Bloomberg Opinion

RFK Jr.’s move to fire all existing members of a key vaccine panel may be his most troubling yet. Read today’s editorial: https://lnkd.in/eyZJPktT

Let’s see: Did the United States ever let good storytelling interfere with rigorous intelligence gathering in making the case for war in the Middle East? Well, there was the prologue to that war in 2003, when the White House told the country, the world and itself that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Surely, the US wouldn’t let powerful narratives trump truth-seeking ever again. Or would it? Sadly, the White House might be in the process of repeating that mistake. The controversy is about operation Midnight Hammer, in which American bombers and other aircraft struck Iran’s nuclear facilities. The debate is not — and should not be — about whether the mission was militarily impressive and the pilots, including a woman, were heroic (yes and yes). It should focus on only one thing: Did it achieve its strategic objective? That objective, at least as stated, was to end Iran’s ability to make nukes, or to delay its efforts indefinitely. In that light, did Midnight Hammer succeed? A definitive answer is impossible to give and may remain elusive for a long time. Evidently, though, that ambiguity is something that not only President Donald Trump and his national-security team but also the American and international public cannot bear. Trump’s story since the strike has been that Midnight Hammer “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. To that narrative he has now added his view that media outlets which have reported on conflicting intelligence assessments are “scum. They’re bad people. They’re sick.” He’s also thrown in the red herring that these peddlers of “fake news” are insulting not only him but also the brave pilots who flew the mission. In fact, nobody anywhere, as far as I’m aware, has shown anything other than veneration for the execution of the mission, and no pilots are on record for feeling offended. This storyline is one of several attempted head fakes. Trump’s most sycophantic cabinet members, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have understood their assigned roles in this media spectacle and are shouting into the president’s bullhorn. “You want to call it destroyed? You want to call it defeated? You want to call it obliterated? Choose your word,” Hegseth defied the assembled press on Thursday. He too then tried to paint any doubts about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program as bad faith by the press. “How about we celebrate” the mission, he gasped in mock exasperation. “How about we talk about how special America is? That only we have these capabilities?” In fact most of the early commentary, including mine, started with exactly that.... (Read the whole column with this gift link) Bloomberg Opinion https://bit.ly/4lrXbVA

Cases such as Harvey Weinstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed show we have a problem with non-disclosure agreements, aka NDAs. But should the UK follow Ireland and parts of Canada in restricting them? Won't that affect settlements? In my latest piece for Bloomberg Opinion I make the case that the government should stop the powerful from using NDAs to cover up abuse, harassment and the mistreatment of employees. With thanks to Zelda Perkins https://lnkd.in/ee7ctXMz

Taking the stress test volatility out of US bank capital is smart but at a time when the Fed is politically weak it must avoid being wrangled into giving up too much financial safety bit by bit Via Bloomberg Opinion > How to Avoid Death By a Thousand Cuts https://lnkd.in/epv-6_Se

Is Nike finally turning a corner? Investors seeem to think so, pushing the shares up as much as 11% in after-market trading. As expected, the sportswear giant's fourth quarter results were dismal, but not as bad as either the market or the company had feared. Nike's newish CEO Elliott Hill also forecast a revenue decline in the first quarter in a mid-single digit percentage. If achieved, it would be the best performance for over a year. Profitability is also set to improve as Nike clears out its backlog of out of fashion sneakers. What's more, the company's, new product drought looks to be ending. The Vomero 18 has already generated $100 million of sales since its launch in late February, lifting the overall running category. A hybrid sneaker loafer, the Air Max Phenomena, is causing such a frenzy that it has driven resale prices beyond $500, even before its official release. That looks like a blast from Nike’s past, when new models had sneakerheads salivating. Also harking back to the innovation that has been so sorely lacking is the Cryoshot, which reinterprets classic football boots for everyday dressing, building on the #bootsonlysummer TikTok trend for wearing soccer cleats in the street. For the past two and a half years, years, such foresight has belonged largely to Bjorn Gulden, CEO of Adidas, who has been on the front foot with low-rise sneakers. That Nike is riding a wave, rather than missing it is a welcome change.   But Hill still has well, a hill to climb. First of all there is President Trump's tariffs, which are set to cost Nike $1 billion this year without sharing any of the pain with suppliers or customers. The delay to the launch of NikeSkims, the collaboration with Kim Kardashian’s shapewear company, looks like an own goal, particularly given the hype around the tie-up. Of course Hill wants to get such an important debut right, but the long gap between announcing the new brand in February and bringing its products to market looks unfortunate. It gives rivals such as Lululemon Athletica Inc. time to spruce up their collections.  Then there is Gulden, who is planning to use the heat from Adidas's trendy styles worn on the street -- think the Samba, the SL72 and the Taekwondo -- to turbo-charge sales of shoes that help the wearer run faster or jump higher. Gulden, who has a merchant's flair, has proved to be a highly effective operator. That he is now targeting just the market that Hill's turnaround plan hinges on its a concern. Perhaps Hill put it best when he spoke of Faith Kipyegon’s Nike-backed effort Thursday to become the first woman to shatter the four-minute mile. “You have to dare to try,” he said. Kipyegon fell short by six seconds. Investors will be hoping that when it comes to reinvigorating Nike, Hill does better. Bloomberg Opinion #Nike #Adidas https://lnkd.in/ezB9yYxF

Week one of Tesla’s robotaxi launch is almost done. So far, it’s been pretty low drama. But it’s also, relative to the expectations built up by Elon Musk, a disappointment. A few cars in a limited part of Austin with a safety monitor thrown in - not the robotaxis everywhere model Tesla has touted for years. As much as just getting robotaxi out there represents a milestone for Tesla, it also creates a millstone. What has kept Tesla’s stocm aloft has been the idea of robotaxis and faith that Tesla will dominate the space. Well now they’re here, there’s little evidence of dominance as yet - and Tesla has started the clock on showing actual progress. Read about it here at Bloomberg Opinion https://lnkd.in/eMp7yFbf

The White House’s math on the budget bill requires nothing short of an economic miracle. Read the column: https://lnkd.in/eaSbPGCc

One of my favorite data releases is out this month: the U.S. Census Bureau's annual Characteristics of New Housing. I used it to explore the boom in US apartment construction that appears to have peaked last year. It was the biggest year for apartment construction since 1986, and the biggest ever for construction of apartments in big (30 or more unit) buildings. Not so big: the apartments. The median size was 1,006 square feet, the lowest on record (although the record on that only goes back to 1999), with one-bedrooms making up 46% of the total, an all-time high. My latest column, available with a gift link that should be good for the next week, explores whether this flood of small apartments in big buildings is a response to demand or the less-than-optimal product of zoning rules and building codes. https://lnkd.in/ezw2e6BF

A district court judge ruled against three authors who said Anthropic's use of their books (and more than 7 million written by other people) was a breach of copyright. Training large language models with this material was "fair use," Judge Alsup ruled. One argument against Anthropic -- that AI could generate copycat material based on the learnings from the human-authored work -- was thrown out on the grounds that it was "no different" than a child learning the same things and writing her own book. The law, plainly, is broken. An excerpt from today's Bloomberg Opinion column (with a gift link to the full piece below): ** A child might read 10 books a year if we’re lucky. The creation of the books she reads is supported by a parent or school buying them for her. If she decides to write, it’s one of life’s miracles — a chance for her imagination to flow onto the page. Despite being just a child, or perhaps because of it, her writing will be fresh and unique, laden, between the lines or otherwise, with lived experience. The home she grew up in, the friends she’s met, the dreams she has — all will influence how she interprets the contents of the books she has read, determining how she chooses to pass on that knowledge. Her writing will contain contradictions, flaws and humanity. Most important for this debate, her “competing work” is additive. She will contribute. The machine downloads 7 million books and learns nothing — for it cannot learn, at least not in any true sense of the word. It does not contribute; it copies. Sure, it may synthesize information in ways that may surprise us, but it does so only thanks to the hard and uncompensated work of others. It can have no lived, or new, experiences. For sure, a competent new knowledge tool may have been created, but AI doesn’t so much generate new value as it does transfer it — from one place, the original source, to another: itself. That’s not in and of itself a problem; many technologies do this. But this value transfer should command a fee to the originator if the copyright law’s stated goal of advancing original works of authorship is to be met for generations to come. ** #ai #anthropic #fairuse https://lnkd.in/eAT-_DWy

Historians will judge the massive US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities by trying to answer two questions, which ultimately become inseparable. Was the intervention wise? And was it legitimate? It’s far too early to assess the wisdom of Operation Midnight Hammer — that is, whether it will make the world safer. Stunning as its execution was, the mission’s objective was to end Iran’s ability to make nukes. But even though President Donald Trump keeps boasting that the attacks “obliterated” the Iranian targets, leaks of early intelligence from the Pentagon suggest that the bombing only set the nuclear program back by a few months. If Tehran now hurries to make atomic bombs in secret — and if other countries in the region then build their own nukes for self-protection — the tactical triumph of Midnight Hammer will turn into a strategic disaster. That ambiguity focuses attention on the strike’s legitimacy, in both domestic and international law. Trump implicitly acknowledged that tension with two contrasting statements he made within a few hours. It may not be “be politically correct,” he Truthed just after the attack, but “why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” This is the language of power in international affairs, unchecked by legitimacy. In a more official medium, he then dutifully declared that “I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148).” His attack order was legal, he tried to argue, because it was not only “limited in scope and purpose” but also “taken to advance vital United States national interests.” This is the language of lawyers in pursuit of legitimacy. The only international body that could have legitimated Trump’s (or Israel’s) campaign against Iran is the United Nations Security Council, but it did not do so. In fact, the UN Secretary General criticized Midnight Hammer as a “perilous turn,” and several members of the council, all too predictably including China and Russia, condemned the US strikes. The only domestic organ that could have legitimated the strike is Congress, but it wasn’t even given the chance. (As of this writing, the administration had not even briefed Congress.) A number of senators and representatives — even including the odd Republican — are now calling Trump’s strikes unconstitutional.... (Read the whole column with this gift link) Bloomberg Opinion https://bit.ly/3G6w7fF