Kevin-OLeary-loves-his-Marty-Supreme-costar-Timothee-Chalamet-so.jpeg

Kevin O’Leary loves his ‘Marty Supreme’ costar Timothée Chalamet so much, he bet $1,000 on Kalshi that he’ll win an Oscar

  • Kevin O’Leary is betting big on Timothée Chalamet.
  • O’Leary said on the red carpet that he bet $1,000 that his “Marty Supreme” costar will win an Oscar.
  • Chalamet is up against Michael B. Jordan for best actor.

Kevin O’Leary is confident his “Marty Supreme” costar Timothée Chalamet is walking away with the best actor Oscar.

The “Shark Tank” star is so confident, in fact, he put money on it.

O’Leary, who plays tycoon Milton Rockwell in “Marty Supreme,” told Variety on the Oscars red carpet that he bet $1,000 on the betting app Kalshi that Chalamet will win the prize.

“I know the voting stopped long before that controversy happened,” O’Leary told the magazine, referring to a comment Chalamet made during a conversation with Matthew McConaughey earlier this month where he talked down the ballet and opera.

“I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive, even though no one cares about this anymore,'” Chalamet said.

Chalamet has been the frontrunner for the best actor Oscar until recently, when “Sinners” star Michael B. Jordon won the best actor prize at SAG’s Actor Awards. And O’Leary is right — Oscar voting did indeed close before Chalamet’s mini-controversy. So whether Mr. Wonderful wins or loses $1,000, it won’t be related to a love or hatred for opera and ballet.




Source link

What-leading-voices-in-economics-and-business-are-saying-about.jpeg

What leading voices in economics and business are saying about Kevin Warsh’s nomination as Fed chair

  • Kevin Warsh has been nominated by President Donald Trump to become the Federal Reserve chair.
  • The reaction from key voices in economics and business poured in soon after the announcement.
  • Most people agree that Warsh is a qualified pick, while some have concerns about his track record.

President Donald Trump has chosen Kevin Warsh, a former bank executive and central bank governor, to lead the Federal Reserve.

Within minutes of the nomination, reactions started pouring in from prominent economists and business leaders.

Here are what some of the leading voices in economics and business are saying.

Mohamed El-Erian

Mohamed El-Erian is one of the most prominent voices in global markets and economics.

Nordin Catic/Getty Images For The Cambridge Union

The renowned economist Mohamed El-Erian congratulated Warsh on his nomination to lead the Fed.

“Having observed and interacted with Kevin during his prior tenure as Fed Governor, in academia, and as a fellow member of the Group of Thirty (G-30), I believe he brings a strong mix of deep expertise, broad experience, and sharp communication skills,” El-Erian wrote in a post on X.

“His commitment to reforming and modernizing the Fed bodes well for enhancing policy effectiveness and protecting the institution’s political independence.”

Earlier in January, El-Erian wrote on X that the Department of Justice probe into Jerome Powell could undermine the “credibility of a Fed whose public standing is already fragile.”

Jason Furman


Jason Furman, American economist and professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, speaks to an audience while seated.

Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers

Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images

Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former top economist to President Barack Obama, wrote on X that “Warsh is well above the bar on both substance and independence to be Chair of the Federal Reserve.”

“The Senate should ask tough questions about his independence & President Trump should reduce the threat to it. Hopefully that will make it clear Warsh should be confirmed,” he wrote.

“Warsh has a range of views that would not have led me to recommend a Democratic President nominate him as Federal Reserve Chair,” Furman added. “I would be thrilled if he ends up conducting himself over the next four years in a way that would make a President of any party want to reappoint him.”

Joseph Brusuelas

Joseph Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US LLP, said Warsh meets the bar to lead the Fed, but he should be questioned on central bank independence and reform, as well as on reducing the Fed’s balance sheet.

“Moreover, he should be challenged to how he would respond in a financial crisis given his public track record of focusing on inflation risk during a time of rising unemployment and deflation during the early portion of the Great Financial crisis,” Brusuelas wrote on X.

“Warsh has a range of views and track record that presents significant concerns about how he would proceed during a financial and economic crisis. I would not have recommended him but he is qualified for the job,” he added.

Robin Brooks


Robin Brooks, former Institute of International Finance chief economist and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution speaks on a panel against a blue backdrop.

Robin Brooks, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images

Robin Brooks, senior fellow at Brookings, said in an X post that Warsh “is a really good pick for Fed Chair and known as a hawk.”

He did, however, note the muted market reaction in the minutes after the announcement.

“But markets are asking themselves what was promised to get the nod, which is why the Dollar – after its huge decline in recent days – isn’t managing to rally on what should be good news,” said Brooks, who was also a managing director and chief economist at the Institute of International Finance.

Paul Krugman


Paul Krugman, economist and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, speaks at a panel against a grey backdrop.

Paul Krugman was awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics.

Alejandro Martinez Velez/Europa Press via Getty Images

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and research professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, criticized Warsh’s nomination.

He wrote in a post on his Substack: “As I write this, many media reports are describing Warsh as a monetary hawk. That’s a category error. Warsh is a political animal. He calls for tight money and opposes any attempt to boost the economy when Democrats hold the White House.”

Krugman cited Warsh’s track record as a member of the Federal Reserve Board, saying he had “argued strenuously against the Fed’s efforts to boost the economy.”

“It’s a humiliating day for the Federal Reserve, which has always prided itself on its professionalism and has been hugely respected around the world. But even the Fed can’t insulate itself from the derangement sweeping America,” he added.

Sonali Basak

Sonali Basak, the chief investment strategist for iCapital and a former Bloomberg anchor, wrote on X: “Between Bessent & Warsh, you have two proteges of Stanley Druckenmiller in the most powerful finance posts in government.”

Warsh is a partner at billionaire Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office LLC.

George Osborne


George Osborne, head of OpenAI for Countries and former UK chancellor, gestures while speaking to a person turned away from the camera.

George Osborne leads the OpenAI for Countries program.

Jack Taylor/Getty Images for SXSW London

George Osborne, the UK’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer, praised Trump’s decision to nominate Warsh as Fed chair.

“Kevin Warsh is an excellent choice as Chair of the Fed – smart, serious, experienced, knows the new economy as well as the old,” Osborne, who leads OpenAI for Countries, wrote in a post on X.

“I’ve been fortunate enough to know him for more than twenty years and this is the job he was put on earth to do. The world feels a little safer – and more prosperous – today,” he added.

Alan Howard

Howard, the billionaire founder of $33 billion macro hedge fund Brevan Howard, called Warsh an “outstanding choice for Fed Chair.”

“I’ve known him for more than 20 years, and his judgment, integrity, and depth of experience will make him an exceptional leader of the Federal Reserve,” Howard said in a statement sent to Business Insider.

Raphael Bostic


Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic

Raphael Bostic leads the Atlanta Fed.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic is optimistic about Warsh’s nomination. He told CNBC’s ‘Squawk Box‘ Friday that the nominee has a reputation for being “quite thoughtful” and “is someone you can really engage with.”

He added that the central bank’s independence is “always something that we need to protect.” He expects to see more “differing perspectives” on the FOMC if Warsh steps into the role, but it’s too early to tell how monetary policy could change.

“Every chair comes with its view of how the world is and how they think it is going to evolve,” Bostic said. “But, ultimately, the institution’s actions require the votes of twelve people at one time.”

Mark Zandi


Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, sits onstage at a panel against a backdrop which reads 'Prudential' and 'Yahoo Finance'.

Mark Zandi is chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Yahoo

Mark Zandi, the top economist at Moody’s Analytics, wrote on X that Warsh was a “reasonable choice”.

Zandi said Warsh’s stint on the Fed and experience as an investment banker mean he “knows the institution and everyone in global central banking circles ” and is “well-versed in financial markets.”

However, Zandi said the key question is whether the former Wall Streeter will be able to keep politics out of interest rate decisions.

“Warsh’s ostensible views on the use of the Fed’s balance sheet or its data dependency are quirky, even odd, but his legacy as Fed chair will be determined by how much of the Fed’s independence he is able to preserve,” Zandi added.

Ray Dalio


Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, speaks onstage while seated against a red backdrop.

Ray Dalio is the founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates.

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for TIME

Billionaire investor and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio wrote on X that Warsh was a “great choice” for Fed chair.

“We who have been engaged with policy makers and markets for a long time know him and respect him for his capabilities and his judgement,” Dalio said.

“He is knowledgeable and a reasonable man who understands the risks of having a Fed policy that is too easy as well as too tight and how to judge what’s too easy and what’s too tight,” he said, adding: “Presumably, he also knows how to deal with the president and the Treasury well.”




Source link

Bryan Metzger

The Jerome Powell-sized problem standing in the way of Kevin Warsh’s Fed confirmation

President Donald Trump has a Jerome Powell-sized problem with installing Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair.

A key Republican senator has vowed to oppose the confirmation of any nominee to be the next Federal Reserve chairman until the Department of Justice’s probe into Powell, the current chair, is resolved.

That senator — Thom Tillis of North Carolina — happens to sit on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which considers Fed chair nominations. If all Democrats join Tillis in opposing Warsh’s confirmation, Warsh’s nomination will effectively be stuck in committee.

In a post on X on Friday, Tillis made clear that he has nothing against Warsh, who has otherwise been lauded as a strong pick by both Republicans and economists.

“Kevin Warsh is a qualified nominee with a deep understanding of monetary policy,” Tillis wrote, later adding: “Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable.”

Earlier this month, Powell revealed that the DOJ issued grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve related to recent renovations at the building.

Powell called the probe an effort to exert pressure on the central bank’s monetary policy, and central bankers from around the world have rallied to Powell’s defense.

Trump has said that he had no knowledge of the subpoenas before Powell made them public.

In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that Warsh is “eminently qualified to serve” as the next Fed chair and that the White House “looks forward to working with the Senate to quickly confirm him and get the Federal Reserve back on track.”

Trump appeared unmoved by Tillis’s opposition, telling reporters in the Oval Office later on Friday that it’s “too bad.”

He also suggested that Warsh’s confirmation may have to wait until Tillis is out of office. The North Carolina senator’s term ends in January 2027.

“If he doesn’t approve, we’ll just have to wait until somebody comes in that will approve it,” Trump said.

Why one senator has so much power

Under Senate rules, before the full chamber can vote on a nominee, it must be reported “favorably” by the committee with jurisdiction, which requires a majority vote.

Democrats are expected to broadly oppose Warsh’s confirmation, with many raising concerns about the independence of the Fed.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement on Friday that “no Republican purporting to care about Fed independence should agree to move forward with this nomination” under the circumstances.

If Tillis and every Democrat vote against Warsh’s nomination, that leads to a deadlocked 12-12 committee vote.

It would take 60 votes in the Senate to bypass that committee vote and bring his nomination to the floor — an unlikely prospect, given that it requires Democratic support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has acknowledged the predicament. According to POLITICO, when asked on Thursday whether Warsh could be confirmed without Tillis’s support, Thune said: “Uh, probably not.”

Earlier this year, Tillis opted not to seek reelection, making it far more difficult for Trump to exert pressure on him to change his mind.




Source link

Kevin-Reilly-had-a-great-time-running-TV-during-the.jpeg

Kevin Reilly had a great time running TV during the Peak TV era. Now he’s in AI.

TV is an endangered species. People aren’t watching it, and don’t want to pay for it. And the companies that own TV networks are trying to find someone — anyone — to buy them.

But not that long ago, lots of us were reveling in the “Peak TV” era — a time when inventive TV programming was plentiful and, crucially, popular. A time when you could watch “The Sopranos” on HBO, “Friday Night Lights” on NBC, and “The Shield” on FX.

This was also a time when Kevin Reilly had great jobs in TV, where he steered programming at networks including NBC, FX, Fox, and Turner — and had his hands on all the shows I just mentioned. That run ended in 2000, when Reilly was re-orged out of what was then called WarnerMedia.

Today, Reilly is in AI, of course: He recently became CEO of Kartel, a startup that’s supposed to help big brands use the tech.

But in a recent episode of my Channels podcast, I talked to him about life during TV’s latest (and possibly last) golden age — and whether he thinks it will ever come back. (Spoiler: There’s a reason he’s in AI now.)

You can read an edited excerpt from our conversation below, and listen to the whole thing here.

Peter Kafka: You got to be a TV executive in what we now call the Peak TV era. What was that like?

Kevin Reilly: When I got to network television, there were still these rules, like “the good guy always wins” and “people don’t want to watch depressing things on television.”

And then cable, when I went to FX, that was really one of the most fun chapters of my career because it was the very early days of basic cable. All of a sudden, we started doing “The Shield” and “Nip/Tuck” and doing these things that the press had labeled “HBO for basic cable.”

Prior to this, basic cable was mostly infomercials and reruns.

Kevin Reilly: I was sitting there talking to great creators, and I was telling them we were HBO for basic cable. And on the monitor above my head was “Cops” running 24 hours a day, keeping the lights on.

I was like, “Don’t look at the monitor.”

But all of a sudden, we were able to do stuff that really wasn’t fit for broadcast by being very particular and being a little bit more forward.

Around the same time, streaming popped up, and Netflix debuted “House of Cards” in 2013 as an explicitly HBO-style show. There was a lot of fascination with streaming but also dismissiveness: Jeff Bewkes, who was running Time Warner at the time, famously dissed Netflix as “the Albanian army.” Did you believe that back then?

I think Jeff is an extraordinary leader, and I loved working for him. At the time, though, I think he had to do what he needed to do.

You don’t think he was really dismissive of Netflix? It was just something he had to say?

I think at that point, throughout the entire business, everyone was dismissive of Netflix. “We’re picking these guys’ pockets. They’re gonna go out of business. We’re selling them all the stuff that we can’t sell. They’re idiots.”

But at the same time, Netflix was all anybody was talking about, all day long. I remember flying to Detroit to talk to a big [advertising] client for one of our series. It was going to be a $50 million, $60 million transaction. And all they were talking about was Netflix.

They were buying advertising, and then telling me how all their kids are only watching things on their phones all day long. And I was like, “Isn’t this ironic that you, an advertiser, are talking about a non-advertising-based service and how your kids don’t watch TV anymore?”

What did you think?

I thought they would experiment and do stuff, but maybe not at scale. I mean, they don’t have the system for that, and it’s really hard. Well, first of all, they did what we did (at FX) — they took a page out of the HBO handbook: Fire the money cannon and say, “Hey, we’ll just dream. Bring us in your dreams. Do what you wanna do.”

Your last job in TV was at what was then called WarnerMedia, which had been purchased by AT&T, and there were a bunch of different justifications for that deal, but the real one turned out to be “maybe Wall Street will give us a Netflix stock multiple,” which never happened. Did you think that combination was going to work?

I mean, the product itself works and has been a success. But to take the entirety of Time Warner, and then it was going to be a one-product system that we would single-handedly launch and build an ad play around it, and all of a sudden compete with Google and Netflix …

I don’t know that even Wall Street ever bought that narrative, no matter how hard we sold it.

Comcast and Paramount are bidding for WBD. Netflix is bidding, too. There’s going to be some kind of consolidation no matter what. Do you think that when all of this gets done that there’s a future for traditional television, or do you think it becomes, in the end, a subset of a bigger tech platform?

I’d love to be able to just give you the knee-jerk answer, “Of course, there’ll always be traditional television.” I think unfortunately, everybody waited too long to figure out how we were going to prop it up.

So will it have a very long tail on it, like radio? The heyday of radio went away and we still have radio. I believe it will be around in some fashion. And as some of these assets get shed or reinvented — yeah, they might end up having a little bit more life in some ways than we thought they did.

And radio became podcasts…

Exactly. So there’s always new expressions of it.

But retooling traditional businesses, especially while you’ve got to pull the profit out from underneath, is really difficult.

Correction: December 1, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated one of the companies bidding for WBD: They are Paramount and Comcast, along with Netflix.




Source link