Prices (Fares, Fees and Rates)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Trump’s Justice Dept. Speech on Crime, Immigration and His Cases

      by

      President Trump repeated a number of well-trodden falsehoods on Friday in a grievance-fueled speech at the Justice Department, veering from prepared remarks to single out lawyers and prosecutors and assail the criminal investigations into him.His remarks, billed as a policy address, were wide-ranging, touching on immigration, crime and the price of eggs.Here’s a fact-check.Mr. Trump’s misleading claims touched on:His legal troublesThe 2020 electionBiden and classified documentsThe Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the CapitolParents, anti-abortion activists and CatholicsImmigration and crimeEgg pricesHis legal troublesWhat Was Said“They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”“They spied on my campaign, launched one hoax and disinformation operation after another, broke the law on a colossal scale, persecuted my family, staff and supporters, raided my home Mar-a-Lago and did everything within their power to prevent me from becoming the president of the United States.”This lacks evidence. Mr. Trump’s claims refer to a wide array of investigations and criminal cases that occurred before, during and after his first term as president.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Consumer Sentiment Drops as Inflation Anxiety Soars

      by

      Policy uncertainty and tariff whiplash are making consumers less confident about the economic outlook and more worried about inflation, new data from the University of Michigan showed on Friday, the latest evidence that Americans are bracing for pain in President Trump’s second term.A new survey released on Friday showed consumer sentiment plummeting 11 percent in March as Americans of all ages, income groups and political affiliations turned even more downbeat about the trajectory for the economy. Consumer confidence has fallen for the third consecutive month, not only about personal finances, but also the job market and stock markets. Since December, sentiment has tumbled 22 percent.“Many consumers cited the high level of uncertainty around policy and other economic factors; frequent gyrations in economic policies make it very difficult for consumers to plan for the future, regardless of one’s policy preferences,” said Joanne Hsu, director of the Surveys of Consumers at the University of Michigan.Consumers also revised up their expectations for inflation, both for the year ahead and over a five-year horizon. Over the next 12 months, consumers expect inflation to rise to 4.9 percent, up from a forecast for 4.3 percent last month. Over the longer run, expectations rose to 3.9 percent in what was the largest monthly jump since 1993. According to the latest Consumer Price Index report, inflation stands at 2.8 percent.“This is an horrific report,” said Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Elevated economic policy uncertainty and the sharp drop in stock prices have greatly undermined consumers’ confidence.”The preliminary data comes as President Trump and his top economic advisers have acknowledged that the president’s plans to reshape global trade through aggressive tariffs, to right size government spending and to alter the American immigration system, among other sweeping changes could hurt the economy or even push it into a recession.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

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Much Should Weight Loss Drugs Like Wegovy and Zepbound Cost?

      by

      A new study found that fair prices for medications like Wegovy and Zepbound would be hundreds less per month than they are now.It’s easy to make a medical case for blockbuster weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound, which have been shown to prevent heart attacks and strokes and save lives.But for the employers and government programs being asked to pay for the medications, the financial case for them is less clear. Are the drugs’ benefits worth their enormous cost?The answer right now is no, according to a new study published on Friday in the journal JAMA Health Forum, by researchers at the University of Chicago.To be considered cost effective by a common measure used by health economists, the price of Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy would need to be cut by over 80 percent, to $127 per month, the researchers concluded. And Eli Lilly’s Zepbound would be cost effective only if its price fell by nearly a third, to $361 per month. (Zepbound warranted a higher price, the researchers said, because it produced greater benefits in clinical trials.)“There’s no doubt that the drugs are demonstrating tremendous health benefits,” said David Kim, a health economist at the University of Chicago and the senior author of the study, which was funded by government grants. “The problem is the price is too high.”There’s widespread hope that the drugs will effectively pay for themselves in the long run, by making patients healthier and preventing expensive medical bills. It’s not clear yet whether that will turn out to be true.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Tariffs by Whim Keep Allies and Markets Off Balance

      by

      On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went on Fox Business to reassure nervous allies and even more twitchy investors that the Trump administration was negotiating a deal to avoid tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and that the president is “gonna work something out with them.”“It’s not gonna be a pause” for Mr. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs, he insisted. “None of that pause stuff.”On Thursday, the world got what the president characterized as more of that pause stuff.Mr. Trump’s announcement that he had a good conversation with Mexico’s president, and would delay most tariffs until April 2, was only the latest example of the punish-by-whim nature of the second Trump presidency. A few hours after the Mexico announcement, Canada got a break too, even as Mr. Trump on social media accused its departing prime minister, Justin Trudeau, of using “the Tariff problem” to “run again for Prime Minister.”“So much fun to watch!” he wrote.Indeed, it appears that Mr. Trump is having enormous fun turning tariffs on and off like tap water. But others are developing a case of Trump-induced whiplash, not least investors, who sent stock prices down again on Thursday amid the uncertainty over what Mr. Trump’s inconstancy means for the global economy. (A later rise in stock futures pointed to rosier expectations for Friday.)When the White House finally released the text of Mr. Trump’s orders on Thursday evening, it appeared that some of the tariffs — those covered in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and celebrated in his first term — were indeed permanently suspended. Other tariffs were merely paused.Most everyone involved was confused, which may well have been the point.As Mr. Trump hands down tariff determinations and then pulls them back for a month or so, world leaders call to plead their case, a bit like vassal states appealing to a larger power. Chief executives put in calls as well, making it clear that Mr. Trump is the one you need to deal with if you are bringing in car parts from Canada or chips from China.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Macy’s Signals a Rocky Year Ahead as Trade War Looms

      by

      The largest department store chain in the U.S., like other retailers recently, warned that consumers may be more cautious with their money in the months ahead.Macy’s, the largest department store in the United States, saw slightly improved sales across all of its stores during the holiday season, but like other retailers it warned of a potentially rocky year ahead. Macy’s said comparable sales at stores that it owns were down 1.1 percent in its fiscal fourth quarter, which ended Feb. 1. Across all of Macy’s nameplates, which include Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury, as well as its licensed business and online marketplace, sales rose 0.2 percent, the best result in many quarters.Macy’s entered the holiday season facing tough challenges, including more cost-conscious consumers, weakening profitability and a bizarre accounting error. It is in the midst of a turnaround plan that includes closing underperforming locations and improving its remaining stores with more staffing and better merchandise. It has closed about 66 of 150 planned stores so far. While Macy’s sees signs of optimism, the forecast it offered Wall Street showed that it expects to bring in less revenue than it did last fiscal year, in part because of the store closures. The retailer said it expects net sales to be $21 to $21.4 billion, down from the $22.3 billion this past year. It expects comparable sales to fall as much as 2 percent.David Swartz, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, cautioned that investors and analysts like himself “need to see more” in order to be convinced that the department store’s strategy to reverse its fortunes is really working.“When you own hundreds of stores, some of them are going to be really good and some of them in the middle and some of them are terrible,” he said, adding that “the fact that the better stores are performing fairly well does not really tell you that much about the health of the whole company, unfortunately.”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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Oil Companies Wanted Trump to Lower Costs. Tariffs Are Raising Them.

      by

      President Trump’s promise during last year’s election to make it far easier to drill for oil and gas thrilled energy executives who believed his policies would lower their costs and help them make a lot more money.Those hopes are now fading. Thanks to Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the oil and gas industry is contending with rising prices for essential materials like steel pipes used to line new wells.That has not yet translated into a meaningful change in U.S. drilling activity or production expectations, but companies have begun revising budgets to reflect higher materials costs. Decisions made today about which wells to drill will affect production many months from now.Oil refineries are separately bracing for a tariff on Canadian oil, which some of them need to produce gasoline, diesel and other fuels.At the same time, consumers have grown jittery about the economy and the price of oil has fallen about 10 percent since just before Mr. Trump took office, to around $70 a barrel. Oil companies tend to drill less when prices fall.The combination could complicate Mr. Trump’s stated desire to juice U.S. oil and natural gas production, which are already at or near record highs.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Inflation Is Rising. What Will That Mean for Trump’s Tariffs?

      by

      Consumer sentiment has turned south as high prices weigh on households. Could that crimp big pieces of the president’s economic agenda, including tariffs?Stubbornly high inflation is beginning to weigh on households, with sentiment souring fast, economists note.Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesRising prices hit a trade war President Trump isn’t backing off his tariff threats, despite the potential risk to the U.S. economy and financial markets.That puts additional focus on the latest Personal Consumption Expenditures report, the Fed’s favored inflation measure. It’s due for release at 8:30 a.m. Eastern.The question is whether lingering inflation also will have big implications for the Trump agenda, with some economists predicting that tariffs will raise inflation and lower growth, even if the target countries don’t retaliate. Friday’s report is expected to show only slight relief for consumers.Economists worry about a hot P.C.E. reading, which could push the central bank to keep borrowing costs higher well into the second half of the year, even as consumer confidence and the mood in the C-suites increasingly turn south and the economy shows signs of slowing.A recession is seen as unlikely, but there are other concerns. Recent data shows a growing affordability crunch with egg prices spiking (more on that below), home sales plummeting and jobless claims climbing. Watch next week’s jobs report for more, including which parts of the country could be hardest hit by Elon Musk-led cuts to the federal government. (Alaska is among them.)“With 3 million federal employees potentially worrying about their jobs and 6 million federal contractors worrying about their jobs, the risks are rising that households may begin to hold back purchases of cars, computers, washers, dryers, vacation travel plans, etc.,” Torsten Slok, Apollo’s chief economist, wrote in a research note on Thursday. Sentiment, he added, is “bad.”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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Returns to a Favorite Issue: Health Care Price Transparency

      by

      In a new executive order, President Trump will reaffirm his commitment to one of his favorite health care policies of his first term: His push to make the prices paid for medical services more public and transparent.Mr. Trump will sign the order on Tuesday afternoon, according to a White House official. After years of halfhearted compliance from hospitals and insurance companies with the previous policies, Mr. Trump is signaling a more aggressive approach to enforcing the rules and making pricing data accessible to patients, the official said.Health care prices have historically been shrouded in secrecy, negotiated in private between doctors, hospitals, drug companies and the insurance companies that pay their bills. The parties in those negotiations have fought hard to keep those numbers out of public view, saying that confidentiality is key to their bargaining process. Economics literature — which relied heavily on a study of Danish concrete prices in the 1990s — has suggested that making them public could actually backfire, by increasing health care prices.But with two major rules issued jointly by the departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor during his first term, Mr. Trump tried to force the industry to become more transparent. One rule required hospitals to publish the prices they charged to various insurers for a set of common services. Another required insurance companies to publish a more comprehensive listing of the prices they had negotiated with various health care providers.Industry compliance has been grudging, slow and marked by extensive litigation. After the rules became final in 2021, many hospitals simply declined to publish the required lists. Others tried to make their price information hard to find. The Wall Street Journal reported that several had inserted code into their web pages listing prices that made the pages impossible to find using an internet search engine.Nevertheless, the requirement did provide new information to researchers, employers and some patients about the nature of health care prices — and their wide and often inexplicable variation. The policy has so far not delivered on one of Mr. Trump’s key promises from his last term, that price transparency would significantly drive down health care costs. Health care prices have continued to rise.The new executive order will task H.H.S., Treasury and Labor with considering new ways to expand the reach of current initiatives, but it does not call for much in the way of specific new policy. Any meaningful new transparency initiative would require regulatory action or legislation, or both. But the signing of the new order does suggest that Mr. Trump has not forgotten about this priority, which he often referred to in his first term as “bigger than health care itself.” More