More stories

  • in

    Cabbage Is Having a Moment

    How a workhorse vegetable became a darling of the culinary world.In a world in which it’s hard for a vegetable to get a break, cabbage is winning.Cabbage has been a global culinary workhorse for centuries. (China grows the most; Russia eats the most.) It has fed generations of American immigrants. But now, a vegetable that can make your house smell like a 19th-century tenement has become the darling of the culinary crowd.In the words of my mother-in-law: Cabbage, who knew?Like so many American food trends, fancy cabbage dishes first started turning up in restaurants on the coasts a few years ago. But they are fast spreading across the country. One chef has compared this cabbage mania to the hoopla over bacon in the 1990s.In Denver, Sap Sua sprinkles a charred cabbage wedge with anchovy breadcrumbs. Cabbage is bathed in brown-butter hollandaise at Gigi’s Italian Kitchen in Atlanta. At Good Hot Fish in Asheville, N.C., shredded green cabbage stars in a pancake punched up with sorghum hot sauce.For a story in The Times, I spoke with farmers, chefs and food critics and ate cabbage in three cities, seeking to understand how the vegetable earned this moment in the spotlight. In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain what I found.Kimchi and CaraflexA cabbage dish at Chi Spacca in Los Angeles. Michelle Groskopf for The New York TimesThe trajectory of a food trend in the United States can sometimes be easy to trace. A French chef introduces the heavily salted butter caramels of Brittany to the elite of the American food world, pastry chefs at expensive restaurants start to play with the idea, and before you know it, you’re ordering a salted caramel cold brew from Dunkin’.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

  • in

    Fed Chair Powell Signals a Retreat on Banking Rules

    The Fed chair said regulators could scale back or rework a sweeping capital-requirements proposal that Wall Street has been fighting for months.Jay Powell, the Fed chair, stunned Wall Street yesterday with an apparent U-turn in bank regulation.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesJay Powell’s surprise For months, Wall Street C.E.O.s have been complaining bitterly and lobbying against the prospect of higher capital requirements, which would require them to keep more money on hand and would lower their profits. It appears they have scored a big win.Jay Powell dropped the bombshell in his testimony before the House on Wednesday. Markets were still digesting the Fed chair’s go-slow comments on interest rate cuts when he signaled that proposed new rules to force lenders to beef up their books would be scaled back, or reworked.“I do expect that there will be broad and material changes to the proposal,” he said.The capital rules, known as the “Basel III Endgame,” would apply to the largest banks. They would have to set aside a bigger emergency cushion to soak up losses stemming from shocks like the bank run last year that led to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and prompted a wider crisis.But the proposals have come under fire from bank chiefs, industry lobbyists, Republican lawmakers and even some liberal members of Congress, who fear that a mandate to set aside billions to fight the next potential crisis could feed another one.Critics fear that Basel III would crimp lending just as banks grapple with upheaval in commercial real estate. Lenders face a looming “maturity wall” of as much as $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate loans set to come over the next two years.That risk came into blaring focus during Powell’s testimony. The stock price of New York Community Bank, a Long Island-based lender with a mountain of souring real estate loans, plummeted on news it was seeking emergency funding. (More on that below.)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

  • in

    Inflation Fears Stalk Presidential Politics and the Markets

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are set to grill Jay Powell, the Fed chair, about interest rates and the economy, topics that are top of mind for voters and investors alike.Jay Powell, the Fed chair, will begin two days of testimony on Capitol Hill with inflation a hot topic for voters and markets.Richard Drew/Associated PressInflationary pressure and presidential politics President Biden and Donald Trump dominated Super Tuesday, setting the stage for a rematch of the 2020 election. One topic that’s high on the agenda for voters: Inflation.That means all eyes will be on Jay Powell, as the Fed chair makes a two-day appearance on Capitol Hill this week, for any sign of what’s next on rate cuts.Inflation is kryptonite for any politician, and especially for Biden. Trump again pounded the president on high prices, an issue that’s lifting the Republican in polls even as a range of indicators show that the economy is performing strongly.(The White House is putting the blame on corporations that “try to rip off Americans.” Watch for that theme at Thursday’s State of the Union address.)Powell will appear before the House on Wednesday and before the Senate on Thursday. Data published in recent weeks shows that jobs are plentiful, wages are rising and consumers are still spending. Analysts have upgraded their economic forecasts, raising hopes that a soft landing is likely.But market pros see warning signs. Concerns remain that inflation will stick above the Fed’s 2 percent target, forcing the central bank to put the brakes on interest rate cuts that traders expect to begin in June. The futures market on Wednesday is forecasting three to four cuts this year — down from nearly seven just weeks ago — and the more cautious sentiment has helped drag the S&P 500 lower this week.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

  • in

    Is China’s Era of High Growth Over?

    Beijing unveiled an annual economic target in line with last year’s, as it looks to refocus on strategically important sectors.With troubles brewing at home, China has set the same growth target as last year, reflecting its continuing economic challenges.Lintao Zhang/Getty ImagesChina’s real growth agenda China announced an official growth target of about 5 percent on Tuesday that’s already looking hard to pull off. The world’s second-biggest economy is facing headwinds, from a consumer slowdown to weak investor confidence and a trade war with the West.But the growth target only tells part of the story of how Beijing is rethinking economic policy.Left out of the pronouncements: a stimulus package. Investors watch the annual gathering of the National People’s Congress, the country’s rubber-stamp parliament, and a parallel meeting of China’s top policy body, for clues on the government’s priorities. Spending is set to remain at roughly last year’s level, suggesting that there’s no big-bang boost on the horizon.That’s not great news for Western brands that have ridden a surge in Chinese consumer spending to big growth in recent years. Apple reportedly has seen its Chinese iPhones sales plummet this year.The growth target matches last year’s too, when the post-lockdown economy grew 5.2 percent. (Some analysts say the real growth rate is much lower.) Global investors need to accept that slow growth is the new norm, says Yu Jie, a senior fellow on China at Chatham House, a think tank. “Beijing wants to draw a line under the past economic model which focused on infrastructure and property,” she told DealBook.Beijing’s real focus is reshaping the economy. The government knows that it faces a raft of challenges, but China’s leader, Xi Jinping, is trying to move away from debt-fueled sectors like property and move toward strategically important industries. The terms it uses are “high-quality development” and “new productive forces,” which includes electric vehicles, climate tech, life sciences, and artificial intelligence. The latest measures to achieve that: Premier Li Qiang, China’s second-highest official, said on Tuesday that the government would increase spending for science and technology research by 10 percent.More state-led investment is the priority, rather than “other kinds of more politically painful reforms,” George Magnus, a research associate at Oxford University’s China Center and a former chief economist at UBS, told DealBook.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

  • in

    Elon Musk’s Feud With OpenAI Goes to Court

    The tech mogul wants to force the A.I. start-up to reveal its research to the public and prevent it from pursuing profits.Elon Musk, the tech billionaire, has escalated his feud with OpenAI and its C.E.O., Sam Altman.Jonathan Ernst/ReutersMusk takes aim at OpenAI The gloves have really come off in one of the most personal fights in the tech world: Elon Musk has sued OpenAI and its C.E.O., Sam Altman, accusing them of reneging on the start-up’s original purpose of being a nonprofit laboratory for the technology.Yes, Musk has disagreed with Altman for years about the purpose of the organization they co-founded and he is creating a rival artificial intelligence company. But the lawsuit also appears rooted in philosophical differences that go to the heart of who controls a hugely transformative technology — and is backed by one of the wealthiest men on the planet.The backstory: Musk, Altman and others agreed to create OpenAI in 2015 to provide an open-sourced alternative to the likes of Google, which had bought the leading A.I. start-up DeepMind the year before. Musk notes in his suit that OpenAI’s certificate of incorporation states that its work “will benefit the public,” and that it isn’t “organized for the private gain of any person.”Musk poured more than $44 million into OpenAI between 2016 and 2020, and helped hire top talent like the researcher Ilya Sutskever.Altman has moved OpenAI toward commerce, starting with the creation in 2019 of a for-profit subsidiary that would raise money from investors, notably Microsoft. The final straw for Musk came last year, when OpenAI released its GPT-4 A.I. model — but kept its workings hidden from all except itself and Microsoft.“OpenAI, Inc. has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft,” Musk’s lawyers write in the complaint.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

  • in

    The F.T.C. Boosts Biden’s Fight Against Inflation

    The regulator’s move to block Kroger’s $25 billion bid for Albertsons could win the president points with voters squeezed by rising prices.Kroger’s “low prices” promise has come under fire after the F.T.C. and a number of states sued to block the supermarket giant’s $25 billion bid to buy Albertsons.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressKroger, Albertsons and the politics of inflation A paradox at the heart of the U.S. economy is that consumers are feeling squeezed even as growth indicators look strong — and are taking it out on President Biden’s approval ratings.So the White House probably cheered a move by the F.T.C. and several states on Monday to block Kroger’s $25 billion bid to buy Albertsons, arguing that the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history would raise prices and hit union workers’ bargaining power.The Biden administration has little influence over inflation, but it’s still getting heat. Consumers are spending the highest proportion of their income on food in 30 years, and an internal White House analysis found that grocery prices had the biggest impact on consumer sentiment.The Fed has jacked up interest rates to a 20-year-high in an effort to cool inflation, but progress on that has slowed in recent months.Biden is blaming big business. In a video released on Super Bowl Sunday, he went after “shrinkflation,” lashing out at companies for reducing packaging sizes and food portions without cutting prices. Biden is expected to reiterate that view in his State of the Union address next month.The president could point to the F.T.C.’s tough approach to M.&A. The agency operates independently, but Lina Khan, the F.T.C.’s chair, has taken the most aggressive and expansive antitrust enforcement stance in decades. That may help Biden’s message with voters that he’s fighting for their interests.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

  • in

    How Washington May Approach the Capital One-Discover Deal

    Regulators have been tough on big financial mergers, though there are nuances in Capital One’s $35.3 billion takeover bid for Discover.Capital One’s $35.3 billion bid for Discover is a bet that the movement to go cashless will continue to grow.Rogelio V. Solis/Associated PressChallenges, and opportunities, for a financial megadealCapital One’s $35.3 billion takeover to buy Discover Financial Services will create a colossus in the fast-growing credit card industry and a more powerful force in the payment networks that underpin the consumer economy.That will almost surely invite tough scrutiny from a Washington that is increasingly skeptical of big financial mergers. But continuing scrutiny of the two biggest payment networks in the U.S., Visa and Mastercard, may complicate the regulatory math.The deal: Capital One agreed to pay 1.0192 of its shares for each share of Discover, a roughly 26 percent premium to Friday’s trading prices. Discover’s shares were up more than 13 percent in premarket trading on Tuesday.If completed, the transaction would become a giant among credit card lenders, with Bloomberg estimating that the combined company would outstrip JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup in U.S. card loan volume. (That could ratchet up examinations over shrinking competition, and what that means for consumers.)Perhaps more important is the potential supercharging of Discover’s payment network, which has long lagged Visa, Mastercard and American Express. The Wall Street Journal reported that Capital One plans to switch some of its credit cards to the Discover network.The contrarian argument: This is good for Visa and Mastercard. The longtime giants of the payment network business have long been criticized for their fees, with Visa being investigated by the Justice Department. Monday’s deal could give them the opportunity to argue that they would face a newer, bigger competitor.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

  • in

    BlackRock, JPMorgan and State Street Retreat From a Climate Group

    BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and State Street are quitting or scaling back their ties to an influential global investment coalition.BlackRock, which has been criticized for its embrace of environmental considerations in investing, was among the firms that scaled back or withdrew from a climate coalition.Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesA $14 trillion exit Climate hawks have long questioned the financial industry’s commitment to sustainable investing. But few foresaw JPMorgan Chase and State Street quitting Climate Action 100+, a global investment coalition that has been pushing companies to decarbonize. Meanwhile, BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, scaled back its ties to the group.All told, the moves amount to a nearly $14 trillion exit from an organization meant to marshal Wall Street’s clout to expand the climate agenda.The retreat jolted the political landscape. Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who compared the coalition to a “cartel” forcing businesses to cut emissions, called for more financial companies to follow suit. And Brad Lander, New York City’s comptroller, accused the firms of “caving into the demands of right-wing politicians funded by the fossil-fuel industry.”The companies say they’re committed to the climate cause. JPMorgan said it had built an in-house sustainable investment team to focus on green issues. And BlackRock will maintain some ties to the coalition: It has transferred its membership to an international entity.A recent shift by Climate Action raised red flags. Last summer, the group shifted its focus from pressuring companies to disclose their net-zero progress to getting them to reduce emissions.State Street said the new priorities compromised its “independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company management.” And BlackRock, which has become a political lightning rod over its embrace of climate considerations in investing, said those tactics “would raise legal considerations, particularly in the U.S.” (Hence the transfer to an overseas division.)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