainment stock came into this earnings release with a muted setup, slightly weaker over the past week but modestly higher over the past month. The headline today is not a revenue story. It is the squeeze between a rich P/E of 52.1x and a thin 2.5% trailing net margin that keeps slipping from the 5.8% level a year earlier. The market is being asked to pay up for future growth while living with weaker profitability and a dividend yield of 3.77% that is not well covered. That...
Positive outlook for cattle business as summer business meeting concludes
With optimism for the cattle business remaining strong, nearly 700 cattle producers from across the country gathered in Colorado, for the Cattle Industry Summer Business Meeting.
‘It’s been chaotic’: Trump’s immigration crackdown prompts worries from industry groups
Industry groups ranging from construction to agriculture are raising concerns with the Trump administration over its ongoing immigration crackdown, arguing it is undercutting President Donald Trump’s agenda and weakening the economy, according to multiple groups who spoke with CNN and sources close to the White House.
Trump questions Texas data center move in surging political battle
President Trump is touting the benefits of AI data centers after Texas moved to more strictly regulate the industry, which has rapidly become a political lightning rod across the political spectrum…
Flutter Entertainment (FLUT) On Guidance Cuts And Losses Still Looks Undervalued
Guidance cut, net loss and delisting put Flutter Entertainment in focus Flutter Entertainment (NYSE:FLUT) is under close watch after a Q2 2026 net loss, a cut to full year revenue guidance and confirmation that its shares now trade only on the New York Stock Exchange. The shift in guidance reflects higher investment to build U.S. market share and the impact of specific sports results on revenue. These moves, together with the London delisting, are shaping how investors reassess Flutter...
AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) Rallies While Fair Value Narratives Stay Cautious
Recent momentum in AMC Entertainment Holdings stock Recent trading interest in AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) has picked up after the stock showed strong momentum in recent weeks, supported by upward earnings estimate revisions and a favorable third party ranking. See our latest analysis for AMC Entertainment Holdings. For context, AMC Entertainment Holdings has a recent 30-day share price return of 35.60% and a 90-day share price return of 72.67%, while the 1-year total shareholder return...
PENN Entertainment (PENN) Stock Profit Rebound Faces Lingering Digital Doubts
PENN Entertainment stock barely moved on the results, edging up about 0.3% to US$20.18, even though the earnings story was anything but sleepy. Q2 flipped back into the black with basic earnings per share of US$0.25 and net income of US$33.1m. Retail casinos produced record quarterly revenue and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and rent that management highlighted on the call. The market reaction looks muted for now. The real question for investors is how...
Full body MOTs - the future of healthcare or a headache for the NHS?
The private body scan industry is booming, but is it doing more harm than good?
President Trump pumps up the 'Protect College Sports Act' as the Senate works to pass it
Trump urged Congress on Truth Social to pass the "Protect College Sports Act," warning that women's and Olympic sports will disappear without it.
President Trump Urges U.S. Automakers to Think Tiny
While tiny cars could be a cheap option for car buyers, industry analysts say U.S. automakers are trending toward manufacturing larger, pricier cars
President Trump Urges U.S. Automakers to Think Tiny
While tiny cars could be a cheap option for car buyers, industry analysts say U.S. automakers are trending toward manufacturing larger, pricier cars
These 'five pillars' for living healthier longer are easy and affordable
Longevity has become a bit of a buzz word, and has become increasingly aligned with the tech industry. But while it remains unclear whether the billions of US dollars being invested in life-extending bioscience is something any of us can access, a timely report from Harvard Medical School reminds us what we can do on our own – and it's backed by a huge body of evidence.
Trump warned that Congress is trying to regulate the AI industry "out of business"
NIST separately proposed new federal guidelines Friday for evaluating AI systems, asking for public comment
Trump says Congress wants to regulate AI industry 'out of business'
U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Congress wants to regulate the AI industry "out of business," according to a Punchbowl News interview published on Friday.
Trump says Congress wants to regulate AI industry ‘out of business’
By Courtney Rozen WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Congress wants to regulate the AI industry "out of business," according to a Punchbowl News interview published on Friday. Trump's remarks underscore a widening...
Trump says Congress wants to regulate AI industry 'out of business'
U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Congress wants to regulate the AI industry "out of business," according to a Punchbowl News interview published on Friday. Trump's remarks underscore a wid...
Take-Two CEO On The Industry Going All Digital: 'Discs Don't Really Make Sense For The Consumer'
Strauss Zelnick thinks his company will still produce some physical games "now and then"
U.S. Lost 23,000 Jobs In July, But Entertainment Industry Saw An Uptick
The U.S. economy lost 23,000 in July, while the unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.1%. The figures showed declines in local government education and retail trade, according to the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The job loss was unexpected, with analysts estimating a gain of as much as 100,000. Jobs in movies and …
U.S. Lost 23,000 Jobs In July, But Entertainment Industry Saw An Uptick
The U.S. economy lost 23,000 in July, while the unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.1%. The figures showed declines in local government education and retail trade, according to the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The job loss was unexpected, with analysts estimating a gain of as much as 100,000. Jobs in movies and […]
Industry and academic leaders explore how engineering innovation is powering the next era of space science at the 46th COSPAR Scientific Assembly
Leading voices from across the aerospace industry and academia gathered in Florence, Italy for the panel titled "Engineering Innovation Enabling Scientific Research," examining how advances in engineering are unlocking new scientific missions and how ambitious science goals are, in turn, driving engineering breakthroughs. The panel, moderated by Alison Nordt, Director of Space Sciences & Instrumentation at Lockheed Martin Space's Advanced Technology Center, brought together six panellists to discuss the evolving relationship between space science and systems engineering: Marius Anger (Aalto University), Jon Arenberg (Northrop Grumman), Mayra Montrose (L3Harris), Giampiero Di Paolo (Thales Alenia Space Italia), Steve Squyres (Blue Origin) and Eric Stallmer (Voyager).
Employee versus entrepreneur mentality: Is the wealth management business 'dying comfortably'?
As the industry logs record-high profits alongside anemic organic growth, it's time to ask whether firms have permanently lost their business development muscle.
Flutter Entertainment (FLUT) Stock Faces Margin Squeeze Despite Steady Revenue
Flutter Entertainment walked into this earnings print with a stock that has quietly drifted lower over the past month, yet the immediate reaction has been almost flat. The share price edged only 0.1% higher to about US$93, even as the company reported a sharp squeeze in adjusted EBITDA and a group net loss in the quarter. The market mood looks numb rather than shocked. Traders appear focused on the profit hit from heavier U.S. marketing and higher taxes. The more patient question is whether...
Trump imposes 15% tariff on key chip material to counter China
The move aims to protect US firms as they face increasing competition from China's chip industry.
Why US water systems are vulnerable to foreign cyberattacks
A cyberattack on water systems in a dozen states is exposing years of under-investment in critical infrastructure and how US adversaries can threaten services that everyday Americans take for granted, according to industry experts and current and former US officials.
Nashville names Sarah Childress as new Office of Entertainment director
Music City is giving its entertainment industry a new point person.
Community Leaders, Horse Industry, Business Community and More Praise Governor Moore Preakness Announcement
Community Leaders, Horse Industry, Business Community and More Praise Governor Moore Preakness Announcement
CLEAR Launches Corporate Memberships, Bringing Seamless Travel Benefits to Business Travelers From Home to Gate
/PRNewswire/ -- CLEAR (NYSE: YOU), the secure identity company, announced the launch of CLEAR Corporate Memberships, an industry-first enterprise offering that...
Why Normal People Aren’t Using AI Agents
The tech industry is realizing it needs to build agents based on what regular consumers want, not just what its AI models can do.
Cereals & Grains conference connects science, technology
The conference will unite cereal and grain experts from industry, academia and government to explore solutions.
Medicare pushes ACCESS but doesn't tell patients what providers offer it
In this edition: Progress report on ACCESS, Medicare's chronic care pilot, and health regulators courting industry on AI regulation.
BP to sell landfill RNG business Archaea Energy
The energy major announced it’s marketing Archaea amid a strategic pivot to streamline its business. BP’s $4.1 billion acquisition of Archaea four years ago stands as a high water mark in the RNG industry.
What’s working in the sports collectibles world: Industry leaders share what they’re seeing
Sports collectibles records are being shattered on a near daily basis. We asked industry leaders what's driving that success.
Student-Produced Beehive Block Party Opens Doors to Live Entertainment Careers
South Los Angeles students gained hands-on entertainment industry experience by producing the Live Nation-backed Beehive Block Party, the culminating event of the SoLa Live Accelerator Program.
Federal regulators invite industry, researchers, and lobbyists to closed-door meetings on clinical AI
Federal health officials invited tech companies and lobbyists to closed-door meetings as they seek to boost adoption of clinical AI.
Deloitte names new Chicago managing partner
The change at the top of Deloitte’s Chicago office comes as firms across the accounting and consulting industry move to consolidate.
Court says defamation suit raises First Amendment questions
A federal appeals court has signaled that it might not allow a lawsuit brought by New England fishing businesses and industry groups against a California aquarium to proceed because of the case's potential impact on free speech.
This OnlyFans competitor, developed at Harvard, wants to rethink the adult entertainment industry
MintStars, an adult platform with paid subscribers and a streamlined payment system for content creators, was incubated at Harvard Innovation Labs in Boston in 2023.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science calling for seafood industry to participate in wind energy survey
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is calling on the seafood industry to participate an upcoming survey about potential offshore wind energy
Foldable Smartphone Sales to Rise 20% This Year Due to 'iPhone Ultra'
Global foldable smartphone shipments are expected to grow 20% in 2026 compared to last year, with Apple's first entry into the category cited as one of the factors driving the increase, according to industry sources cited by DigiTimes. The report notes that the broader smartphone market is contending with tighter supply of upstream logic chips and higher memory prices, but says the foldable segment is expected to keep expanding regardless.
Chartbook 464 The"China squeeze" - the politics of development counterfactuals.
There are three types of China shock discourse. Each has a distinct temporal register. China shock 1.0 was a phrase coined by US academics in the 2010s to retrospectively summarize the impact on particular US labour markets, which they identified through painstaking empirical investigation. China shock 2.0 on everyone’s lips in Europe in the mid 2020s is an alarm raised by trans-Atlantic policy thinkers warning of a coming disaster which they project onto Europe’s ailing car industry. The third type of China shock discourse - commonly known as the “China squeeze” launched most recently by Indian economists Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian in the pages of Foreign Affairs - mobilizes a different, more speculative temporal register: the counterfactual realm of alternate history. The China squeeze argument asks not what has happened, or what is going to happen, but what might have been. Specifically, what options for economic development might have been open to Global South economies like India or the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, had it not been for China’s spectacular industrialization since the late 1990s and the persistent competitiveness of China’s manufacture in low-skilled segments. Chatterjee and Subramanian’s argument is that whilst China has built a powerful position in electrical machinery and other high-skill manufacturing, which is now delivering China Shock 2.0, it also continues to run a trade surplus in low-skill, labour-intensive manufacturing. This surplus is large and has remained largely unchanged in fifteen years. Indeed, in the 2010s, in trade with low-income countries, China’s surplus rapidly increased. On their reading, this squeezes low-income producers in low-skill sectors in which they “should” be able to compete. Source: “China’s Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries” Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian. Peterson Institute for International Economics 26-7 May 2026 Chatterjee and Subramanian’s wording is telling: (emphasis mine) The canonical trajectory of economic development in the post-World War II period is for countries to transition from agriculture to manufacturing, first in low-skilled manufacturing and then later on to high-skill manufacturing (Herrendorf, Rogerson, and Valentinyi 2013). At the global level, this implies that high-income countries (HICs) that once specialized in low-skilled activities cede manufacturing export space to poorer countries that come along to occupy that space. In 1965, advanced economies accounted for about 60 percent of global value-added exports in four key low-skilled manufacturing sectors, i.e., apparel, leather, textiles, and footwear. Over time this share declined and began to be occupied first by the East Asian tigers and, beginning in the late 1990s, by China. Today China accounts for about 50 percent of the global market. The question is whether China, with its rising prosperity, is continuing to behave like its richer counterparts and ceding export space to poorer followers or to behave unlike them and continuing to occupy space. In terms of the conceptual maneuvers it performs, of the three China shock discourses, the “China squeeze” argument is by far the most ambitious. After all, it bases its critique of China on a counterfactual imagining of the world. Like any counterfactual argument, to construct this alternative reality it must rely on a heuristic model. To make their argument Chatterjee and Subramanian mobilize two key claims. The first reference point is the actual history of rich-country industrialization, what they refer to as the “canonical path”. The idea is that countries transition from agriculture to light industry and low-skilled manufacturing and from there up the value chain. To make this useful as a standard of comparison and a means to construct a normative standard, they adjust sectoral export shares for two factors: 1. the underlying level of economic development of the exporting country, as measured by national income and 2. the degree to which the sector in question is internationalized. The idea being that for a high income country to have a high export share in low-skill sectors is anomalous and even more so if that particular product is highly internationalized and thus suitable for being “conceded” to lower-income competitors. Where should this process end? Here Chatterjee and Subramanian introduce their second benchmark. Their normative idea of a global development path is one in which, in due course, low-skill manufacturing exports are distributed in proportion to a country’s share in the global labour force. They imagine, in other words, a world of proportional, polycentric global development without much national specialization in low-skill manufacturing. A useful benchmark is that, in labor-intensive manufacturing sectors, a country’s share of world exports should be broadly commensurate with its share of the world’s low-skilled labor endowment. … In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, this would be true if value added per worker and export propensities, i.e., fraction of output that is exported, are the same across countries. It is this pleasant liberal vista of orderly global development, progressing towards a general distribution of low-skilled manufacturing against which they judge reality and conclude that the low-income countries are suffering a “China squeeze”. China is not exiting low-skill sectors fast enough Allowing for its gdp level and the degree of globalization, China’s share of low-skill manufacturing exports is far higher than it “should” be. Relative to population, its low-skill share of exports is far too high. That in turn yields the conclusion that huge numbers of jobs - the authors suggest tens of millions - are being hoarded by China. For the four sectors captured in figure 4, this excess in value-added exports is $110 billion in 2022. For all low-skilled sectors overall captured in appendix figure D.1, excess value-added exports amount to $365 billion. The crowding out of LMIC exports by China is therefore substantial. Both these claims have in common that they are strong structuralisms. The first is that development paths ought to resemble each other. The second is that broadly speaking as far as low-skilled manufacturing is concerned, all countries are alike. If the world currently diverges from the distribution of trade implied by these assumptions, if China is not following the advanced economy path and has huge exports, this must be the result of “policy”, which the authors then put in question as illegitimate or unfair. Thus the naturalistic construction of a canonical path leading to a “level” distribution of low-skilled manufacturing reveals itself to be a polemical tool. From the point of view of China shock polemics, this discourse is no doubt welcome. But as an account of economic history, it must surely be regarded as nothing short of bamboozling. Development paths do not follow a regular, natural sequence. As David Fishman put it aptly, “development is not a queue”. They are always and everywhere, through and through political. Development is not so much a process, as a project. Each such project is more or less well adjusted to its context. As Gerschenkron taught uneven and combined development implies differentiation rather than simple imitation on a single parth. It may be true that Europe and the US exited relatively early from low-skill work. But clearly technology has changed. As C&S themselves point out, China no longer enjoys a low wage environment. Do they really believe that such huge differences can be accounted for either by industrial policy, which as they admit does not operate powerfully in low-skill sectors, or by exchange rate manipulation? What is overwhelmingly dominant in explaining the persistence of “low-skill” manufacturing in China are surely the network effects of complex supply chains. Indeed the label of “low-skill” may miss the point. The degree of globalization which Chatterjee and Subramanian decide to conjure away in their model of the development path - to allow for the fact that Europe and American textiles exporters did not enjoy just-in-time logistics in the 1950s - obscures the point that the networks through which Chinese factories supply the world are themselves key parts of the low-skill industrialization project. China isn’t knocking out 1970s style “cheap”. It has redefined the entire product cycle. C&S’s casual reference to “T-shirts” is telling. In today’s “fast fashion”, there is weight on both terms. Fashion and fast. China’s success in delivering on both at unprecedentedly high speed and at unprecedentedly low cost, isn’t a low-skill operation at all. If we see development trajectories not as the serial repetition of the same, but as distinctive, crafted projects that cumulate in complex agglomerations of skill, technology and labor, then this explains why the assumption that low-skilled manufacturing should follow the distribution of population flies in the face of all experience. As countless cases attest, low-wage, low-income developed economies are not by themselves the makings of a competitive production base. As Leon Liao puts it quite fairly: “International trade has never been allocated according to population. A country’s population gives it no natural claim to an equivalent share of global exports." And the remarkable fact is that Subramanian alone and with co-authors has long been making this point, not to pillory China, as is the case of the tendentious _Foreign Affair_s and Peterson pieces, but to highlight the great counterpart to China’s industrial success, namely India’s relative failure. The much-quoted Foreign Affairs piece showed low-skill export shares only for China, not for India. If you put both countries in the picture as Chaterjee and Subramanian have done on other occasions, the picture looks like this. China is far above the line, but India, almost as large in terms of population, is no less anomalous, just in the opposite direction. As far as global populations are concerned, and the imagining of tens of millions of “squeezed” jobs, it is this Sino-Indian pair that account for a huge share of the action. What this graph reveals is not China’s cheating, but India’s “greatest development failure”, at least this is the argument made Arvind Subramanian, this time in co-authorship with Devesh Kapur, in their major book, A Sixth of Humanity. Independent India’s Development Odyssey which appeared with Oxford University Press earlier this year. In this highly critical work on India’s development, China is repeatedly evoked, not to criticize but as a benchmark against which to illuminate what India’s political economy has not delivered i.e. large-scale formal employment for hundreds of millions of citizens. Kapur and Subramanian leave no doubt, if you want to understand why China, not India was the main driver of manufacturing globalization from the 1980s, don’t look to slots opening up in the division of labour thanks to the liberal mindedness of advanced economies, look to the contrasting political economy of the Maoist PRC and India’s post-independence political economy. As Kapur and Subramian note: The great divergence between China and India did not begin in 1978 with the Deng reforms—it was well underway by then. In one of the great ironies of modern history, the conditions created by Maoism turned out to be a great launching pad for industrial globalization. As the comparison of India and China in 1980 makes clear, to imagine manufacturing would be equally distributed when populations are so differently endowed in terms of educational and nutritional is fanciful. Here is the data from Kapur and Subramanian, data which I explored back at the very beginning of Chartbook. As Kapur and Subramanian insist, the striking fact is that even as India’s growth accelerated from the 1980s, structural change has not. Formal employment in India lags woefully behind. Why? As Kapur and Subramanian note, the path-dependent impact of India’s poor early start was devastating. The list of factors they mention is long and weighty: We argue for a new five-fold explanation applicable at different stages of Indian history: in the initial stages, the legacy of two key pre-1980s policies, the neglect of agriculture and the strangling of the domestic private sector, were critical. The failure of broad-based agricultural growth militated against rural industrialization, which would have been devoted to satisfying local needs that would have necessarily been labour intensive. Then, when the boom came after 1980, the thicket of regulation and broader labour protections that were legislated prematurely in a nascent democracy, underpinned by a deep ideological aversion to private capital in general and big capital specifically, became a barrier to attaining the size that would be necessary to compete globally. Similarly, the reforms after 1991, while wide-ranging, did not quite encompass non-tradeable inputs critical to manufacturing, namely, land, logistics infrastructure and power. A combination of low investment (logistics infrastructure), regulation (land) and the continued monopoly supply by state governments (power), combined with residual socialism, kept costs at 75–100 per cent above efficient supply. These factors were compounded on the supply side by the government, which dominated the formal labour market and established exorbitantly high wages at the lower end of the skill spectrum. This made their employment in the labour-intensive sector by the private sector less attractive. Finally, when the services sector and its exports boomed, wages soared even further via a Dutch Disease effect: one successful tradeable sector killed and cannibalized another less-skilled tradable sector, namely, manufacturing. Thus, scarcity-inducing policies of the planning era, precocious democracy and a Gandhian aversion to size; inefficient, monopolistic supply of critical non-tradable inputs; the behemoth of government; and super-successful skill-intensive services successively undermined India’s unskilled labour employment opportunities. The employment failure seems to have been over-determined. … Less quantifiable but no less important are some of the sociological factors that have undermined manufacturing and factory jobs. Take the impact of the success of the IT sector—located in urban areas with better working conditions, such as air-conditioned offices, good schools for children and attractive entertainment options. It became a more attractive place for engineering and management graduates to flock to. … Consider manufacturing and female employment. Indian society makes it difficult for women to work, reflected in India’s unusually low female labour force participation (elaborated in Chapter XIII). Indian society, in particular the routine harassment of women in public spaces, makes it even more difficult for them to travel long distances to take up work.37 Combined with onerous regulations on creating hostels and dormitories for women—which, in turn, prevents multiple shifts of operation—factories need to be located in areas with a large female labour pool. While firms can take apparel plants to female labour or bring them to the plants by building large-scale dormitories, this raises costs. If there was a case for subsidies to encourage labour-intensive manufacturing, housing subsidies to build dormitories for women workers would be a good place to start. All of this meant, that when opportunities did open up, in part thanks to adjustments in China, India was in no position to take advantage. Here is the account of the 2020s from Kapur and Subramanian. It stands in dizzying contrast to the one-sided, “China squeeze” argument delivered in the Peterson and Foreign Affairs pieces: In 2022, for example, India’s share of global exports in clothing (the canonical labour-intensive sector) was 3.1 per cent compared to 32 per cent for China. This is extremely disappointing because China started vacating export space in this sector after the Global Financial Crisis as its wages started rising; it then vacated further space in the aftermath of geopolitical developments that led investors to seek alternative investment locations. Between its peak and today, China lost about 7.5 percentage points of global export share (worth about $43 billion in 2022); over this period, India’s export share remained stagnant at 3 per cent, while that of Vietnam and Bangladesh rose by 3.5 to 4 percentage points. China’s loss did not translate into any gain for India in terms of low-skill exports and employment. Put differently, when the conditions for dynamism and prosperity were established after 1991, and even more tantalizingly when the global export opportunities opened up, it was as if India was a high-wage economy and only skilled labour could benefit from the dynamism. It had converted its physically abundant unskilled workforce into an economically expensive resource, penalizing its use. It is not my mission here to argue for or against Kapur and Subramanian’s interpretation of India’s development trajectory. The point in this context is simply that the “China squeeze” such as it is can only be understood, in relation to the heavy burden of domestic constraints that Kapur and Subramanian so unsparingly enumerate. I am concentrating here on India because it is the great counterpart to China and the unspoken reference point of the “China squeeze” discourse. But the point is more general. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that the main problems afflicting the development of South Africa or Nigeria, the great centers of mass underemployment in sub-saharan Africa, are cheap competition from China driven by Beijing’s industrial policy and an undervalued RMB? Likewise, is the main problem of the American working-class the threat of Chinese competition or the manifest crisis of social reproduction in the United States itself? The point here, as in the discourse around China shock 2.0 in Europe, is to insist that we should not normalize the world and pathologize China, without actually investigating what is going on in America’s industrial wastelands, the German car industry, or India’s lopsided labour market. One-sided pathologization should be understood for what it is, a polemical gesture. Concepts like China shock and China squeeze are, what Reinhart Koselleck, following Carl Schmitt, would have described as “asymmetrische Kampfbegriffe”, or “asymmetrical counter-concepts” or “asymmetrical combat concepts”. If the function of arguments like the “China squeeze” is to alert elites in the rest of the world of the need to rejuvenate and energize their development projects, so be it. But let us see the resulting discourses as the mobilizing interventions that they are. Interestingly, a significant slice of China’s public sphere - the so-called industrial party - have been obsessed for the last twenty years with precisely these questions of counterfactual economic history. Since the mid 2000s, a massive online discourse developed around an alternative history in which Chinese techno-patriots were asked to imagine how they would proceed if they had the possibility of traveling back in time to transport modern technology into the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) thus averting the “great divergence” of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fantasy of course, but also a goad. The point was not directed at Westerners. The alternate history is dramatically nationalist, but few n the West had even heard of it until recently. The adherents of the industrial party are not liberal moralists. They don’t project natural ladders of international development and ask why others don’t cede space. They take the Realpolitik of global economic development for granted. Their pointe was directed against fellow Chinese. The rallying cry of the alternative narrative was this: Now that we are beginning to gain steam and push forward on our national development path, now that we are breaking out of the inferior position assigned to us even in the early years following WTO accession, do not lose yourself in humanistic imaginings about better futures. In the spirit of Deng, they called on China to embrace the hard truth of development. Perhaps one might of the Industrial Party as a cultural trend born out of desire for symbolic revenge against those who had inflicted the century of humiliation. In terms of the various temporalities of the “China shock” - retrospective, prospective and counterfactual - one might think of the Industrial Policy discourse as truly speculative, conjuring up the China shock that never was. Or perhaps one might better think of it as imagining a world in which a powerful China was no shock at all, but simply a defining fact of modern history. I love putting out Chartbook. I am particularly pleased that it goes out for free to thousands of subscribers around the world. But, writing this newsletter takes a lot of work. If you are enjoying it and would like to support the project, sign up for one of the subscription options here. It is the equivalent of a fancy cup of coffee per month! Subscribe
Minneapolis Independent Music Venues Generate $2.2 Billion but Face Financial Challenges
A new report reveals a disconnect between the industry's economic impact and profitability, finding that locally owned venues are essential to the city's economy, even though only 20 percent report turning a profit.
Construction meets data science in Buildots Intelligence Lab
Buildots, developers of an AI-enhanced construction intelligence platform for construction projects, has announced the Buildots Intelligence Lab, the industry's first AI-powered research hub.
Delaware Keeps Business Filing Edge as Texas Starts Fast Service
Although the creation of the Texas Express service is an improvement for Texas entities, the Delaware Division of Corporations still provides a superior level of speed, responsiveness, efficiency, and cost, write Francis G.X. Pileggi and Aimee Czachorowski.
The Role of Mobile Apps in Driving Entertainment Industry Revenue Growth
Mobile apps are changing entertainment economics by turning attention, loyalty, and data into revenue growth.
Exploring Ohio youth sports culture as Sandusky becomes tournament hotspot
With Sandusky, Ohio becoming a destination for youth sports tournaments, we look at the industry's benefits, costs and implications on athletic aspirations for student athletes.
The Business of Helping the Ultra-Wealthy Vanish From the Internet
A growing industry now sells executives and high-net-worth clients something increasingly difficult to secure on their own: a smaller digital footprint.
FDA's Draft MDUFA VI Commitment Letter: What It Means for AI and Digital Health
On July 7, FDA posted its draft commitment letter for the sixth MDUFA reauthorization (MDUFA VI). The letter outlines how the FDA will fund and operate its device review program for fiscal years 2028 through 2032. Under MDUFA, industry actors pay user fees and, in return, FDA commits to measurable review performance goals, such as … Continued
MrBeast Sales Slow, Angel Stock Falls, MUBI and Neon Look for Hits, and Will an NBA Franchise Set a Sales Record?
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) You probably remember egg prices spiking a few years ago. This led to a lot of debate between the pro-market/pro-competition/antitrust/Neo-Brandesian crowd and the center/center-right/center-left/abundance/libertarian crowd over the cause, whether it was the avian flu outbreak or whether industry consolidation led to price fixing, using avian flu as a convenient cover. Basel Musharbash wrote a whole investigation at BIG looking at it. Well, two years later, we have our answer: it was price fixing. The Justice Department found proof, via emails, of price fixing. Indeed, just the threat of an investigation brought prices down two years ago: I bring this up because at least half a dozen of my favorite political writers and pundits, who were skeptical about price fixing at the time, haven’t written any mea culpas on this issue. It’s really dispiriting and makes it much, much harder to trust their work on other issues. If you take a hard stand on an issue, then you get it wrong, you need to explain how and why you got it wrong. Or update your priors. This is how epistemological bubbles are formed! All of which is to say, it’s time for another installment of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. Last issue, I mostly focused on the “wrong” side of the equation, so today’s is a bit more balanced, but with one big mea culpa (though I still stand by my original concerns). Let’s dive right in! Subscribe CORRECTION: UFC Didn’t Release Subscriber Data (But Seems to Have Bragged About It Internally) In my analysis of the viewership of UFC Freedom 250, I wrote... “Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers.” Well, that datecdote did not come from a PR rep, but from great reporting from James Faris at Business Insider. The actual quote was this: “Paramount’s flagship streaming service generated about a million new subscribers on the day of its first-ever UFC event, Paramount product chief Dane Glasgow told employees in a town hall on Tuesday morning, three staffers who attended the meeting told Business Insider.“ This wasn’t the biggest goof in the world; even Faris emphasized to me that this is more a “clarification” than a correction. Still, it sounds like, internally, the folks at Paramount were very happy about this result—and I’m guessing they were happy with this news getting out—even though the gains didn’t last through the quarter, dropping to 700K adds. RIGHT: MrBeast’s Struggles Continue... I’m very skeptical about MrBeast’s burgeoning media “empire” and, in particular, its $5 billion valuation, as I wrote earlier this year and last year. Sure enough, according to Business Insider, regarding its “booming” consumer products division_:_ “US sales volume grew 13% year-over-year in 2025, following a 33% leap the previous year, according to a presentation deck dated May 2026....A February 2025 investor deck viewed by Business Insider showed Feastables’ net revenue more than doubled in 2024 from 2023, to $215 million, and was forecast to grow 74% in 2025, to $375 million.” [Emphasis mine.] If you told investors that you projected 74% growth but delivered 13%,1 that’s not ideal. But it’s not just MrBeast. Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime had sales drop in half for their energy drinks. It’s one thing to build a successful entertainment company and an entirely different thing to succeed in the heavily-consolidated-but-also-very-competitive consumer packaged goods space! CPGs are dominated by a few firms with very wide moats compared to YouTube, which has few barriers to entry. These businesses require different skill sets and have completely different business environments. WRONG: Does the NBA Have an $8 Billion Bidder? Almost as soon as I published my article about the NBA’s finances, casting skepticism on NBA expansion, I saw this Front Office Sports headline: One group “claims to have already raised $8 billion” for the Vegas expansion team. I mean, wow. That’s just $2 billion less than what the Los Angeles Lakers were valued at when they were sold just last year. And they’re arguably the most popular team in the NBA. (Side note: the new owner is now under an investigation for fraud in how he went about financing the Lakers and the Dodgers purchases.) So much for the “dried up” language I used in that article. (This is why I usually stick to my “Entertainment Nuance Guy” tone in articles...) I went off old information—from April, when I read/heard about the NBA downplaying expansion efforts—instead of doing a quick double-check for new news. That said...if you read the article, the market for Seattle is “slow”, with just one reported bidder. So I wasn’t entirely off. This goof has annoyed me since I first published it, mainly because it undercut that article’s real point, which I stand by: NBA franchises are really overvalued right now. Now, I get why NBA teams are overvalued. When it comes to owning sports teams, it’s basically never wrong to assume that some rich person somewhere will care more about owning a team (or just being part of a group since they’re so expensive) than the actual financials. There are only so many teams to own, and opportunities to buy in preferred markets don’t come along very often. This explains why the teams sell for such high multiples (usually above a 10 to 12.5 revenue multiple, which is very high). You only need one person to overpay! Beyond the ultra-wealthy luxury good explanation, I worry NBA teams are becoming speculative assets. More and more private equity investors are buying into NBA teams. But the value, in owning a team, comes from selling it later, not any meaningful relationship to revenue or profit growth. In other words, the newer NBA owners are increasingly expecting someone later to buy their inflated asset. That’s not sound economics; that’s the “greater fool” theory at work.2 At some point, actually making money has to matter. Especially since revenue growth is now below the growth of the stock market. (And this matters because the NBA doesn’t have easy levers to pull to drastically lower their costs—half of their revenue has to go to players and then you actually have to run a team, including coaching, training, travel, media expenses, and more—or raise revenues aside from one-off expansions in America and overseas.) I just don’t see how investors make their money back buying NBA teams, except for selling at a higher price later on down the line. But if revenue/profit growth continues to slow, at some point, someone will be left holding the bag. RIGHT: Baseball and Basketball are about equally popular. Related to the above, I wanted to cite two quick pieces of evidence for one of my other theories: that the NBA and MLB are about as popular as each other, but the NBA gets much, much better media coverage. One YouGov survey has that fans prefer basketball to baseball by 52% to 48%, which I’m guessing is within the margin of error for that poll. That’s virtually even, meaning they’re about the same popularity. Over on NBC, a recent Red Sox-Yankees game averaged 4 million viewers, higher than Sunday Night Basketball’s average of 3.4 million on the same network. A Yankees-Dodgers game averaged 3.9 million two weeks ago. Not every game averages this much, but it shows you that baseball isn’t far off from basketball, depending on the matchup. Altogether, the NBA is just slightly more popular than baseball, but NBC is paying MLB a fraction of what they pay the NBA, a point I’ve made before. RIGHT: Angel, MUBI and Neon Updates... I’ve long been skeptical about many of Hollywood’s buzziest startups/smaller indie studios. It’s not that they don’t make great movies—films like Anora and Everything Everywhere All at Once are amazing—or that they’re not (rightfully) pushing the majors to make better films, but...they get a ton of hype, and that hype often doesn’t live up to the reality or difficulty in scaling up. Starting with MUBI, well, The Wall Street Journal wrote a feature on MUBI’s struggles last April, best summarized by the subheader “After Sequoia valued Mubi at $1 billion, a left-wing revolt sent the indie film company into a tailspin”. MUBI lost $7.3 million on $200 million in revenue in Q4 2025, but reportedly hit a record 1.7 million subscribers at the end of Q1. As for Neon, Department M purchased a “significant stake” in the company earlier this year. How much is that “stake” worth? According to Deadline, “No financial figures for the Neon-Department M deal were disclosed.” So...that’s not great! If it was a big valuation, we’d hear about. Also, I found this curious: “Both Neon and Department M already have separate partnerships with Qatar. The Qatar Film Committee has a slate deal in place with the former, and a biopic production pact with the latter.” Color me skeptical about much Middle Eastern investment dollars. See: LIV Golf. Finally, as for Angel (formerly Angel Studios), their stock very, very slightly popped last month after Young Washington ($20 million budget) which made $45 million in the US, but their stock is still way down from its opening. Smaller Updates RIGHT: The WGA should focus on antitrust concerns! I’ve been on this for years. Post-WGA/AMTPT deal in 2023, I wrote an article for the Ankler calling on the WGA to focus and organize against industry consolidation. Sure enough, the WGA filed a lawsuit against the Paramount-WBD merger, and people are organizing around this issue now. I wish this energy had coalesced earlier (specifically to lobby Washington much earlier), but better late than never! WRONG: Actually, the chip shortage might be due to market manipulation. In my last “Long Reads for the Long Summer” article, I shared an article about how LLMs are causing memory chip prices to spike, which will make all electronics more expensive. Well, turns out, three RAM manufacturers control 90% of the market, and now a private lawsuit accuses them of price-fixing. So yeah. WRONG/UPDATE: The Odyssey will hold! Two weeks ago, I wrote, “As of this moment, we haven’t had a super-blockbuster, though The Odyssey, Spider-Man: Brand New Day and Avengers: Doomsday could all cross the $500 million mark. (At this point, The Odyssey would need a very strong hold to get there.)” Well, it’s safe to say it’s going to have that hold! It only dropped 30% in weekend two and IMAX screenings are sold out all month. Spider-Man: Brand New Day is also off to a great start. RIGHT: People are rushing to get shows out yearly. I’ve long been bullish on yearly, weekly-released shows, and Leslie Goldberg at The Ankler wrote about how many people in town are now listening. WRONG: Mark Carney reverses Canada’s stance on homegrown production. After writing about Canada installing domestic production quotas, Canada has backed off. WRONG: I don’t trust Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s online “views”. When I originally wrote about the latest Spider-Man film’s record-breaking trailer, I thought this was just YouTube views, but after watching this Corridor Crew video and doing more research, well, it’s all social views of the trailer globally. Really? That stat includes TikTok, Reels and YouTube Shorts views. Basically, I don’t trust it anymore. (This film will probably set record, but I trust the pre-sales data more.) RIGHT: Celebrity Production companies are still struggling. I’ve written about this for years, but the company that I didn’t track was Kevin Hart’s HartBeat, which was valued at $650 million but is struggling now and might just end soon, especially after Kevin Hart pulled his endorsement deals. And Bad Robot is moving to NYC. CORRECTION: SpongeBob is a “second run” title. In my 2025 recap article, I had _SpongeBob SquarePants_labelled as a “library” title, when it is still a “second run” show, with new episodes still coming out on Nickelodeon. CORRECTION: In my last “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong” update, I offered a correction from Doug Creutz and misspelled TD Cowen. Thanks, Grammarly! 1 Though he could have increased prices to make up for the gap, he couldn’t have increased them that much. 2 There’s a theory, which I think that Daryl Morey created and Bill Simmons popularized, that, to be successful building your team, you only need a handful of bad GMs in the league to take advantage of. To be clear, Daryl Morey’s theory was also for signing bad contracts, that you could always get out of bad contracts. Basically, there’s always someone who will make a bad trade. It’s not the same exact thing, but similar enough to the Greater Fool Theory that I really like it.
Dr. Jolisa Williams Earns Women Leaders in Sports Resilience Award
BOWIE, MD — Bowie State University Interim Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics and Recreation Dr. Jolisa Williams has been selected as the recipient of the 2026 Women Leaders in Sports Resilience Award, one of the organization's prestigious BSN Sports Awards recognizing exceptional leadership across the sports industry.
Global Business Travel Spending to Hit Record $1.71 Trillion in 2026
The forecast highlights how rising transportation and travel costs are increasingly driving higher industry prices, ahead of the number of trips.
SRU receives $500,000 gift to launch Finney Finance Lab
Slippery Rock University students in the Haverlack College of Business will soon gain hands-on experience with the same financial systems used on Wall Street, thanks to a $500,000 gift from alumni Joe and Pam Finney to establish the Finney Finance Lab. The lab will feature Bloomberg Terminal workstations, the industry standard for real-time financial data, analytics and trading. The addition will give SRU students direct access to…
'He Was Ready to Take on the World': Jamaican Entertainment Community Mourns Ras Ajai After Fatal Shooting
'He Was Ready to Take on the World': Jamaican Entertainment Community Mourns Ras Ajai After Fatal Shooting - DancehallMag. The Jamaican entertainment industry is struggling to come to terms with the violent death of reggae artiste and actor Brian "Ras Ajai" Boucher, whose life. DancehallMag is an independent news outlet that covers all things Dancehall and Reggae music, the artists, and culture.
NC hemp industry fights bill that could wipe out most THC products
Hemp businesses call hemp-ban bill an existential threat to the industry, as House lawmakers return this week.
Boys & Girls Clubs, Usher team up with BET on entertainment careers for youth
Boys & Girls Clubs of Southeastern Michigan and Ushers’s New Look are teaming up with BET to expand youth workforce development opportunities for Detroit and Atlanta youth in the entertainment industry.
Effective August 12: Bipartisan Legislation to Prevent Harms Caused by Addictive Sports Betting
DENVER, CO – Bipartisan legislation to prevent harms caused by addictive sports betting practices will go into effect on August 12. SB26-1 31 , spon sored by Senator Matt Ball, D-Denver, addresses problems arising from the growing online sports betting industry by implement
The Bull Case For Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) Could Change Following Mixed Q2 Results And Aggressive Expansion Plans
Sphere Entertainment Co. has reported past second-quarter 2026 results showing sales of US$313.64 million versus US$282.68 million a year earlier, alongside a shift from net income of US$151.82 million to a net loss of US$38.79 million. Despite reporting a loss, the company highlighted growing Sphere-driven revenue, venue expansion plans in Abu Dhabi and National Harbor, and a broader content slate including future Wizard of Oz and Rocky Horror Picture Show experiences. We will now examine...
Is PENN Entertainment (PENN) Undervalued Ahead Of June Quarter Earnings?
Why PENN Entertainment’s Upcoming Earnings Matter For Investors PENN Entertainment (PENN) is back on watch as investors prepare for its June quarter earnings report on August 6, with expectations centered on higher revenue and improved year over year earnings. This focus comes after a recent slide in the stock price and ongoing net losses, even as some investors argue current levels around $20.53 suggest potential undervaluation relative to perceived fair value. See our latest analysis for...
Master’s degree in artificial intelligence gets underway
A new master’s degree in artificial intelligence being offered this fall at WSU will provide students with high-demand skills in AI and machine learning to meet industry needs around the state and region.
Debt Digest | Federal Debt is a Health Care Problem
Welcome David Ditch to the Debt Dispatch! We are pleased to announce a new regular contributor: David Ditch will be joining the Cato Institute as a Policy Analyst for Budget and Entitlement Policy later this week. David has more than a decade of experience in fiscal policy issues, with a particular focus on federal spending. He previously worked at the Senate Budget Committee, the Heritage Foundation, and the Economic Policy Innovation Center. David’s areas of expertise include appropriations, transportation, agriculture, federalism, grantmaking, and policy options for deficit reduction. Originally from the Rochester, N.Y. area, David has a BA in Economics and Political Science from the University of Rochester and a MA in Political Management from George Washington University. David currently lives in Arlington, VA. You may have enjoyed his earlier guest posts: CBO: New Highway Bill Has More Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Trump Administration’s Proposed Changes to Federal Grants Highlight Problems of Big Government Here are this week’s reading links and fiscal facts: The federal debt is largely a health care problem. In a new report, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation find that “In 2026, federal subsidies for health insurance, net of related payments to the government, are projected to equal $2.4 trillion, or 7.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In CBO and JCT’s projections, those subsidies grow by 65 percent, reaching $3.9 trillion, or 8.4 percent of GDP, in 2036. Subsidies for Medicare contribute most to that overall growth, increasing by $900 billion. Over the entire 2026–2036 period, federal subsidies for health insurance total $33.6 trillion.” Cato’s Michael Cannon emphasizes, “The long-term federal debt problem is a health care problem. […] Only two categories of federal outlays will grow faster than gross domestic product (GDP): health care subsidies and interest payments on the debt. The former is, therefore, the primary driver of the latter.” The bond market fears deficits, not the loss of tariff revenue. Responding to a New York Times essay claiming tariff revenue has grown too important for a future administration to unwind, Cato’s Kyle Handley argues: “Bond investors are not attached to customs duties as a line item revenue source. They care about the government’s overall fiscal position.” He continues, “tariff revenue is a side hustle. And the Trump administration has already promised to dole out the funds through schemes like tariff dividend rebates, farm subsidies, and pay-fors on tax cuts or other spending.” Furthermore, “tariff revenue is simply not large enough to transform the government’s fiscal trajectory.” Take net interest for example: it “reached $970 billion in fiscal year 2025, absorbing 18.5 percent of federal receipts. Customs duties accounted for only 3.7 percent of receipts—and that was before refunds (see Figure 2).” Handley concludes, “The real bond-market concern is a large and growing interest bill, persistent budget deficits, and a political system unwilling to bring spending and revenue into alignment.” Medicare’s spending growth is driven by more volume and utilization. A Congressional Research Service report finds that Medicare spending “grew at an average annual rate of 7.3%” from 1985 through 2025, and the trustees project health care expenditures will keep rising “faster than gross domestic product (GDP) in most future years.” Citing CBO, the report attributes Medicare’s projected 2026–2036 spending growth to “23% from higher enrollment, 31% from inflation, and 47% from the growth of inflation-adjusted spending per beneficiary. In other words**, the largest single driver of Medicare spending growth during the next decade is expected to be higher volume and intensity of health care services.”** Boccia and Thakur explain: “as the economy grows, Medicare spending tends to grow at least as fast—and often faster—because the program automatically pays the bill for more and more healthcare consumption by seniors, even as prices rise.” The Fed has little control over market interest rates. Cato’s Jai Kedia documents that the Fed has held its rate target steady since December, yet “nearly every rate Americans actually borrow at has climbed over the same stretch.” Kedia continues, “The Fed did nothing, and the cost of credit went up anyway. […] Markets spent these months repricing macroeconomic events such as sticky core inflation, a volatile energy market driven by the conflict in the Middle East, and global trade disrupted by tariffs, among others. None of that required a policy change to show up in borrowing costs because markets, not the FOMC, set prices.” He concludes, “Accurately priced borrowing rates will come from credible disinflation and disciplined budgets and from a Fed content to follow the economy rather than pretend it leads it.” Nearly half of US farm income comes from taxpayers. Former Reagan OMB director David Stockman notes that “in the most recently completed full year (FY 2025) farmer incomes in the US totaled $97.8 billion, but fully 42.7% or $41.8 billion of that amount came from taxpayers, not the marketplace. Nor is this some kind of one-year aberration. If we look at the most recent decade as a whole, total farm income posted at nearly $708 billion, but, as indicated, fully $322 billion or 45% of this came compliments of US taxpayers.” Cato’s Chris Edwards explains why so little of that income is market-earned: “Farmers are businesspeople, but the government shields them from just about every type of weather and market risk. Furthermore, just about every part of the agricultural industry is subsidized, including insurance, loans, marketing, research, export sales, and land improvements.” The Debt Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
CBB members shared ideas about building beef demand
Cattlemen’s Beef Board & industry leaders gather for 2026 Cattle Industry Summer Business Meeting.
Commentary: AI-obsessed filmmakers are making a crucial miscalculation
Established filmmakers haven’t minced words about their opposition to AI: Guillermo del Toro said he’d “rather die” than use generative AI, while James Cameron has called AI actors “horrifying.” Industry
School’s out, play is in: Inside Louisiana’s evolving indoor playroom industry
Indoor playspaces have taken on a new form in the past decade, catering to infants, early elementary children and their parents with toddler-friendly playrooms and in-house coffeeshops.
Demand for experiences surges as travelers prioritize activities over relaxation
Hit especially hard by the COVID pandemic, the experiences sector of the travel industry has returned to pre-pandemic levels of business, growing faster than much of the rest of the
Algorithms of Hate: How AI Is Rewriting Identity Politics
Identity-based hatred has evolved into a profitable digital industry driven by social media algorithms, political polarization
Business People
The Stonebreaker Hotel has named hospitality industry veteran Christy Marks as its new director of sales, bringing more than two decades of hotel sales leadership and opening experience to the Fayetteville property.
Business People
The Stonebreaker Hotel has named hospitality industry veteran Christy Marks as its new director of sales, bringing more than two decades of hotel sales leadership and opening experience to the Fayetteville property.
Business People
The Stonebreaker Hotel has named hospitality industry veteran Christy Marks as its new director of sales, bringing more than two decades of hotel sales leadership and opening experience to the Fayetteville property.
Data centers have a politics problem
As opposition to the AI projects gains momentum, industry supporters say they have ceded the narrative to their critics.
Got a spare $10? Net yourself almost 150 games and help support laid off game devs with the game industry hardship fund bundle
What's the worst that could happen?
LA County Supervisor Horvath Backs Entertainment Unions Against Industry Consolidation
LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath meets with Entertainment Union Coalition to discuss film industry challenges, production incentives, and opposition to Warner Bros.-Paramount merger.
Flutter Entertainment (FLUT) Stock Still Looks Cheap On Its 65% Slump
Flutter Entertainment stock is down 65.1% over the past year. Yet the broader valuation checks still lean toward the shares looking cheap rather than fully priced. With sentiment starting to shift after recent research pointing to easing concerns around prediction markets, the gap between weak past returns and a supportive valuation read is back in focus for investors. Over the last 12 months, Flutter Entertainment has declined 65.1%, which means the market has already priced in a...
Northeast Minnesota wildfires causing disastrous economic impacts to tourism industry
Small business owners in northeastern Minnesota told their state legislators Friday that the wildfires that have been burning in and around the Boundary Waters for almost a month have had a “disastrous” impact on their bottom lines. One canoe outfitter says he lost 98 percent of his revenue to cancellations in July.
FDA weighs a new kind of flu shot based on technology RFK Jr. has questioned
The FDA is poised to render a decision on Moderna's mRNA-based flu shot, which could be the first of its kind to market. The decision is expected to reverberate throughout the biotech industry.
Security guards turnover is pushing some companies toward robots
Asylon's robot dogs and drones are patrolling large facilities as the security industry faces a retention problem.
From Tailgating Entertainment to a Burgeoning Sports Industry, West Georgia Cornhole Rides the Wave
This American-made company started in a garage. Today, it's got 30 employees and a presence in a sport that's grown so popular it has a professional circuit.
Ex-sitcom actress reveals why she left entertainment, says agency head pressured her into nightlife venues
Former actress Kim Se-in has revealed the painful circumstances that led her to leave Korea's entertainment industry, saying financial hardship for...
Digital Health Funding Is Booming, Especially For Wearables
The wearables industry has captured a significant amount of the capital in healthcare.
AI continues to change the video game industry
Like many others, the video game industry is undergoing changes with the rise of artificial intelligence
UNCW Business School Students Travel to Prague for Real-Life Consulting Experience by Robert Burrus
This article was contributed by Kestrel Smoot, International Programs Coordinator for UNCW’s Cameron School of Business. During the most recent spring semester, 33 upper-level finance and marketing students from the UNCW’s Cameron School of Business traveled to Prague, Czechia, to participate in an intensive international consulting project. Unlike traditional study-abroad programs, the Prague consultancy project focuses on real client engagement. Each year’s project is entirely new, designed through collaboration between faculty and industry partners to identify a current business challenge that students will address. This year, students worked with MAMS-Champi, a Czech non-alcoholic beverage company that is seeking to expand into other global markets. Throughout the first half of the semester, students attend class at UNCW and prepare for their time abroad by conducting preliminary research, developing analytical frameworks, and organizing themselves into specialized teams responsible for tasks such as marketing strategy, industry analysis, consumer segmentation, and competitive evaluation. The course emphasizes independence and teamwork, requiring students to take ownership of their work, manage deadlines, and collaborate across functional groups. Additionally, faculty serve as advisors, allowing students to navigate the complexities of the project much as they would in a professional consulting environment. Once in Prague, students met with company leadership, toured facilities, and refined their recommendations based on real-time feedback. The in-person component is widely regarded as the most transformative aspect of the program because students must synthesize weeks of work into a cohesive presentation and deliver it to the client, demonstrating professionalism, strategic thinking, and adaptability. Beyond the consulting work, students participated in cultural and educational activities that broadened their understanding of global business environments. They explored Prague’s historic districts, learned about Czech culture, and engaged with local professionals. These experiences helped students understand how economic, regulatory, and social factors shape market opportunities. The Prague consultancy project stands as a defining example of the Cameron School of Business’s commitment to experiential learning, consistently strengthening students’ confidence, enhancing their resumes, and serving as a focal point in job interviews. Employers recognize the value of the hands-on experience and transferable skills students gain, underscoring the program’s role in preparing industry-ready graduates for today’s fast-moving business landscape.
New Fallout Game in Early Development at "RPG Specialist" inXile Entertainment
It was recently revealed that Xbox would be leaning into inter-studio collaborations to increase output and efficiency at its in-house game studios, and this seems to be the case now. In a recent podcast, Windows Central journalist and notable industry insider, Jez Corden, commented that he had...
The Streaming Bubble Keeps Popping
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) One of my rules is “never bet against PE [private equity]”. This isn’t to say that I agree with their methods or tactics or strategies or financial innovations (aka shenanigans). Just that in the long arc of financial history, they’ve tended to return very good returns to their shareholders. That said, their forays into entertainment have left me...skeptical. I’ve written before about PE’s production company/celebrity production company roll ups, and those haven’t really worked out. Some PE groups tried to “roll up” an industry that isn’t “roll-up-able” for lack of a better term—since the barrier to entry for starting a production company is very low—often paying top dollar for celebrity production companies at the height of streaming valuations. So yeah maybe we can bet against PE when they venture into filmed entertainment. I’ve also noted that studio lots seemed to be a bubble back in 2022. Sure enough… Yikes! That sure sounds like some private equity guys lost some money. The only caveat being that holding a lot of land in Los Angeles is always valuable. But that wasn’t the pitch and likely real estate investment companies overpaid for said land. I mean, Goldman Sachs had to repossess it after all. (Technically, I’m not sure these buyers were traditional private equity, but PE was buying LA studio lots earlier this decade.) All to say: I call out bubbles when I see them, and they often pop. Anywho, my most famous bubble call was the “streaming bubble”, specifically that the major streamers were making too many shows and films. And that it could all come crashing down. Notably, I made this call before the strikes of 2023, but those strikes potentially accelerated the popping. And now it has indeed popped. One of my most popular articles of last year made that exact case. A year later, it’s time to update that analysis. The bottom line is that the streaming contraction continues. Credit where credit is due, Luminate—an analytics company whose data I use weekly in my streaming ratings report—called this out in a recent report I saw highlighted in both Bloomberg and The Hollywood Reporter. But I’m adding my data to their look, including streaming films and kids TV shows. I’ll also provide some other data that all tells the same picture. Let’s dive in! Subscribe The Number of Streaming TV Shows, Films and Specials Is Declining AGAIN in 2026 Let’s get right to the data, starting with my dataset. Specifically, each week I track every “notable” title to come out on streaming. I try to grab every title on every major streamer, meaning if it’s a first run or original or exclusive, I track it. This helps me call out the “dogs not barking” and the misses/flops each week. So that will be our first series of charts, my weekly collection data. Let’s start with the raw TV show, film and special data, by week. Note: As the years have gone by, I have actually added more sources (going from just one source to five sources) to find new titles, meaning that this data collection is, likely, more accurate now than in the past. Which means my team and I are more likely to have undercounted titles in the past rather than today. I like to cut the data several different ways. Here’s that same look, by quarter, to more sharply show the trends: And here’s the data just looking at the first half of each year. That’s the same data, just cut three different ways with three different time periods. Note that films, TV shows, and specials are all down by 25%, 42% and 17%, respectively, from 2022. The good news is that the number of films and specials actually increased year-over-year from 2025 to 2026, but not enough to offset the 25% decline in TV shows. Now, I also look at kids shows, and here they are pulled out on their own: And here’s that by quarter: This really seems to be a notable area of pullback by the streamers. Kids shows are down 80% from 2022. This reflects some formerly Disney+ shows going to cable TV first, but also pullbacks from HBO Max, Prime Video and Netflix. I also categorize the TV shows by English language and non-English language, and that also reveals a lot of where the drop comes from: And here is by the half-year: In this look, the good news is the drop for English language shows seems to have stabilized in the last year. But the bad news is the long term decline from the 2022 peak. Other Data So I wasn’t the only person to notice this decline in the number of shows. I have a few other data sources for this, though most only go through the end of 2025. As I said, Luminate beat me to the punch, so let’s look at their data. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… What TV loss streaming didn’t make up for... How Netflix has changed their programming slate over time… Ten more images charting the decline of production... What type of films aren’t being made anymore... The good news (for movie theaters)… And more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.
We Need More Embedded Critics In Healthcare
Healthcare needs more leaders willing to call their babies ugly. This kind of self-indictment will be necessary for the industry to finally begin to make real progress.
AMD Reportedly Plans To Raise GPU Prices, Too
It seems like AMD is about to raise graphics card prices by around 10%, according to an industry insider on Twitter.
Game Devs Put Together An Itch.io Bundle Of Over 100 Games With Proceeds Going To Help Laid-Off Colleagues
The Game Industry Hardship Fund bundle contains over 100 games and will be on sale for the next two weeks
Does public health *need* MAHA?
Last week, our friend Dr. Craig Spencer sparked an ongoing volatile discussion with his Atlantic article “Public Health Needs MAHA.” Some have come out in strong dissent, others are cheering, and others are simply lamenting that we find ourselves in such a divided world to begin with. We will dare to dip our toes in these controversial waters, too. Does public health need MAHA? We think in some ways yes, and in other ways, no. MAHA leaders versus the everyday MAHA supporter The vitriol in this debate mostly comes from one collapsed distinction: the leadership of MAHA is not necessarily the same as the people who support it. Say “MAHA” and most people picture RFK Jr. Fair enough, as he coined the term and holds most of the power. And, yes, some MAHA followers treat Kennedy as something close to a saint. But talk to the grassroots, and it’s not a monolith. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People who distrust vaccines and vaccine supporters. It’s a wide, eclectic coalition. The data backs this too: 4 in 10 Americans support the movement—that’s a lot of people! But according to polls, vaccines and medical choice (the issues most tied to Kennedy personally) are cited by only 4% as their reason for supporting the movement. For many, the motivations are much broader. Many MAHA supporters are signing up for the idea that “something needs to change” with health in this country. They’re asking good-faith questions about corporate influence on our health systems, health care costs, nutrition, chemicals, and clean air and water. These are all questions that plenty of public health professionals recognize as legitimate and also care about very deeply. Blurring the lines between the leadership and grassroots does real damage in two important ways: It hands the 4 in 10 exactly the narrative already fed—that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints every critic with the same brush. It gives the actual bad actor more power. RFK Jr. has done irreparable damage and can’t be trusted. What the MAHA movement gets right A healthy population is something the public health field was literally built on, and many of these topics are things we have dedicated our lives to. Yet the MAHA movement has captivated nearly half the country in a way the public health establishment has failed to achieve. So that means MAHA is doing something right. Some of it may be timing (after a Covid-19 pandemic and deep frustration and mistrust with institutions). The movement also does three other things really well: 1. It gives a new, louder voice to system failures. While MAHA is not a monolith, one theme stays consistent across their stories: the system failed them. For some, it was the system that flooded their communities with opioids and then walked away. For others, it was the system that let their business collapse during Covid with no safety net in sight. For others still, it was the system that failed to help them manage a complex chronic illness, bouncing them from physician to physician without any real answers. And in many ways, our health ecosystems are failing Americans. Why are medical bills so incomprehensible? Why do some kids get a healthy school lunch and others don’t? Why do an epidemiologist and a MD/PhD student have to start newsletters in the middle of the biggest public health emergency in a century, just so people can get straight information? Because the systems failed. This deep-seated frustration driving many Americans to search for solutions elsewhere needs to be recognized. 2. MAHA has brilliant comms central to their efforts. MAHA figured out something most health institutions still have not: the information landscape changed. It’s participatory now, not top-down; influence runs through many nodes in a community, not one institution; and storytelling and telling audiences “what you really think” moves people more than data dumps do. MAHA goes where audiences are listening, using podcasts, social media, and memes in ways most health institutions would scoff at—but it works. 3. They are very good at organizing. A MAHA meeting feels like a rally: energy, speakers, music, and most importantly, an action for everyone. Someone’s writing the next policy brief, someone’s seeding a narrative, someone knows the next legislative deadline, someone’s sending the text messages for a campaign. None of this is new (ask the civil rights movement), but MAHA knows it works and has capitalized on it. What MAHA gets wrong This list could be much longer, and this newsletter has spent a lot of time covering it, but here are a few things: Poor use of scientific evidence. This is the fundamental problem with many MAHA policies: the hype outpaces the science, and experts are often villainized for pointing this out. MAHA leadership has traded real solutions for cheap wins. For example, instead of taking on the powerful food industry and passing real reforms, it has celebrated french fries made of beef tallow and taken out artificial dyes from still very sugary children’s cereal. These changes won’t move the needle on America’s diet. MAHA leadership has tried to dismantle vaccine access in the U.S. While many MAHA supporters emphasize other issues, the effort to change vaccine policy has become MAHA’s signature effort. This is not surprising given RFK Jr.’s extensive track record campaigning against vaccines. It has rallied behind the wrong leader. RFK Jr. has a decades-long track record of villifying doctors, scientists, and public health workers, well before he became HHS secretary. He is known for his decades-long work sowing distrust in vaccines as well as life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy for HIV. This is not a serious person who can move the needle on health in the U.S, and he has already done serious damage. Public health needs more than defense Defending the evidence is absolutely necessary so health in the U.S. doesn’t move further backward. The public health establishment is very good at defense. The problem is this defense often sounds like defending the status quo, which has failed many people. Public health needs to offer an alternative to RFK Jr.’s MAHA—one that is rooted in evidence, truly listens to and addresses people’s frustrations, and has innovative solutions and the courage to change the systems. How do we get there? Find common ground. Do you know what most people care most about? The abysmal cost of healthcare. Start there. Fight for the human loudly. Too often, communications and engagement center on science with a capital S, funding mechanisms, or the CDC/FDA/NIH. Not the person. So the public doesn’t see themselves in it. Instead, they see people fighting for the very powerful systems that they feel negatively impact their health and well-being. Let the public feel and hear that you see their frustrations, you get it, and you’re fighting for them within the system. Recognize when pro-science messages are alienating people. Facts absolutely matter, but angrily venting only alienates people further. Our friend Elisabeth Marnik recently wrote a New York Times article about her experience growing up unvaccinated and how listening and empathetic conversation are the only ways to reach people that really work (a position backed by communication science). Her comments section was full of hateful comments from pro-vaccine individuals attacking her for daring to suggest we approach vaccine-hesitant individuals with empathy. It is possible to both stand firm behind scientific evidence and empathize with people who don’t trust it. Lean into politics smartly. Often, public health has shied away from politics: Don’t touch it, lest you get burned. But this fails to recognize that the third rail is what fuels the train: who is elected determines our budgets, our priorities, and our authority. Being political means being very savvy in strategy on both sides of the aisle, knowing your audience, and recognizing that political capital is as scarce as financial resources and needs to be allocated accordingly. Bottom line So does public health need MAHA? That’s not really the right question. Public health has a responsibility not to dismiss 40% of the country who feel heard by this movement and are frustrated that the system has failed them. And it has a responsibility to stick to the evidence and recognize MAHA leadership for what it is: a danger to our nation’s health. Both can, and should, be done. Love, YLE and KP A big thanks to Craig Spencer, who had the courage to put his neck out there to start a much-needed discussion at such a critical moment—one that is determining the identity of an entire field. Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is completing an emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she writes the newsletters You Can Know Things debunking health myths and rumors and The Public Health Roundup. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
UC San Diego expert available: The business of Hollywood—from Toy Story to the Paramount-Warner merger
As Hollywood continues to reshape itself through blockbuster franchises and industry consolidation, UC San Diego associate professor of communication Shawna Kidman is available to provide context on the forces transforming the entertainment business. Kidman studies media industries, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and the business strategies behind Hollywood's biggest successes. Her research examines how companies build enduring franchises, why media consolidation matters to co
Natural Grocers® Named 2026 Sustainability Retailer of the Year by Produce Business
Industry recognition highlights the company's longstanding commitment to organic agriculture, regenerative practices and sustainable retail operations LAKEWOOD, Colo., July 31, 2026 /PRNewswire/...
Fairground Entertainment Launches Industry's First AI-Only FAST Channel
/PRNewswire/ -- Fairground Entertainment, a first-of-its-kind AI-powered, creator-centric entertainment platform, today announced the launch of Fairground AI...
OpenAI cuts prices on smaller models as businesses scrutinize AI spend
OpenAI slashed prices of its low- and mid-tier AI models on Thursday, a move that may intensify competition in the industry as U.S. companies battle cheaper Chinese rivals for customers increasingly wary of the technology's ballooning costs.
Gov. Greg Abbott cleared the way for the hemp industry in 2019. Now businesses are being pushed out
Texas will ban hemp products containing certain intoxicating cannabinoids starting July 31, and local businesses are feeling the strain — and even closing.
vivenu Launches the Live Entertainment Industry's Only Ticketing-Specialized AI
/PRNewswire/ -- vivenu, the ticketing platform for live entertainment enterprises, today announced a comprehensive suite of AI features, including vivenu AI...
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
TripGain Releases 'State of Business Travel in India 2026' Report, Revealing Persistent Gaps Between Digital Adoption and Operational Reality
Conventional wisdom suggests corporate travel technology is primarily about reducing costs and automating bookings. However, a new industry study from TripGain suggests something far more significant is happening.
Cannabis industry says it still faces major challenges, such as access to banks
Caesars Entertainment (CZR) Stock Faces Debt Strain Despite Narrower Quarterly Loss
Caesars Entertainment stock barely flinched after earnings, slipping only 0.6% to about US$29.77, yet the headline numbers still ask investors to be patient. The casino operator posted another quarterly loss, with basic earnings per share of US$0.30 in the red and net income excluding extra items also in loss territory. That keeps the focus on a slower burn story. The real question now is whether Caesars can turn a low price-to-sales multiple and a multi-year profitability goal into something...
NSF testing new Ph.D. model giving trainees academic and industry experience
Young life scientists have been increasingly abandoning academia, a seismic shift that has fueled calls for rethinking graduate education. On Wednesday,