By ELAINE KURTENBACH and MATT OTT, Associated Press Business Writers

U.S. markets edged lower before the opening bell Tuesday as the earnings season nears its end and the last major corporations post their quarterly performances.

Futures for the S&P 500 lost 0.2%, while futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average were flat. Nasdaq futures are down 0.2%.

Home Depot rose more than 2% in premarket after the hardware store chain beat Wall Street sales targets and reaffirmed previous sales growth projections despite an ongoing housing market slump.

Target and Home Depot rival Lowe’s report their latest results on Wednesday.

Home Depot’s strong report comes even as many companies — particularly retailers — have lowered or pulled guidance due to uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

How Trump’s tariffs play out remains to be seen and uncertainty has been the prominent theme since he started rolling them out early this year. Many of the import taxes have been since been lowered or delayed, most recently with China. Markets soared last week after the the world’s two largest trading partners announced a 90-day pause on their tariff battle.

In comments at its annual investor conference on Monday, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon suggested that geopolitical risks — presumably including trade wars — remain a major risk for the global and U.S. economies. Dimon said that stagflation — a recession with inflation — would be a worst-case scenario.

“I think the odds of that are probably two times of what the market thinks,” Dimon said.

Elsewhere, global markets rallied Tuesday after China cut key interest rates to help fend off an economic malaise worsened by trade friction with Washington.

China’s central bank made its first cut to its loan prime rates in seven months in a move welcomed by investors eager for more stimulus as the world’s second largest economy feels the pinch of Trump’s higher tariffs.

The People’s Bank of China cut the one-year loan prime rate, the reference rate for pricing all new loans and outstanding floating rate loans, to 3.00% from 3.1%. It cut the 5-year loan prime rate to 3.5% from 3.6%.

With China’s chief concern being deflation due to slack demand rather than inflation, economists have been expecting such a move. Data reported Monday showed the economy under pressure from Trump’s trade war, with retail sales and factory output slowing and property investment continuing to fall.

Tuesday’s cuts probably won’t be the last this year, Zichun Huang of Capital Economics said in a report.

“But modest rate cuts alone are unlikely to meaningfully boost loan demand or wider economic activity,” Huang said.

Shares in China’s CATL, the world’s largest maker of electric batteries, jumped 16.4% in its Hong Kong trading debut after it raised about $4.6 billion in the world’s largest IPO this year. Its shares traded in Shenzhen, mainland China’s smaller share market after Shanghai, gained 1.2% after dipping earlier in the day.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng gained 1.5% to 23,681.48, while the Shanghai Composite index advanced 0.4% to 3,380.48.

In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 inched up 0.1% to 37,529.49, while Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.6% to 8,343.30.

South Korea’s Kospi lost 0.1% to 2,601.80, while the Taiex in Taiwan was nearly unchanged.

India’s Sensex lost 0.8%.

In midday European trading, Germany’s DAX and the CAC 40 in Paris each rose 0.4%. Britain’s FTSE 100 was up 0.6%.

The Reserve Bank of Australia reduced its benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage for a second time this year, to 3.85%, judging inflation to be within its target range. The earlier reduction, in February, was Australia’s first rate cut since October 2020.

U.S. benchmark crude oil lost33 cents to $61.81 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, shed 36 cents to $65.18 per barrel.

The U.S. dollar fell to 144.60 Japanese yen from 144.86 yen. The euro ticked up to $1.1248 from $1.1244.

By DEVI SHASTRI and LAURA BARGFELD

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Feel like you can’t focus? Like you’ll never finish a book again? Like the only way to keep your mind and hands busy is to scroll on social media for hours?

Related Articles

Glioblastoma brain cancer research: Study provides glimmer of hope

Dum Dums lollipops stands by bright dyes, despite RFK Jr.’s push

The US hasn’t seen a human bird flu case in 3 months. Experts are wondering why

Suicide rate in Minnesota for 2024 similar to ’23

In the Deep South, health care fights echo civil rights battles

You’re far from alone. One body of decades-long research found the average person’s attention span for a single screen is 47 seconds, down from 2.5 minutes in 2004. The 24/7 news cycle, uncertainty about the state of the world and countless hours of screen time don’t help, experts say.

“When my patients talk to me about this stuff there is often a feeling of helplessness or powerlessness,” said Dr. Michael Ziffra, a psychiatrist at Northwestern Medicine. “But you can change these behaviors. You can improve your attention span.”

Here are ways to start that process. As you read, challenge yourself to set a 2.5 minute timer and stay on this article without looking at another device or clicking away.

How did we lose focus?

A shifting attention is an evolutionary feature, not a bug. Our brains are hardwired to quickly filter information and hone in on potential threats or changes in what’s happening around us.

What’s grabbing our attentions has changed. For our ancestors, it might have been a rustle in the bushes putting us on guard for a lurking tiger. Today, it could be a rash of breaking news alerts and phone notifications.

The COVID-19 pandemic warped many people’s sense of time and increased their screen usage like never before, said Stacey Nye, a clinical psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Technology isn’t the only thing that influences our attention, experts say, but the effects of those pinging notifications or hours scrolling through 30-second long videos can build up over time.

“Our attention span has really been trained to only focus in those little, small blips and it interrupts our natural focus cycles,” she said.

Give your wandering mind ‘active breaks’

Experts say “active” breaks are among the best way to retrain your mind and your attention. They only take about 30 minutes, Nye said, and can be as simple as taking a walk while noticing things around you or moving to another room for lunch.

Don’t be afraid to get creative. Develop a list of alternative activities or randomly choose ideas out of a fish bowl. Try craft projects, a short meditation, fixing a quick meal or talking a walk outside. All the better if you can involve a friend as well.

The break needs to be a physical or mental activity — no passive phone-scrolling.

When the brain is understimulated and looking for change, it’ll usually grab onto the first thing it sees. The smartphone, an “ever-producing change machine,” is an enticing option, said Cindy Lustig, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Michigan.

Turn off unnecessary notifications and put that “do not disturb” mode to good use, especially before bedtime. Better yet, put your phone in a whole different room, Lustig said.

Say no to multitasking

Multitasking may make you feel like you’re getting more done, but brain experts recommend against it.

“Be a single tasker,” Nye said. “Work on one thing at a time, for a specified period of time and begin to work your way up.”

Lustig is a big fan of the “Pomodoro technique,” in which you set a timer and work on something for 25 or 30 minutes before taking a five-minute break.

She tells herself: “I can do anything for this amount of time,” and the world will still be waiting for her at the end.

Start with something you actually like and set a goal

It’s not enough to just have a hobby, Lustig said. It helps to choose hobbies that include deliberate practice and a goal to strive toward, whether it’s playing guitar for an audience or improving in a sport.

It helps to pick something that you enjoy as well.

“You don’t want to start with the heavy nonfiction or like ‘War and Peace,’” Lustig said. “If you need to start with the romance novel, then start with the romance novel. You can work your way up.”

It’s also important to be kind to yourself. Everyone has good and bad days, and attention needs are different — and even vary from task to task.

The key is to make an intentional effort, experts say.

“It is in many ways similar to a muscle in the sense that we can build it up with practice and exercises,” Ziffra said. “Conversely, it can weaken if we’re not exercising it.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press

For the first time in the United States, a utility is asking federal regulators for a permit to build a small nuclear reactor.

The nation’s largest public power company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, announced Tuesday it submitted a construction permit application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a small, modular nuclear reactor. It wants to develop next-generation nuclear power in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at its Clinch River site.

TVA President and CEO Don Moul said that by going first, they can show other utilities a way to accelerate the development of small nuclear reactors.

“Nuclear is very reliable, very resilient. It is carbon free,” he told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Monday. “It is, what I would consider, one of the highest quality generating sources we have. And so starting a path forward not only helps others in America follow, but it can also help America lead the world in the new technology.”

The federally owned utility provides electricity to seven states and operates three traditional, large nuclear power plants, which provide 40% of the Tennessee Valley’s power. The region’s population is growing, industries are replacing fossil fuels with electric alternatives and there’s more manufacturing. The TVA is planning for the demand for electricity to increase by up to 26 gigawatts by 2035, which is enough to power roughly 15 million homes.

Its board launched a program in 2022 to develop and fund small modular nuclear reactors as part of its strategy to dramatically reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, and has provided $350 million for it so far.

U.S. electric utilities have been reluctant to invest in new nuclear construction because of large cost overruns and delays in Georgia, as Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Vogtle was expanded from two of the traditional large reactors to four, said Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The TVA decision is meaningful because it may be the start of a trend, Buongiorno added.

The United States does not have any next-generation reactors operating commercially. The NRC is currently reviewing applications from companies that want to build these reactors to begin providing power in the early 2030s. A project to build the first was terminated in 2023, as costs increased and not enough local power providers signed up to be part of it.

This month, the power company in Ontario, Canada, began building the first of four small nuclear reactors. Ontario Power Generation chose the same reactor the TVA wants to build, GE Hitachi’s design for a small modular reactor that uses light water like all large U.S. commercial reactors.

In Ontario, they’re expecting the first to cost $6.1 billion, along with $1.6 billion for equipment to build all four. The cost is expected to decline with each subsequent reactor. TVA’s cost estimates are in the same range, Moul said, but he declined to give specifics and said the utility is looking for partners to help with the initial costs.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group says far cheaper, safer and cleaner electricity can be delivered much faster through investments in proven renewable sources like solar rooftops, battery storage and wind power. There’s “no bigger example of a money pit than the fantasy of small modular reactors” as a viable source of energy in the U.S., said Alex Formuzis, spokesperson for the research and advocacy organization.

The Biden administration announced a $900 million investment in these reactors last year. The Trump administration also supports building small modular reactors for flexible, reliable power for energy-intensive sectors like industry and data centers as electricity demand soars. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in March that the $900 million would be awarded, but applicants had to submit new proposals to be judged solely on technical merit, without consideration for past diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

The TVA and its industry partners applied for $800 million in federal funding, which they say will help speed up the development of the technology by about two years.

The NRC has already said the Clinch River site is suitable for a new nuclear plant. There’s enough room for a total of four small reactors. If the NRC and the TVA board approve the plans to build the first reactor there, it could begin operating around 2032, providing 300 megawatts of power, which is enough for about 175,000 homes.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

The Trump administration recently announced a plan for steep port fees on Chinese-built vessels, which dominate global trade and are frequently in San Diego Bay.

The idea is to limit China’s dominance in the seas by making it more expensive to use their vessels and, in theory, push the nation’s importers into the arms of the comparatively small U.S. shipbuilding industry.

The new Chinese levies, which wouldn’t take effect until mid-October, could cost an importer roughly $150 a car, according to estimates from the Port of San Diego. There is concern from the shipping industry that the levies, on top of tariffs, could significantly impact global trade.

U.S. shipbuilding is practically nonexistent compared to China and others. Critics argue there is no way (at the moment) for the U.S. to catch up and the whole plan will just mean increased costs for consumers. President Donald Trump has argued it is vital for national security that America builds up its shipbuilding industry.

Question: Is the Chinese-built vessel levy proposal a good one?

Economists

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: It will act as yet another tax on the U.S. consumer without spurring investment in shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is a huge, complex endeavor and expanding capacity would take many years. Trump’s record of on-again, off-again tariffs means that this policy is unlikely to promote any new investment, since the levy could be gone tomorrow. Moreover, China would likely retaliate with a tax on U.S.-built aircraft, hurting the U.S. aerospace industry and its workers.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The U.S. cannot quickly create the capacity to produce ships at a volume sufficient to replace Chinese-built vessels that are now docking at U.S. ports.  A levy imposed now would drive up transportation costs that will be passed onto consumers. Policies to incentivize capital investment in the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and grow the workforce, should be emphasized in the near term. The levies should be delayed until the restoration of the industry is underway.

Ray Major, economist

YES: The vessel levy is another tool in the tool box that the U.S. can use to encourage China and other countries to adopt a more fair trade policy. They can easily be removed when a trade deal is in place. The levy amounts to 0.00375% of the value of a $40,000 car.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Attempts at micromanaging the economy are unproductive and detrimental. Top-down manipulation of shipping production will cause unintended consequences and dysfunction. Imposing complicated rules and tariffs for shipping goods and services makes trade more expensive and lessens productivity of all. Voluntary exchanges of “free trade” benefit all participants and facilitate the specialization and division of labor. Economic development is not zero-sum where one gains at the expense of others losing. Put “free” back into free trade.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: The economic infrastructure is not here for more shipbuilding in the U.S. One problem is that not enough steel is produced in this country. Another is that labor is more expensive here, and there is less desire to work in manufacturing. Those situations could improve in the future, but it would take a long time, and the U.S. is not likely to approach China’s shipbuilding capacity. In the meantime, consumers will be hurt as prices for products carried by Chinese ships will increase.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: It would be hard to find a business or consumer in America who would not be affected through the goods they try to produce, buy or sell by this policy. Any effects on U.S. shipbuilding would be years down the road. And the very long-term investments that are required to build more ships are difficult to influence with policies that come out of nowhere and may have changed by the time these words hit print.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: Nothing says “free market economy” like a special fee slapped on vessels built somewhere else. It’s a genius idea. Why compete by building better and bigger ships or planning ahead? Who needs cheaper shipping and global trade stability anyway? After all the tariffs, consumers and businesses will barely notice the extra costs. Of course, I’m sure China will just graciously accept the new levy with no retaliatory measures that could hurt the U.S. exporters. (Sarcasm noted).

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: All tariffs and “port fees” will clearly increase the cost of goods for Americans. Both new expenses will be passed on directly to consumers. The U.S. shipbuilding industry is so expensive compared to the rest of the world due to very high wages compared to wages paid in other countries for equal skills. That spread in wages may be acceptable to Americans to encourage well paid jobs, but consumers need to know why certain industries in the U.S. cannot compete with other countries on price.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I am sympathetic to measures that are designed to reduce Chinese dominance across broad sectors. However, the more realistic approach would be policies that incentivize shipbuilding elsewhere across the globe. This is not different than the other tariff-led domestic manufacturing goals. The economics of manufacturing mostly don’t work here, primarily due to the cost (and shortage) of labor. Why don’t we spread more business to other nations rather than indiscriminately slap everyone with tariffs?

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: A levy on Chinese-built vessels will raise costs for U.S. importers and consumers without offering any strategic benefit. China dominates shipbuilding due to infrastructure that our domestic producers abandoned decades ago. Rebuilding a competitive ship industry would take years, require major government subsidies and yield higher-cost products. Punitive fees will not change these fundamentals, they will further disrupt trade and shift demand to other low-cost countries, not revive U.S. shipbuilding.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: If it’s being used as a negotiation tactic in the trade war. If not, while national security, stability, and local shipbuilding growth are important, adding levies to tariffs this year may not be wise. A measured approach is needed — too much too soon risks U.S. supply chain disruptions, higher costs, job losses, and higher prices. Rebuilding U.S. shipbuilding requires significant time and investment. Implemented too soon, new levies could do more harm than good without strong domestic infrastructure.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Like many of President Trump’s ideas, it could be very good as a long-term strategy, but not good as a short-term economic decision. It would take many years to build up our own ship construction capabilities and in the meantime, prices consumers pay now will be increased. Let’s develop a long-term strategic plan, not a short-term reaction that will not benefit the average person or business.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: The levy aims to revive U.S. merchant shipbuilding, which has declined in recent decades. With China controlling more than 50% of global shipbuilding, the policy could encourage diversification and counter market abuses. While industry stakeholders worry about costs and trade disruptions, fees apply only to Chinese-linked or Chinese-built vessels. The long-term impact remains uncertain, but the policy signals a strategic shift toward reducing reliance on Chinese-built ships.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020