Prices (Fares, Fees and Rates)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      GDP Gain in First Quarter Revised Downward in U.S.

      by

      Consumers eased up on spending in the face of rising prices and high interest rates, Commerce Department data shows.Economic growth slowed more sharply early this year than initially estimated, as consumers eased up on spending amid rising prices and high interest rates.U.S. gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, grew at a 1.3 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. That was down from 3.4 percent in the final quarter of 2023 and below the 1.6 percent growth rate reported last month in the government’s preliminary first-quarter estimate.The data released on Thursday reflects more complete data than the initial estimate, released just a month after the quarter ended. The government will release another revision next month.The preliminary data fell short of forecasters’ expectations, but economists at the time were largely unconcerned, arguing that the headline G.D.P. figure was skewed by big shifts in business inventories and international trade, components that often swing wildly from one quarter to the next. Measures of underlying demand were significantly stronger.The revised data may be harder to dismiss. Consumer spending rose at a 2 percent annual rate — down from 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter, and 2.5 percent in the preliminary data for the last quarter — and measures of underlying demand were also revised down. An alternative measure of economic growth, based on income rather than spending, cooled to 1.5 percent in the first quarter, from 3.6 percent at the end of 2023.Still, the new data does little to change the bigger picture: The economy has slowed but remains fundamentally sound, buoyed by consumer spending that remains resilient even after the latest revisions. That spending is supported by rising incomes and the result of a strong job market that features low unemployment and rising wages. There is still no sign that the recession that forecasters spent much of last year warning about is imminent.Business investment, a sign of confidence in the economy, was actually revised up modestly in the latest data. Income growth, too, was revised up.Inflation, however, remains stubborn. Consumer prices rose at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, slightly slower than in the preliminary data but still well above the Federal Reserve’s long-run target of 2 percent.In response, policymakers have raised interest rates to their highest level in decades and have said they will keep them there until inflation cools further. The modestly slower growth reflected in Thursday’s data is unlikely to change that approach.The Fed will get a more up-to-date snapshot of the economy on Friday, when the government releases data on inflation, income and spending in April. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Sues to Break Up Ticketmaster Owner, Live Nation

      by

      Accused of violating antitrust laws, Live Nation Entertainment faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department on Thursday sued Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry.In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution.Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.“It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the court to order “the divestiture of, at minimum, Ticketmaster,” and to prevent Live Nation from engaging in anticompetitive practices.The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry.Live Nation’s scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DOJ to Sue Live Nation, Accusing It of Defending a Monopoly

      by

      Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department and a group of states plan to sue Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, as soon as Thursday, accusing it of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the live entertainment industry, said three people familiar with the matter.The government plans to argue in a lawsuit that Live Nation shored up its power through Ticketmaster’s exclusive ticketing contracts with concert venues, as well as the company’s dominance over concert tours and other businesses like venue management, said two of the people, who declined to be named because the lawsuit was still private. That helped the company maintain a monopoly, raising prices and fees for consumers, limiting innovation in the ticket industry and hurting competition, the people said.The government will argue that tours promoted by the company were more likely to play venues where Ticketmaster was the exclusive ticket service, one of the people said, and that Live Nation’s artists played venues that it owns.Live Nation is a colossus of the concert world and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. Its scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.The Ticketmaster division alone sells 600 million tickets a year to events around the world. According to some estimates, it handles ticketing for 70 percent to 80 percent of major concert venues in the United States.Lawmakers, fans and competitors have accused the company of engaging in practices that harm rivals and drive up ticket prices and fees. At a congressional hearing early last year, prompted by a Taylor Swift tour presale on Ticketmaster that left millions of people unable to buy tickets, senators from both parties called Live Nation a monopoly.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

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Russia’s War Machine Revs Up as the West’s Plan to Cap Oil Revenues Sputters

      by

      Russia has largely evaded attempts by the U.S. and Europe to keep it from profiting from its energy exports.The United States and its allies in the Group of 7 nations set two goals in 2022 when they enacted a novel plan to cap the price of Russian oil: restrict Moscow’s ability to profit from its energy exports while allowing its oil to continue flowing on international markets to prevent a global price shock.A year and a half later, only the latter goal appears to have worked. Energy prices have been relatively stable across the world, including in the United States, which helped devise the plan. But Russia’s war effort in Ukraine is intensifying, making it increasingly clear that efforts by Western allies to squeeze Moscow’s oil revenues are faltering.A variety of factors have allowed Russia to continue profiting from strong oil revenue, including lenient enforcement of the price cap. Russia’s development of an extensive “shadow” fleet of tankers has allowed it to largely circumvent that policy. That has allowed the Russian economy to be more resilient than expected, raising questions about the effectiveness of the coordinated sanctions campaign employed by the G7.The Biden administration maintains that the strategy has been effective and that the price cap has imposed costs on Russia and forced it to redirect money that it would have used in Ukraine to finance an alternative oil ecosystem.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in an interview on Sunday that the price of Russian oil was not the only measure of their profits, noting that Russia has had to invest significant resources in response to the cap.“We’ve made it very expensive for Russia to ship this oil to China and India in terms of acquiring a shadow fleet and providing insurance,” Ms. Yellen said on her flight to Europe, where she is holding meetings in Germany and attending a gathering of finance ministers in Italy. “We still think it’s working.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Comcast Plans Streaming Bundle With Netflix, Apple TV+

      by

      The bundle, called StreamSaver, is the latest joint effort from entertainment companies looking to woo price-weary customers.Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, is planning to offer its streaming service Peacock in a bundle with Netflix and Apple TV+, Brian Roberts, the company’s chief executive, said at an investor conference on Tuesday.Called StreamSaver, the bundle will be sold at a deep discount compared with subscribing to all three services separately, Mr. Roberts said. He didn’t specify a price for the service, which is expected to debut later this month.“We’ve been bundling video successfully and creatively for 60 years,” Mr. Roberts said. “This is the latest iteration of that. And I think this will be a pretty compelling package.”Over the past year, several entertainment companies have joined forces to entice customers who are weary of signing up and paying for numerous individual streaming services.Earlier this year, Warner Bros. Discovery, Fox and Disney announced that they were teaming up to offer a streaming service with games from the National Basketball Association and the National Football League. Last week, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery said that they would bundle their streaming services, selling users a package that included Disney+, Hulu and Max.Comcast has long offered its users a menu of streaming services on Xfinity, its package of services that includes cable television and broadband internet. For years, the company has offered services like Netflix and Apple TV+ as add-ons to its existing television bundle, acting as a vendor for those companies. This is the first time that Comcast has offered both services as part of a discounted bundle.Comcast, which has millions of broadband and cable television customers across the United States, has different incentives to bundle streaming services together than many of its competitors have. If Comcast can give its customers additional reasons to stick with the company, or convince them to pay for more features through Xfinity, the effort to bundle services will have been worth it.Many other internet providers have sold bundles that include streaming services. When Disney+ launched, Verizon offered a promotional bundle with that service. When the short-lived, short-form streaming service Quibi launched, T-Mobile offered to bundle its wireless offering with that service.Comcast has been willing to spend big to gain a foothold in the competitive video streaming business. Peacock, which launched in 2020, lost $2.7 billion last year, Comcast said in a filing, but paying subscribers increased to 31 million. The company has said that Peacock’s losses were narrowing as the service matured. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Maersk Says Expanded Houthi Attacks Are Forcing More Delays

      by

      The shipping company said the militia had recently tried to attack ships further from the shores of Yemen, putting more strain on logistics.Global shipping lines have become increasingly strained as the Houthi militia in Yemen broadens its attacks on cargo vessels, one of the largest companies in the industry warned on Monday.“The risk zone has expanded,” Maersk, the second-largest ocean carrier, said in a note to customers, adding that the stress was causing further delays and higher costs.Since late last year, the Houthis have been attacking ships in the Red Sea, which cargo vessels from Asia have to travel through to reach the Suez Canal. This has forced ocean carriers to avoid the sea and take a much longer route to Europe around the southern tip of Africa. But in recent weeks, the Houthis have been trying to strike ships making that longer journey in the Indian Ocean.Because going around Africa takes longer, shipping companies have had to add more vessels to ensure that they can transport goods on time and without cutting volumes.The threat to vessels in the Indian Ocean has only added to the difficulties. “This has forced our vessels to lengthen their journey further, resulting in additional time and costs to get your cargo to its destination for the time being,” Maersk said.The company estimated that putting extra ships and equipment onto the Asia to Europe route would result in a 15 percent to 20 percent drop in industrywide capacity in the three months through the end of June.That said, shipping companies have plenty of capacity available because they have ordered many new ships in recent years.Maersk said on Monday that customers should expect to see higher surcharges on shipping invoices as a result of the higher costs borne by the shipping line, which include a 40 percent increase in fuel use per journey.The cost of shipping a container from Asia to a northern European port was $3,550 last week, according to Freightos, a digital shipping marketplace, down from a recent high of $5,492 in January, and well below rates that climbed above $14,000 when global shipping became snarled during the coronavirus pandemic.The Houthis, who are backed by Iran, have said that their attacks were in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maximizing Profits at the Patients’ Expense

      by

      More from our inbox:The Brave Trump JurorsBlack Voters ‘Want to Be Courted’ by DemocratsBetter Than Debates NATo the Editor:Re “Patients Hit With Big Bills While Insurers Reap Fees” (front page, April 7):Chris Hamby’s investigation uncovers the hard truth for patients who receive care from providers outside their insurance network. While most of us try to save out-of-pocket costs by using in-network health professionals and hospitals, it’s not always possible. And there’s no way to determine what we’ll owe until after we get that care — when it’s too late to reconsider based on the costs we’ve incurred.So, it’s more important than ever for the government to swiftly implement an essential element of the No Surprises Act: Providers should have to give patients an advance explanation of benefits so patients can estimate their financial burden before they get treatment, in or out of network.Health price transparency is improving, but it’s outrageous that even two years after the No Surprises Act passed, everyone except the patient knows the price of a procedure or doctor’s visit in advance, leaving patients unpleasantly surprised.Patricia KelmarAlexandria, Va.The writer is senior director of Health Care Campaigns for U.S. PIRG.To the Editor:This is just the latest example of the schemes deployed by insurers to maximize profits by cutting reimbursements to physicians and shifting medically necessary health care costs onto patients.Whether it’s through third-party entities like MultiPlan or using tactics such as narrowing provider networks and restrictive prior authorization policies, insurers have the perverse incentive to boost revenue over offering adequate payment for quality patient care under the guise of “controlling costs.”More and more patients are being forced to decide whether they should forgo treatment because their insurer won’t pay the bill.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Approves $418 Million Settlement That Will Change Real Estate Commissions

      by

      Home sellers will no longer be required to offer commission to a buyer’s agent when they sell their property, under an agreement with the National Association of Realtors.A settlement that will rewrite the way many real estate agents are paid in the United States has received preliminary approval from a federal judge.On Tuesday morning, Judge Stephen R. Bough, a United States district judge, signed off on an agreement between the National Association of Realtors and home sellers who sued the real estate trade group over its longstanding rules on commissions to agents that they say forced them to pay excessive fees. The agreement is still subject to a hearing for final court approval, which is expected to be held on Nov. 22. But that hearing is largely a formality, and Judge Bough’s action in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri now paves the way for N.A.R. to begin implementing the sweeping rule changes required by the deal. The changes will likely go into full effect among brokerages across the country by Sept. 16. N.A.R., in a statement from spokesman Mantill Williams, welcomed the settlement’s preliminary approval.“It has always been N.A.R.’s goal to resolve this litigation in a way that preserves consumer choice and protects our members to the greatest extent possible,” he said in an email. “There are strong grounds for the court to approve this settlement because it is in the best interests of all parties and class members.”N.A.R. reached the agreement in March to settle the lawsuit, and a series of similar claims, by making the changes and paying $418 million in damages. Months earlier, in October, a jury had reached a verdict that would have required the organization to pay at least $1.8 billion in damages, agreeing with homeowners who argued that N.A.R.’s rules on agent commissions forced them to pay excessive fees when they sold their property. 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