Connect with us

Business

How Mark Carney excels at collaboration over confrontation, according to leadership experts

Published

on



In 2020, when the UK was deeply divided over Brexit, David Pullan, a leadership consultant based in London, took some solace in a reassuring voice that he often heard on BBC radio explaining the financial repercussions of the situation with ease. “This man is good,” Pullan remembers thinking.

The voice belonged to Mark Carney, the then-governor of the Bank of England, who is now the prime minister of Canada, and navigating another crisis: A trade war with the U.S. 

A former longtime banker at Goldman Sachs, and ex-governor of the Bank of Canada, Carney led a historic comeback for his Liberal Party this spring, entering the political race after Canada’s former leader Justin Trudeau stepped down and the Liberals appeared ready to be trounced by the opposing Conservatives in a federal election. Part of Carney’s success can be attributed to Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. last year. After Trump talked of imposing high tariffs on Canada, and mused about making the country a 51st U.S. state, Canadian voters backed Carney over his political opponent, believing Carney would be better able to push back against their southern neighbor. 

And, although he is facing a fresh test of his leadership right now, voter confidence in Carney seems to have been warranted. Trump has stopped talking about annexing Canada, and the White House has so far honored an existing trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that covers an estimated 94% of goods traded that are free of taxes.  In meetings between the pair of leaders, the U.S. president has seemed uncharacteristically subdued and respectful. The interactions left Carney with a new label: “Trump whisperer.” 

It’s an idea that Carney shrugs off with a laugh in television interviews. But leadership experts say that his behavior and choices are also lessons for other CEOs navigating precarious times. By approaching Trump with the right mix of respect and self-assuredness, Carney has shifted the dynamic between the two leaders from combative to collaborative. He has also avoided reactive behavior, choosing instead to set his own narrative and not be dragged into a story of Trump’s making. 

In the midst of heated conflict, Carney is demonstrating an important point for leaders in any realm, says Mary Crossan, a professor of strategic leadership at Western University’s Ivey Business School. “It’s not impossible to set the stage for the quality of the conversation that you want.”  

A Zen-like quality 

A Canadian by birth, Carney graduated from Harvard University and Oxford, then worked in the private sector before taking a role with the Bank of Canada. (He’s often credited with shielding Canada from the 2008 financial crisis.) Carney went on to take up the central banker role in the UK in 2013. “What I admire about Mark Carney is what I refer to as his strategic stillness, and his ability to remain calm in the eye of the storm,” says Pullan. By doing so, he becomes the perfect counterweight to Trump, who thrives on chaos and thrives on creating chaotic situations and maximizing the value of those situations to his own end.” 

In his first lengthy meeting with Trump, Carney endured what Pullan calls “emotional blows” from the U.S. president, who openly discussed making Canada a U.S. state, a topic he returned to several times. “It was an almost zen-like quality to not rise to those blows,” says Pullan. 

Achieving that equanimity is something that many CEOs still need to master, he says. Pullan admits that’s easier said than done, but emphasizes that being the boring, non-reactive leader in the heat of a negotiation with someone as volatile as Trump can be a source of strength.  

Don’t try to take the moral high ground, he suggests, because even that can elicit defensiveness and counterattacks. “The encounter can become more like two moose locking horns,” he notes, “and you know that is the area in which Trump is always going to be successful. That’s what he’s done all of his life; he locks horns.”

Unlike Trump, Carney doesn’t go into combat. He did tell Trump that Canada was “not for sale.” But he also signaled he was ready to discuss points of agreement, for example, like border security and the costs of NATO. “It’s about using the other person’s power against them, so they might come at you, but you know, you gracefully step out of the way,” says Pullan. 

Like CEOs who have managed to build a working relationship with Trump, such as Apple’s Tim Cook, Carney is also staying on top of the negotiations personally and reportedly texts the U.S. president regularly. That’s also a smart approach when dealing with certain personalities. People with narcissistic behaviors need that attention, Pullan says, and making sure someone like Trump feels heard can help turn down the pressure in a conversation. 

Character, not strategy

Crossan believes understanding Carney’s effectiveness with Trump is a matter of character. He’s the same person no matter what room he’s in, she explains, adding that executives should take note. 

“No matter what the situation could be, crisis or calm, you bring that steadiness to the decision making that you have,” she says, “and you also infuse others with it.”  

Crossan has studied character for more than a decade, and she and a team of scholars have identified what they see as the 11 traits that are the building blocks of character: Accountability, collaboration, courage, humility, justice, temperance, drive, integrity, judgment, transcendence, and humanity. In some people, some traits can be excessive; for example, someone of high integrity can turn into a dogmatic and rigid leader. And she argues that people with imbalances often rise to the top. “We promote people with a lot of drive and accountability, but often they don’t have a lot of temperance,” she says. 

But, after watching Carney on the world stage, she believes he has the kind of balance of traits that leads to strong leadership and allows people to build trusting relationships. For example, Carney brings humility to his discussions with Trump by being respectful. But at the same time, he remained accountable to Canadian voters. “As you know from real estate,” Carney famously told Trump in that meeting, “there are some places that are never for sale.” 

“He’s correcting the record,” Crossan notes, but doing so in a measured way. 

Carney is under a microscope

To be sure, Carney has not emerged totally victorious from a fraught moment in geopolitics. Negotiations have been bumpy: Trump suspended trade talks in late June, then threw a wrench into negotiations by saying he would impose a 35% tariff on all imports from Canada not covered by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). There are also other sectoral tariff threats that Trump can still use as leverage on things like steel and aluminum, and the two nations are gearing up to renegotiate the free trade deal that includes Mexico 

This week Carney made it clear that Canada would not escape from Trump’s tariffs unscathed, a move that some pundits said showed Carney being realistic. No country in the world has managed to negotiate a deal without some baseline levies, as Canada had been hoping to do. The country is currently getting hit by the U.S. with levies of 25% on imports that are not compliant with the USMCA deal, and taxes of 10% on energy and potash imports. Carney has until Aug. 1 to make a deal with Trump before that number could increase. The stakes could not be higher—77% of goods traded go to the U.S., according to Scotiabank

Some Carney watchers and political rivals have also criticized him for not being tough or tactical enough in his negotiations. Andreas Schotter, a professor of international business at Ivey Business School, for example, is concerned that what made Carney a strong central banker won’t be enough for him to meet this challenge. “Carney has all the traits of a highly competent steward. But this isn’t a stewardship moment,” he told Fortune in an email. “The playbook is no longer ‘manage risk.’ It’s: mobilize complexity before it mobilizes you. That’s the pivot Carney needs to make. And he’ll need to make it now.” 





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.