Macro Matters: Trump-controlled Fed would 'hurt the economy'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Famous Philly cheesesteak under threat as costs continue to spiral
The rising cost of beef is putting pressure on Philadelphia's iconic cheesesteak industry, with one prominent restaurateur expressing concern over the impact on his business and customers. Ken Silver, president of Jim's South St., notes that the price of beef from his supplier has climbed by approximately $1 per pound compared to a year ago. This recent hike follows a "crazy" roughly 50 per cent increase when his establishment reopened in 2024 after a fire. US beef prices have been steadily rising for the past two decades, a trend attributed to a tight supply of cattle coupled with sustained consumer popularity for the meat. 'Our strategy right now is just absorbing the price and hoping that we see a reduction after the summer months are over, the grilling season and all the rest,' Silver said Wednesday. He said a cheesesteak sandwich at Jim's South St. costs $13.49, up from $11.49 in 2022, when the popular eatery was forced to close for nearly two years because of a fire. Cheesesteaks typically are made with thinly sliced beef, cheese and onions, though other toppings are possible, too. For consumers, the average price of a pound of ground beef rose to $6.12 in June, up nearly 12% from a year ago, according to U.S. government data. The average price of all uncooked beef steaks rose 8% to $11.49 per pound. 'We've taken a hit, profitability-wise, just to maintain what our customers would expect to get when they come to us: a reasonably priced cheesesteak of the best quality they can find," Silver said. If supply costs don't ease, Silver said he might have to raise menu prices or declare a market price, which fluctuates and is commonly associated with seafood. 'I really hate to do that,' said Silver, whose father started the business in 1976. A customer, Bryan Williams, suggested a price hike wouldn't discourage him from placing an order. 'That's just how things are going lately,' he said. 'There's really nothing that they can do about it.'
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's name ‘appears in Epstein files', president told by DOJ according to bombshell report: Live updates
The Department of Justice told Donald Trump that his name appears multiple times in the Jeffrey Epstein files, according to multiple senior administration sources. The sources told The Wall Street Journal that Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, informed the president during a May meeting at the White House that his name, as well as those of other high-profile figures, appeared in the Epstein files after they had sifted through a 'truckload' of documents. Following the Journal's report, sources familiar with the exchange confirmed the account to both The New York Times and CNN. Appearing in the files does not indicate that an individual has committed any wrongdoing, nor has Trump ever been accused of misconduct in connection with the Epstein case. The White House labeled the reports as 'fake news.' Meanwhile, a judge in Florida denied a DOJ request to release grand jury transcripts from the investigation into Epstein and his ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, undermining an effort by the Trump administration to extinguish the MAGA firestorm. Just before the House went on recess, a subcommittee voted to subpoena the DOJ for the files. The motion passed in an eight-to-two vote, with three Republicans breaking from Trump. Judge denies DOJ request to unseal Epstein Florida grand jury transcripts Federal judges in New York and Florida on Wednesday rejected requests to unseal grand jury transcripts related to investigations into Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche asked judges in Florida and New York to release transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying, 'Transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' However, appeals from both the Trump administration and Maxwell were denied Wednesday by two separate judges. The evidence the Trump administration hoped to unseal, however, likely wouldn't reveal much, according to experts, who say prosecutors try to provide just enough to get charges — not introduce an entire investigation. Isabel Keane has the story: Judge says law prohibits her from sharing grand jury records in Epstein Florida case The move comes as the Trump administration faces growing criticism over the Epstein investigations. James Liddell24 July 2025 09:02 Republicans defy party lines and vote to subpoena the Epstein files Just before the House went on recess, a subcommittee voted to subpoena the DOJ for the files. The motion passed in an eight-to-two vote, with three Republicans breaking from Trump. Those included representatives Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Brian Jack of Georgia and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. James Liddell24 July 2025 09:00 Trump told by DOJ that his name 'appears in Epstein files' The Department of Justice told President Donald Trump that his name appears multiple times in the Jeffrey Epstein files, multiple administration sources told The Wall Street Journal. The Journal reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, told the president during a May meeting at the White House that his name appeared in the Epstein files, after they had sifted through a 'truckload' of documents. Following the Journal's report, sources familiar with the exchange confirmed the account to both The New York Times and CNN. Appearing in the files does not necessarily indicate that an individual has committed any wrongdoing, nor has Trump ever been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein case. James Liddell24 July 2025 08:57
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Insurance claims from LA fires could ‘fully exhaust' $21bn state fund
Insurance claims from the Eaton wildfire could 'fully exhaust' a state fund that was set up to protect customers when a wildfire is caused by a utility company. The devastating wildfire in Los Angeles killed 17 people and destroyed more than 9,000 structures in January. One leading theory is that ageing equipment belonging to Southern California Edison, the primary electricity provider in the region, ignited the fire. If the utility company is found to have been responsible for igniting the devastating January blaze, then the 'financial health of the fund could be strained', according to documents published by California's Catastrophe Response Council, a group of lawmakers and members of the public who oversee the state's wildfire fund. California lawmakers established the state's $21bn wildfire fund in 2019 in an effort to prevent the state's largest utility companies from declaring bankruptcy if their equipment caused a fire. The fund is made up of money the utility companies contribute and a surcharge on customers' utility bills. Power lines and other utility equipment are a top cause of wildfires in drought-ridden California – and have sparked some of the state's most devastating blazes including the 2018 Camp fire that killed more than 80 people. Although investigators are still determining the cause of the Eaton fire, the utility company has been under scrutiny since the blaze broke out. The wildfire fund is overseen by a seven-member council that includes the governor, insurance commissioner, treasurer and secretary for natural resources, members of the public and lawmakers. Before the council's scheduled 24 July meeting, the group published minutes from its 1 May meeting and a draft annual report to the legislature. Those documents suggest that insurance claims from the Eaton fire could drain its resources entirely. Insured losses for both wildfires that devastated southern California in January – the Eaton and the Palisades fires – range from $20bn to $45bn, according to estimates from financial services companies, such as Moody's and Milliman, and the University of California at Los Angeles Anderson School of Management. The risk management firm Verisk estimates that insured losses from the Eaton fire alone could reach $15.2bn. Those estimates have prompted the fund council to warn that, if it is determined that the Eaton fire was sparked by utility equipment, 'the resulting claims may be substantial enough to fully exhaust the Fund'. The losses could far exceed the fund pending ongoing lawsuits. Dozens of families who lost homes in the Eaton fire have sued Southern California Edison. If investigators determine the blaze was sparked by utility equipment, the state fund would also be responsible for paying any settlements in those lawsuits. The documents published before the council's meeting include strategies its members are considering in consultation with experts to ensure the financial durability of the fund. The committee also drafted a letter stating that 'they want to make sure most of the Fund is going to wildfire recovery experts and not third-party actors', such as hedge funds or attorneys. The council documents note that hedge funds are purchasing insurance industry subrogation rights, or the right to the insurance claim, in an attempt to profit from the wildfires. By doing so, hedge funds are agreeing to pay the insurance claim, but would take home any winnings from a legal settlement if Southern California Edison is found liable. The California Earthquake Authority, which administers the fund under the oversight of the council, also told the Los Angeles Times that it worries attorney fees could shrink the fund further (up to half of settlement amounts can go to legal fees). Another tactic may include paying out 'only reasonable claims'. In notes to the fund administrator, one council member asks their colleagues to consider requiring utility companies to 'settle claims with diligence' – since the fund, not the utilities, ultimately pay those settlements.
