Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 125 Shares117 Views

    in Elections

    Why OPEC Plus Is Increasing Oil Supplies Despite Falling Prices

    The group agreed to raise output in June, a sign that Saudi Arabia and its allies appear to be weary of cutting output and may be trying to appease President Trump, who has pushed for lower prices.Oil prices are falling. Economists are cutting forecasts for global economic growth. Oil giants are reporting lower profits.But on Saturday, eight countries that belong to the oil cartel known as OPEC Plus said they would add about 411,000 barrels of oil a day in June. The move, which follows a similar step by the group to increase oil production at their April meeting, is a major shift in policy that will ripple through the wider energy industry, hitting profits of oil companies and forcing cutbacks.The group said in a statement that the market was “healthy” and noted that oil inventories remained low.Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC Plus, is signaling that it is reluctant to hold back millions of barrels a day of oil that it could produce, especially when other members of the group, like Kazakhstan and Iraq, are not observing their agreed-upon production ceilings.“The view from Saudi Arabia, in particular, is that they no longer want to be the ones carrying the heaviest burden if other countries in the group are not showing sufficient commitment to doing their part,” said Richard Bronze, the head of geopolitics at Energy Aspects, a London research firm.Demand for oil has not weakened significantly. Oil consumption increased by 1.2 million barrels a day in the first quarter of 2025, the most since 2023, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Analysts there and elsewhere, though, are cutting their forecasts for demand in anticipation of disruption from global trade tensions, which has already slammed prices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares117 Views

    in Elections

    They Help Companies Set Prices. Tariffs Are Making It Trickier.

    Pricing strategists are navigating the possibility that input costs, the economy and consumer behavior may all shift drastically.As companies scramble to respond to President Trump’s ever-changing tariff policies, some of the pressure has fallen directly on a tiny corner of the consulting world.Known as pricing strategy, it uses tools like customer research, historical data, economic modeling and competitive analysis to recommend not only what price tag to put on items but how to structure prices to maximize revenue and profit.Often a pricing strategist’s work involves simulating how different pricing strategies and prices could affect sales. But brand rules and psychology can also come into play. It’s part art, part science.And lately, it’s been trickier.Nobody knows how Trump’s tariff policies will change, how those tariffs will affect the overall economy or how consumers will adjust their spending as a result — all of which can be key metrics when determining pricing.“It’s some of the highest levels of uncertainty that I’ve seen over my 25-year career,” Robert Haslehurst, who leads the global pricing practice at L.E.K. Consulting, told DealBook. Only the first weeks of Covid lockdowns and the start of the 2007-8 financial crisis came close.Times like these can be a “golden opportunity,” said William Humsi, a partner at the consumer strategy firm Simon-Kucher who mostly works with B2B companies. A brand that imports less from countries with high tariffs than its competitors may be able to defend its market share by keeping prices lower, or use other players’ need to raise prices as cover for its own price increases, known as “taking price” in industry parlance.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares88 Views

    in Elections

    Ryan Coogler’s ‘Sinners’ Deal Made Hollywood Lose Its Mind

    In 2050, thanks to an advantageous deal he made with Warner Bros., Ryan Coogler will own the rights to “Sinners,” the Black Southern Gothic blockbuster he wrote and directed. The contract gave him final cut and a piece of the box office revenue right from the start, too. Owning his movie about Black ownership in the Jim Crow South was, Mr. Coogler has said, a nonnegotiable.Since the film came out, these contract stipulations have been much discussed, even controversial. That has little to do with why “Sinners” is so enthralling to watch — after all it’s a genre-bending and -blending film, steeped in horror, blues and history, and even has vampires — but everything to do with the film’s central theme, and why it is so resonant: the art of the deal. Negotiation is a central thread in “Sinners,” a repeated motif about the power and consequence of deal-making in America. (This essay includes spoilers for “Sinners.”)The protagonists of “Sinners” are identical twin brothers nicknamed Smoke and Stack, both played by Michael B. Jordan, Mr. Coogler’s longtime collaborator. After serving in World War I and becoming involved with Chicago gangsters, the slick-talking duo return in 1932 to their Mississippi Delta hometown to set up a juke joint, enlisting their gifted cousin Sammie to play guitar. The town, Clarksdale, happens to also be the location of the crossroads where the legendary blues musician Robert Johnson supposedly sold his soul to the devil for mastery over his guitar. With a satchel full of cash and a truck full of liquor, the twins come back to the South having realized that “Chicago is Mississippi with tall buildings instead of plantations.”Their for-us-by-us plan was to generate wealth by owning and operating a blues-drenched sanctuary for Black joy, a private escape from the daily terror of racial oppression. Many of the clientele are Black sharecroppers who have been forced into exploitative contracts by white landowners, a point made evident in “Sinners” when a customer tries to use wooden coins to buy a drink. The fake money is good only at the plantation store.Nobody Black had the leverage to negotiate a good deal in the Jim Crow South. Despite the vampires in the film, the real monsters are the ordinary-seeming men, like Hogwood, the covert Klansman from whom Smoke and Stack buy the mill they are going to turn into the juke joint, who smile as they take your money and shake your hand, and have no intention of honoring the terms.During this time, legalistic disfranchisement was common for Black blues musicians, who were often unaware of how royalties worked, or were intentionally not told how they worked, or were just given a bottle of booze as payment. Bessie Smith thought she was signing a lucrative deal in 1923 with a white executive, Frank Buckley Walker, who oversaw “race records” for Columbia. Walker crossed out the royalty clause in her contract, and Smith was given a fixed fee of $200 per recording; she thought that was a good deal for a Black musician at the time, unaware that white country artists on Columbia often had royalty agreements, even though Smith was more successful than many. Smith received a little less than $30,000 for the 160 recordings she made for Columbia even though her estimated sales reached over six million records in the 1920s.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    2 Books to Read Instead of Meditating

    A gentle and clever comic novel; a poetic and tender essay on addiction.Édouard Manet/Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Larned Coburn Memorial CollectionDear readers,Anyone who is bad at meditating will be familiar with the tension that obtains when you try to force serenity. Nothing could be more aggravating than being told to relax — especially when you’re issuing the order yourself.In lieu of attempting to clear my head through more direct means, I’ve been gravitating toward contemplative novels and poetry this spring. Two of them below, for your consideration.—Molly“Judgement Day,” by Penelope LivelyFiction, 1980First, the place. Laddenham is a country village in England The time is 1980-ish. Light industry is booming and new houses are going up to capture prosperous overspill from London.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares58 Views

    in Elections

    Someone Should Tell Trump He’s About to Make the Trade Deficit Worse

    There are many reasons President Trump should not be pushing Congress to pass huge tax cuts, but here’s one you may not have heard: Budget deficits and trade deficits are twins. When the former go up, so, generally, do the latter. So at the same moment Mr. Trump is upending the global economy in a feckless attempt to eliminate America’s trade deficit, he’s essentially pressuring Congress to increase it.Here’s how it happens. The United States buys a lot of goods from other countries, and we pay for the goods with dollars. But those dollars are no good abroad, so the countries we buy from invest them here. Some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, into businesses that are raising cash to build new data centers or expand natural gas facilities or construct new apartment complexes. Other dollars go into Treasury bonds or bills, which the federal government uses to fund our large budget deficit. (The same thing happens in reverse when other countries buy from the United States — but to a lesser degree, since our imports are larger than our exports.)If the budget deficit rises, American investors could theoretically cover the shortfall, but that would mean putting their money in Treasury securities rather than businesses and their capital needs. The other option is that foreign countries amass more dollars and plow them back into the U.S. economy. How would they get those additional dollars? From all the German cars and Chinese electronics and imported beer that Americans will buy with the money from their tax cuts.More generally, a larger budget deficit will require the government to borrow more money, which drives up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean a stronger dollar, which makes it more expensive for people in other countries to buy our products, cheaper for us to buy theirs, and thus the trade deficit widens.So cutting taxes, as Mr. Trump has told Congress to do, will drive up the budget deficit — and the trade deficit. All of this may seem counterintuitive, but it’s one of the few things that economists agree about.The budget deficit is already worryingly high and the tax cuts Mr. Trump is seeking would make it even larger. Last year the United States ran a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, or 6 percent of the gross domestic product — higher than at any other time except during World War II, the late-2000s financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic — despite strong economic growth and no unusual emergencies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    In the Dark, We Found Joy

    We took out a candle, lit it and finished our dinner. In darkness. In complete silence.On April 28, the so-called Great Blackout, one of the strangest days of our lives, left all of the Iberian Peninsula in the dark. For over 10 hours we were completely cut off, unable to make phone calls or connect to the internet. Later I learned the luckiest among us had found an old transistor radio with batteries to hear the news. The three of us — my partner, my 6-month-old daughter and me — had no such luck. Now it was nighttime. Fear and all its ghosts might have lurked.Occasionally, a random car or a few pedestrians with flashlights passed by our window. One might imagine the other things that were quiet. How the burglar alarms — the big business of keeping fear at bay — were not working. How the security cameras had gone blind. That no one was able to call the police. This, then, might have been a night dreamed of by thieves. A night when the evil-minded would seize the cover of darkness and all that silence to break into factories, businesses, shops, isolated villages, country houses or urban dwellings. But they did not.This was no nightmare. Indeed, the Great Blackout was the opposite. It was like a dream — a world populated only by the kindest among us, evil intentions quashed. Average citizens directed traffic at intersections without working lights. Others brought water and food to passengers stranded on trains that had stopped in the middle of nowhere. Taxi drivers, unable to process credit cards, gave out their cellphone numbers so customers could pay their fares when the electricity returned.In the transportation chaos — the trains that stalled, the buses that didn’t come, the subways idled — some schools stayed open late that afternoon so no children would be left alone waiting for someone to pick them up. Hospitals, always free in Spain, operated with generators and continued to care for the ill. Without working cellphones, children and teens gathered in ways more typical of decades past than of today. Strangers came together in the streets to talk or drink beer. Improvised signs advised everyone to “chug it before it gets warm.”All around, everything I saw underscored how the world carried on peacefully. It seemed everyone embraced the day with a good dose of humor and — dare I say? — even joy. Somehow we knew that everything would be fine. That there would be no muggings, no threatening disorder. Somehow we knew that no one would pull out a gun. This was not one of Hollywood’s apocalyptic films. Quite to the contrary: Calm, generosity and dedication among public servants and workers prevailed.Perhaps that is the great difference between the forces of the far right — in America, in parts of Europe, now insisting the only true path is one of individualism, each man for himself — and the trust that the European welfare state that I was raised with builds in the minds of a community. Here we found we had trust in others and in our country, in the sense of community. Is there a more powerful weapon than that? Is there a greater shield than that? Knowing that others are there to help you, not to harm you, that we each need one another. That is the key.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares70 Views

    in Elections

    We Should Play the Constitution Like a Piano

    Written in the 1780s, it both enlightens and confounds. Its brilliance is undiminished, but the intervening years make it feel distant, at times impossibly so, challenging modern interpreters to understand what an 18th-century text means today.Sadly, our attempt to understand the U.S. Constitution has too often become a mechanistic search for a correct answer, with little nuanced judgment. That is thanks to the ascendance of originalism on the Supreme Court. The originalist justices believe the meaning of the document was fixed when it was enacted, as opposed to living constitutionalists, who argue that the meaning and application of the Constitution should adapt to a changing world and not be bound by the judgments of men who lived centuries ago.The originalist methodology fails to acknowledge the role that one’s individual judgment inevitably plays in interpretation. Total objectivity is an attractive but dangerous illusion that shields the court from wrestling with our society’s complexity and from criticism of its opinions.Today, with a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches seemingly underway, the need for a thoughtful, credible reckoning with the Constitution’s meaning is especially urgent. Legal scholars, judges and constitutional lawyers would do well to consider the way interpreters have wrestled with different but equally challenging late 18th-century texts: classical music compositions.Art and the law, of course, serve vastly different functions in society. But the performing musician’s embrace of complexity is precisely what is needed from the courts at this moment.To a musician, a strictly originalist approach feels intolerably constricting, even perverse. A compelling performance of a piece of music requires both accuracy and creativity, insight and instinct, reverence for the composer and the breath of life brought by the interpreter.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares58 Views

    in Elections

    What Kennedy Gets Right, And Wrong, About Antidepressants

    Like every psychiatrist, I have patients for whom antidepressants are transformative, even lifesaving. But I also see a messier, less advertised side of these medications. There are patients with sexual side effects that they hadn’t known could be caused by their antidepressants because previous doctors never warned them. I’ve had patients experience manic episodes or suicidal thoughts with specific antidepressants, and patients who no longer need to take the drugs, but suffer severe withdrawal symptoms when they try to taper off.The medical community has reacted with alarm to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s claim that his family members have had a harder time getting off antidepressants than heroin. The American Psychiatric Association and five other psychiatric organizations recently declared that likening antidepressants to Schedule I drugs like heroin was “misleading” and emphasized that antidepressants are “safe and effective.”But some patients heard Mr. Kennedy’s comments and felt that someone in a position of power was finally speaking for them. On online forums dedicated to helping people withdraw from antidepressants, such as Surviving Antidepressants, patients describe coming “undone” and going through “pure hell” in efforts to get off their medication.They see in Mr. Kennedy someone who is alert to the seriousness of their problems, after years of neglect by the medical community, and it doesn’t matter to them that their experiences may be relatively rare or that Mr. Kennedy’s health movement, which disregards science and embraces anti-vaccine ideology, is unlikely to serve patients’ best interests.Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.s (the most commonly prescribed form of antidepressant) were originally studied for short-term use and were approved based on trials that lasted only a few months. But people quickly began taking the drugs for extended periods. Now patients are likely to stay on antidepressants for years, even decades. Of those who try to quit, conservative estimates suggest about one in six experiences antidepressant withdrawal, with around one in 35 having more severe symptoms. Protracted and disabling withdrawal is estimated to be far less common than that. Still, in a country where more than 30 million people take antidepressants, even relatively rare complications can affect thousands of people.This is why it’s a travesty that nearly four decades after the approval of Prozac, there’s not a single high-quality randomized controlled trial that can guide clinicians in safely tapering patients off antidepressants. The lack of research also means that official U.S. guidelines for it are sparse. It’s no surprise that patients have flocked to online communities to figure out strategies on their own, sometimes cutting pills into increasingly smaller fractions to gradually lower their dose over months and years.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More