levels and that has been helped by quantitative easing continuing at the same level we have seen but to borrow money in the us costs around 1.3% and when you take inflation into account, that is a negative interest rate. into account, that is a negative interest rate. lets stay in the us because facebook interest rate. lets stay in the us because facebook has interest rate. lets stay in the us because facebook has become l interest rate. lets stay in the us l because facebook has become the latest of the big tech giants to report a surge in earnings. it says revenue jumped 56% in the three months to the end ofjune tojust over 29 billion dollars most of that from advertising. 2.9 billion people now use one of facebook s services at least once a month. but the company has also warned revenue growth will decelerate significantly in the coming months sending shares down sharply. so, what s the problem? i asked doug astrop who is managing partner at exponential investment partne
ability of the us economy to support this level of debt, you would see that the cost of borrowing would be really increasing, but it is still actually at low levels. that has been held by quantitative easing continuing at the same level we have seen, but the attempt to borrow money in the us costs around i.3%, which is actually, when you take inflation into account, and negative interest rate. anna mcdonald, thank you. thank ou. let s stay in the us because facebook has become the latest of the big tech giants to report a surge in earnings, as we spend more time and money online. it says revenue jumped 56% in the three months to the end ofjune tojust over $29 billion most of that from advertising. 2.9 billion people now use one of facebook s services at least once a month. but the company has also warned revenue growth will decelerate significantly in the coming months sending shares down sharply.
it is difficult to remain apolitical in an environment that is becoming hyperpoliticized. people of principle join our armed forces, they care about this country and when their principles are under attack they want to speak up, and you are labeled politically partisan for, you face a terrible dilemma that shouldn t exist in the armed forces. your demanding answers from the pentagon, as troubling as we laid out in the angle a. is dod officials playing footsie with big tech giants, mainly amazon. while they are negotiating billions of dollars in government contracts, why shouldn t every american be alarmed by these entities acting in such a manner?
chance? i m saying there is actually a food chance if he makes the right arguments in court. the media didn t love his lawsuit when it came out because normally, they are right. the first amendment applies to the government, not to private companies. but here s the thing in this case. these private companies. the big tech giants, did their work in part on behalf of the pig government. they responded to government threats. they willfully cooperated with the government in deciding that speech could and couldn t stay online. best of all for them, they were protected by a form of federal immunity in the form of section 232 c 2 of the communication decency act. when you combine both carrot the legislative threats carrot which is section 230 as well as the stick which would be legislative threats and finally the coordination between these companies that is not the action of a private company that is state action in disguise.