Is Wall Street ignoring the next recession?

Wall Street’s calm is striking.

Investors keep betting the US will dodge a recession, but the signals tell a different story. Warnings are everywhere, yet hope is the primary strategy in play. If leaders in Washington keep brushing off these signs, voters will certainly remind them in the next mid-term election.

Let’s talk labor.

Unemployment is low, but job growth has slowed to a crawl. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said there were only 150,000 new jobs in July. For months, payroll gains have lagged. That’s not the kind of trend you want when trying to avoid a downturn. Worse, the government recently admitted it overstated job growth by almost a million last year. When numbers get revised down, it means the ground is shakier than we thought.

The leading economic indicators back this up.

The Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index, which tracks things like new orders, jobless claims, and what people expect, dropped 0.5% in August. Over the last half year, it fell even faster. The index’s “recession signal” is now flashing red, warning that a downturn could be near. Stock prices and easy credit have kept the index from dropping further, but those can turn fast.

Why does this matter?

These indicators have a strong track record. When the labor market cools, job openings shrink, and wage growth slows, a slump often follows. The Kansas City Fed and other regional banks see the same pattern: hiring continues, but more slowly, and layoffs are creeping up. These are not the marks of a healthy, growing economy.

So what’s fueling the risk?

Tariffs and trade fights have already trimmed growth this year. Businesses face higher costs and more doubt about where to invest. The Conference Board names tariffs as a significant drag, and the International Monetary Fund warns that trade fights and policy swings could tip us into recession. When companies can’t plan, they stop hiring and spending.

Regulatory confusion adds another layer.

When rules and taxes change without warning, businesses freeze. Both Brookings and Harvard Business Review find that policy swings are a top worry for CEOs. If Washington keeps sending mixed signals, companies will keep their wallets closed and hiring plans on hold.

Market power is part of the problem.

As a handful of big firms dominate key sectors, the economy grows more fragile. The Financial Times notes that this can exacerbate shocks and prolong recovery. When fewer players control the market, one misstep can ripple through the whole system.

Some on Wall Street claim recession odds have dropped.

Recent surveys put the risk at about one in three for the next year, down from almost half earlier this spring. But one-in-three is not a reason to relax. The Conference Board points out that the depth and spread of weakness across key indicators now meet recession warning criteria.

Hope is not a plan.

Leaders in Congress, the White House, and business must face the facts. The risks are real, and the signals are clear. Tariffs, policy swings, and market power add fuel to the fire. Ignoring these signals means sleepwalking into a downturn that could have been avoided—with more realistic moves.

It’s time to stop betting on luck and start planning for what’s next. The US has weathered storms before, but only when leaders paid attention to the signs and acted before it was too late.

-Marc

Carr speaks. Jimmy sits.

A comedian makes social commentary. A government official threatens action. A network pulls the plug. This isn’t a story from Moscow or Beijing—it’s what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel, right here in the United States.

ABC took Kimmel off the air after Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), floated the idea that the network could be punished for Kimmel’s remarks. Carr, on a conservative podcast, said Kimmel’s comments were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people.” Hours later, ABC folded. The Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, put keeping a regulator happy ahead of protecting free speech.

This kind of quick surrender should set off alarms for anyone who cares about open debate and free speech.

When government threats can silence comedians, we cross a line that the First Amendment was built to stop. The First Amendment, which protects free speech, exists to keep government intimidation out of the public square.

But the story doesn’t stop there.

Nexstar, which owns local TV stations across the country, joined in. Nexstar announced it would drop Kimmel’s show from its ABC-affiliated stations. Why would Nexstar back government censorship? The answer is simple: money.

Nexstar wants to merge with Tegna, another big media company. That deal needs the FCC’s sign-off. By pulling Kimmel, Nexstar sent a clear signal to Carr: We’ll play ball if you approve our merger. This is what happens when regulatory power warps the market for ideas.

Let’s break this down.

A comedian is commenting on the state of affairs. A government official doesn’t like them. Companies that need government approval silence the comedian. This chain of events would fit right in with strongman politics overseas. It should outrage Americans.

The danger here is bigger than any one show.

If the FCC can shut down speech it doesn’t like, who draws the line? Today it’s Kimmel. Tomorrow it could be any journalist, commentator, or critic. When we let government officials punish speech they dislike, we lose what makes America different from less free countries.

Business leaders should take note. Companies that bow to pressure on speech turn into tools for censorship. They trade their backbone for a shot at regulatory favors. This kind of deal poisons both business and democracy.

Look at the timing. Carr speaks. Companies scramble. Shows vanish. This isn’t how free markets or free speech work. This is fear in action. When business decisions turn on regulatory threats, not audience choice or company values, the market breaks down.

We’ve seen this before in other countries. Officials target critics. Businesses fall in line to protect deals or licenses. Independent voices go quiet. Democracy weakens. America is supposed to be different. The Constitution is supposed to stop this. Yet we’re watching it play out.

The answer is simple, but not easy: courage.

Media companies must stand up to regulatory threats. Business leaders must call out government censorship, even if it’s risky. Citizens must demand that regulators focus on their real jobs, not policing late-night jokes. Most of all, we must protect the speech we dislike, not just the speech we agree with.

Once government gets to decide which jokes are allowed, we’ve already lost the bigger fight for freedom.

-Marc

YouTube's $100 billion creator payout: The end of media as we know it

Not long ago, most people saw YouTube creators as hobbyists, nerds, or amateur filmmakers shooting videos in their basements for fun. Fast forward twenty years, and YouTube has paid them $100 billion. That's real money—one hundred billion dollars flowing directly to people who make videos, bypassing the traditional media giants entirely.

This shift isn't an anomaly.

It's a signal that the creator economy has outgrown its humble beginnings. What started as a quirky corner of the web now rivals Hollywood and major newsrooms. When a single platform pays out more than most countries' entire media budgets, it's time to pay attention.

YouTube's recent push into artificial intelligence amplifies this transformation. These new tools enable anyone to create professional-looking videos without expensive equipment or advanced technical skills. I've been discussing the shift toward more amateur, agile video creation for years, and now we're witnessing it unfold in real time. Anyone with a smartphone can produce content that rivals professional TV studios. The barriers that once protected big media have crumbled.

For decades, traditional media companies controlled the game. They owned the channels, theaters, expensive cameras, and the professionals who operated them. That advantage is rapidly disappearing.

Today, solo creators armed with AI tools can move faster than any corporate team. They don't need sign-off from multiple layers of management. They speak directly to their audiences—no focus groups, no market research required. When people crave authentic voices over corporate messaging, these creators win.

Big Media spends millions producing a single TV episode. Creators make content people love for a fraction of that cost. They don't pay for sprawling offices, high-paid executives, or legacy distribution networks. Every dollar saved can be reinvested in content—or go straight to their pockets.

This wave extends far beyond entertainment. Newsrooms now compete with independent journalists breaking stories on social media. Educational institutions face YouTubers who explain complex topics through engaging, accessible videos. Even corporate trainers struggle to match the reach and effectiveness of online educators.

Policymakers face a significant challenge. Existing broadcast regulations were designed when only a select few could reach mass audiences. Now, anyone can reach millions instantly. We need new frameworks for content moderation, information accuracy, and fair competition—the old rules simply don't apply.

TikTok represents another seismic shift. It's not merely social media; it's handheld television on steroids, delivering access to countless global creators through hyper-personalized feeds. Its AI-driven recommendation engine tailors content to individual preferences with unprecedented precision.

Communications experts like Kevin Munger from Penn State University argue that short-form video communicates information more efficiently than traditional text-based content. Given TikTok's television-like influence, there's growing momentum to regulate it similarly to traditional broadcasters under frameworks like the Communications Act of 1934.

Countries from Canada to China have implemented television and communications regulations, highlighting the urgent need for similar oversight of platforms like TikTok.

Civic leaders and communications professionals cannot afford to ignore this transformation. Many still rely on strategies built for a world of media gatekeepers—a world that's rapidly disappearing. Tomorrow's leaders must understand creator economics, AI-powered tools, and direct-to-audience models.

The $100 billion YouTube payout isn't the conclusion of this story—it's the opening chapter. As AI capabilities expand, content creation will become even more accessible. Traditional media companies face a stark choice: adapt to this new reality or watch their influence diminish. The creators have already moved forward. The rest of us should take note.

-Marc

*****

Marc A. Ross is a geopolitical strategist and communications advisor who is authoring a book entitled Globalization and American Politics: How International Economics Redefined American Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics.