Connect with us

Analysis

France’s 30% China Tariff Proposal: Why the Finance Minister Urges a Targeted Path Amid EU Trade Tensions

Published

on

On February 9, 2026, a French government advisory body published a report that laid bare the stark arithmetic of Europe’s China problem: either impose an unprecedented 30% across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports, or engineer a 30% depreciation of the euro against the renminbi. Both options, the report acknowledged, would be extraordinarily difficult to implement. Yet both reflect the urgency of a challenge that European leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

What makes this moment particularly revealing is not the boldness of the proposal itself, but the measured response from France’s Finance Minister Roland Lescure—a nuance that illuminates the deeper complexities facing Europe as it navigates between economic protection and pragmatic engagement with Beijing.

The Architecture of an Economic Dilemma

The report from the Haut-Commissariat à la Stratégie et au Plan, an advisory body reporting directly to the French prime minister, reads less like academic analysis and more like an industrial alarm bell. According to Reuters, sectors fundamental to Europe’s industrial backbone—automobiles, machine tools, chemicals, and batteries—now face direct competitive pressure from Chinese manufacturers who have captured market share in industries Europe once dominated.

The numbers are sobering. A quarter of French exports are now exposed to Chinese competition, while an astonishing two-thirds of German production faces similar pressure. This isn’t merely about lost market share; it’s about the potential hollowing out of Europe’s manufacturing core at a time when the continent desperately needs industrial resilience amid geopolitical turbulence.

China’s record-breaking trade surplus exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in 2025, driven partly by Chinese manufacturers flooding global markets with competitively priced goods—from electric vehicles to renewable energy components. For Europe, already squeezed between American protectionism under the Trump administration and Chinese industrial might, the strategic calculus has never been more fraught.

Lescure’s Caution: The Case for Precision Over Blunt Force

Yet even as the advisory report proposed dramatic remedies, Finance Minister Lescure has struck a notably different tone—one that prioritizes surgical intervention over sweeping tariffs. In recent statements, Lescure characterized China’s massive trade surplus with Europe as fundamentally unsustainable, but insisted there exists “no one-size-fits-all answer” to addressing it.

This isn’t merely diplomatic hedging. Lescure’s approach reflects hard-won lessons from Europe’s previous tariff battles, particularly the contentious debate over electric vehicle duties implemented in late 2024. Those targeted tariffs on Chinese EVs—which Germany’s automotive giants vigorously opposed despite broader industry support—demonstrated the political minefield that trade policy has become when national economic interests diverge within the EU.

The Finance Minister’s strategy centers on three pillars: targeted tariffs addressing “obvious unfair competition,” continued diplomatic engagement with Beijing to encourage structural economic reforms, and parallel efforts to boost Europe’s own savings rate, innovation capacity, and industrial competitiveness. It’s an approach that acknowledges reality: punitive tariffs alone won’t solve Europe’s competitiveness problem if the continent cannot simultaneously strengthen its own economic foundations.

Lescure has also acknowledged Beijing’s stated commitment to pivoting toward domestic consumption and away from export-led growth. “They’ve been saying the right things,” he noted at a recent press briefing. “So far, I don’t think the numbers show that it’s happening. There’s been a lot of talk, but not much in terms of results yet.”

The Arithmetic of Industrial Protection in 2026

The 30% tariff proposal represents a recognition that incremental measures may no longer suffice. Consider the automotive sector: BYD overtook Tesla as the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer in early 2026, selling 2.26 million pure EVs in 2025—a 28% increase year-over-year. This isn’t just about EVs; it’s symptomatic of China’s systematic dominance in strategic sectors from battery production to renewable energy manufacturing.

The alternative proposal—engineering a 30% euro depreciation against the renminbi—acknowledges that currency dynamics play an enormous role in trade imbalances. However, as the report itself conceded, deliberately weakening the euro would be extraordinarily complex, requiring coordination among EU member states and potentially conflicting with European Central Bank mandates focused on price stability rather than competitive devaluation.

What both proposals share is an implicit recognition: Europe’s industrial protection now requires tools that would have been politically unthinkable a decade ago, when free trade consensus still held sway across the continent.

The Broader Stakes: G7 Presidency and Global Rebalancing

France’s approach to China trade policy isn’t occurring in isolation. As current G7 president, France has positioned global economic imbalances as a central agenda item, with Lescure framing the challenge as a tripartite problem: credit-fueled overconsumption in the United States, chronic underinvestment in Europe, and export-dependent growth in China.

This broader framework matters because it shifts the conversation from bilateral trade disputes to systemic economic architecture. When G7 finance ministers and central bankers convene in Paris on May 18-19, 2026, they’ll be discussing not merely tariff schedules but fundamental questions about sustainable global growth patterns in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.

The challenge for Europe is that it finds itself squeezed between two economic superpowers, both of which view trade policy as geopolitical leverage. The Trump administration has demanded European industrial tariff reductions and threatened reciprocal measures on European goods. Beijing, meanwhile, has demonstrated willingness to weaponize its control over critical minerals and technologies when economic interests are threatened—as Dutch authorities discovered when China blocked chip exports following semiconductor restrictions.

What Comes Next: Targeted Measures in a Fractured Landscape

The most likely outcome isn’t the dramatic 30% across-the-board tariff the advisory report proposed, but rather an intensification of sector-specific measures combined with continued diplomatic engagement. The European Commission has already shown appetite for this approach with its targeted EV tariffs, anti-subsidy investigations, and nascent economic security framework designed to screen foreign investments in strategic sectors.

Lescure’s emphasis on “targeted tariffs” suggests France will push for precision instruments that address specific instances of market distortion—subsidized overcapacity, dumping, or state-backed competitive advantages—rather than blanket protectionism that could trigger escalating retaliation.

Yet the underlying tension remains: Can Europe protect its industrial base without abandoning the market-oriented principles that have underpinned its prosperity? Can it maintain economic engagement with China while defending against practices it views as fundamentally unfair? And can it do all this while navigating American pressure to reduce dependencies on both Chinese supply chains and European industrial policy?

The French tariff debate crystallizes these questions in ways that resist easy answers. What’s clear is that the era of frictionless globalization has given way to something messier—an economic order where trade policy, industrial strategy, and geopolitical positioning have become inextricably intertwined. For European policymakers, finding the right balance between protection and openness, between caution and boldness, may well determine whether the continent’s industrial heartland thrives or withers in the decade ahead.

As Lescure navigates France’s G7 presidency with one eye on sustainable trade rebalancing and another on political feasibility, his measured approach offers a template: acknowledge the scale of the challenge, resist simplistic solutions, and build coalitions for targeted action. Whether that proves sufficient to address the China trade imbalance remains the defining economic question for Europe in 2026.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Gulf Capital Retreat From Pakistan 2026: UAE Loan Freeze & What It Means

Published

on

What happened: In early 2026, the United Arab Emirates declined to roll over a $3 billion loan to Pakistan — the first such refusal in seven years. The repayment equalled roughly 18% of Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves, arriving as Islamabad also faced a $1.3 billion bond payment and was waiting on the next IMF tranche.

Why it matters: It’s the clearest sign yet that Gulf sovereign patience with Pakistan’s balance-of-payments cycle is thinning, even as Gulf states simultaneously court China, Saudi Arabia, and each other for capital in a tightening regional liquidity environment.


The Story Nobody’s Connecting

Most coverage of Pakistan’s 2026 external account stress treats the UAE’s loan decision as an isolated liquidity event — a “routine financial transaction,” in the words of Pakistan’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That framing misses the bigger pattern. The same weeks that Abu Dhabi called in its $3 billion, unusual delays began appearing in bank transfers from Saudi Arabia to the UAE itself — friction between the Gulf’s two largest economies, at a moment when both are also managing their own post-war oil price adjustment. (Pakistan & Gulf Economist)

Put those two data points together and a different story emerges: this isn’t just about Pakistan’s creditworthiness. It’s about Gulf capital becoming more selective, more transactional, and less willing to extend informal grace periods across the board — with Pakistan simply the most exposed borrower in the queue.

The Numbers Behind the Pressure

Pakistan’s State Bank held $16.4 billion in reserves as of late March 2026 — enough to cover roughly three months of imports, a threshold economists generally treat as a comfort floor, not a cushion. (Mettis Global News) The UAE’s declined rollover landed at the same time as a looming $1.3 billion international bond payment and dependence on the next $1.2 billion IMF disbursement — a convergence of obligations that left the State Bank with limited room to maneuver beyond import restrictions, rate hikes, or fresh commercial borrowing.

The backdrop matters too. The rupee had been trading in a comparatively narrow 278–282 band before the escalation of the Iran conflict pushed global oil prices higher, squeezing Pakistan’s import bill precisely when its Gulf safety net began to wobble. The KSE-100 benchmark, meanwhile, had already shed around 15% amid the broader pressure. (Mettis Global News)

This is not Pakistan’s first Gulf-dependency cycle. The IMF’s own record shows a now-familiar pattern: staff-level agreements reached in Dubai, UAE pledges of multibillion-dollar investment arriving alongside IMF tranches, and Gulf bridge financing used to stave off sovereign default in periods when reserves cover shrinks toward zero. (Business Standard) What’s different in 2026 is that the bridge itself is showing cracks.

Islamabad’s Official Line vs. the Structural Reality

Pakistan’s government has leaned into a “stability to sustainable growth” narrative around its FY2026–27 federal budget, with the finance minister framing the transition as export-driven rather than reserve-dependent. Business groups have broadly welcomed the budget, and the current account posted a $459 million surplus in May 2026, an improvement attributed to strong remittance inflows. (Business Recorder) The Monetary Policy Committee has held rates steady rather than reaching for emergency tightening, which is itself a signal that the central bank does not yet see the UAE episode as a systemic trigger.

But a current account surplus built substantially on remittances is different from one built on export competitiveness or durable FDI. Pakistan’s trade structure still leans heavily on a narrow set of partners: China supplies over a quarter of its imports and a meaningful share of its exports, the UAE is both a top export destination and its second-largest import source, and Gulf states collectively remain the primary channel for both remittances and emergency liquidity. (Wikipedia — Economy of Pakistan) That concentration is precisely what makes a single Gulf lender’s changed appetite so consequential.

Why the Oil Backdrop Compounds the Risk

None of this is happening in a vacuum. The IMF’s own July 2026 commentary noted that global oil markets “absorbed the war shock” from the Iran conflict, but cautioned that buffers — spare production capacity, strategic reserves, shipping insurance capacity — are running low. (IMF Blog) For an oil-importing, reserve-constrained economy like Pakistan, a second energy price shock without deeper buffers would land directly on the same reserves the UAE loan was meant to protect.

What to Watch Next

  • Whether Saudi Arabia steps in as an alternative bridge lender, or whether the Riyadh–Abu Dhabi transfer friction signals a broader Gulf liquidity tightening that limits everyone’s appetite to backstop Pakistan.
  • The pace and size of the next IMF tranche, and whether Fund conditionality shifts to demand deeper reserve buffers given the UAE precedent.
  • Whether China increases its role as lender of last resort, deepening Pakistan’s dependency in exactly the direction Gulf financing was historically meant to offset.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Asia

Down But Not Out: Inside the Slow Sinking of Russia’s War Economy

Published

on

Introduction

The European Council formally extended its economic sanctions against Russia for another full year on 25 June 2026, keeping restrictive measures in place until 31 July 2027 (Council of the EU). More than four years into the war, the headline story of Russia’s economy has shifted from whether sanctions would work to a more nuanced question: how much longer can the Kremlin keep financing the war before the accumulated strain becomes impossible to hide behind favorable official statistics.

The Sanctions Architecture, Renewed Again

The EU’s economic measures against Russia, first introduced in 2014 and dramatically expanded after the February 2022 full-scale invasion, now span trade, finance, energy and dual-use technology restrictions, alongside asset freezes and travel bans on a broad range of individuals and entities (Council of the EU). Since February 2022, the EU has adopted 20 separate sanctions packages, and the European Council has explicitly stated it remains determined to keep weakening Russia’s war economy by further reducing its energy revenues, curbing shadow-fleet oil shipping operations and constraining its banking system (Council of the EU). Separately, on 3 July 2026 the EU sanctioned six individuals connected to the poisoning and death of opposition figure Alexei Navalny, underscoring that the sanctions regime continues to expand on human-rights grounds as well as economic ones (Council of the EU Sanctions Timeline).

The Headline Numbers Beijing-Style Optimism Can No Longer Explain Away

Russia’s GDP is now put at roughly $2.51 trillion, the world’s eleventh-largest economy — comparable in size to South Korea despite Russia’s vastly larger landmass and resource base — with 2026 growth projected at just 1.0% and inflation running at 5.2% (Statistics of the World). More pessimistic estimates put full-year 2026 growth even lower, at around 0.4%, which would be worse than 2025’s already-weak 1% expansion and would mark a sharp deceleration from the 4.1% growth Russia posted in 2023 as it forged new trading relationships to route around initial sanctions (Forbes).

Oil and gas revenues — historically around half of Russia’s state income — have fallen to roughly a quarter, a deliberate outcome of Western sanctions strategy that targets how much Russia earns from exports rather than blocking those exports outright (Stockholm School of Economics/SITE). Russia’s oil and gas budget revenues reportedly halved in January 2026 alone, with crude prices falling below $73 a barrel before the Middle East conflict briefly reversed the trend, sending Brent surging more than 55% to near $120 a barrel at its peak (Forbes).

The Middle East War: A Temporary Lifeline With Long-Term Costs

The spike in oil prices tied to the Iran conflict, combined with a period of eased US sanctions enforcement on Russian oil under President Trump, offered Moscow unexpected fiscal breathing room in mid-2026 (Forbes). But that same conflict has undermined Russia’s longer-term energy diversification ambitions in the region: two Russian-backed power plant projects in Iran have been put on hold, along with oil and gas exploration work and plans to build new transit routes linking Russia to India via Iran (Forbes).

The Gap Between Official Statistics and Underlying Reality

Perhaps the most important analytical point from recent research is not about any single data point but about the reliability of Russian statistics themselves. Torbjörn Becker of the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics has argued the real test of sanctions is not whether they end the war overnight, but how much they erode the Kremlin’s capacity to finance it — and by that measure, the evidence points to deeper strain than headline GDP figures suggest (Stockholm School of Economics/SITE). Becker notes that Russia’s economy grew only modestly in 2022 despite oil prices rising sharply that year — a gap between expected and actual performance that implies a considerably larger hidden economic hit than the official contraction figures showed (Stockholm School of Economics/SITE). Compounding the problem, Russian authorities have stopped publishing several key statistics since 2022, making independent assessment of inflation, consumption and real economic conditions increasingly difficult — leading Becker to conclude that “statistics have become part of the narrative” rather than a neutral measure of economic reality (Stockholm School of Economics/SITE).

The Military-Civilian Economic Split

A recurring theme across recent analysis is the growing bifurcation between Russia’s overheating military-industrial sector and a stagnating civilian economy. This imbalance has pushed interest rates higher and forced the liquidation of a striking 71% of Russia’s gold reserves to help fund continued war spending (Forbes). Russia’s total fossil fuel export revenue is estimated at roughly €734 million per day, underscoring just how central hydrocarbon income remains to the entire war financing model even as that revenue stream shrinks (Forbes).

The Counter-Narrative: Wages Still Rising

It would be inaccurate to describe Russia’s economy as in freefall. CSIS research notes that Russian salaries rose 17.8% in nominal terms and 8.7% in real terms in 2024 compared to 2023, with disposable incomes up 6.1% in 2023 and 7.3% in 2024 — growth rates not seen in Russia in almost two decades (CSIS). Government budget projections still expect real salaries to rise, albeit at a decelerating pace: 7% in 2025, 5.7% in 2026 and 4.1% in 2027 — a marked slowdown from the 2024 peak but still roughly double the pre-invasion decade average (CSIS). This wage growth, driven substantially by wartime labor shortages and military-adjacent spending, is precisely the kind of headline-stabilizing data point that has allowed Putin to argue publicly that sanctions have failed to cripple his economy (Fortune) — even as think tanks describe the broader trajectory as pushing Russia toward what one report calls an “economic, political, and military abyss” (Fortune).

What Comes Next

Renewed legislative pressure in Washington — including the Sanctioning Russia Act introduced with strong bipartisan support — signals appetite in the US for tightening the screws further, even as the loss of a key congressional champion for that effort has complicated the political path forward (TIME). Whether the EU’s renewed sanctions regime, continued oil price pressure, and constrained reserves ultimately force a shift in Kremlin calculus toward negotiation remains the central open question for 2027.

Key Takeaways

  1. The EU has extended Russia sanctions for a further year, through 31 July 2027, continuing a regime built from 20 separate packages since 2022.
  2. Russia’s 2026 GDP growth is forecast between 0.4% and 1.0%, a sharp deceleration from 2023’s 4.1% post-shock rebound.
  3. Oil and gas revenue’s share of Russian state income has fallen from roughly half to about a quarter as Western sanctions target export earnings specifically.
  4. Russia has liquidated a large share of its gold reserves to sustain war financing amid a widening split between an overheating military sector and a stagnating civilian economy.
  5. Official Russian statistics likely understate the true economic strain, according to independent economists who cite a widening gap between reported and expected performance.

Sources: Council of the EU, Council of the EU Sanctions Timeline, Stockholm School of Economics/SITE, Forbes, Statistics of the World, CSIS, Fortune, TIME


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Dubai’s Millionaire Magnet: How the UAE Turned Middle East Turmoil Into a Capital Safe-Haven Boom

Published

on

Introduction

While much of the commentary on the 2026 Middle East conflict has focused on oil tankers and the Strait of Hormuz, a quieter and arguably more consequential story has been unfolding in Dubai and Abu Dhabi: capital is flowing in, not out. The UAE attracted roughly 9,800 net new millionaires in 2025 — the highest net millionaire inflow of any country globally, according to Henley & Partners — and 2026 data suggests the pattern is holding even as regional tensions have periodically spiked (Tap Fiscal). For a global content audience trying to understand why a country geographically adjacent to an active conflict zone is functioning as a safe haven rather than a risk zone, the answer lies in three decades of deliberate institutional design.

The Headline Numbers

Dubai’s economy grew 2.4% in the first quarter of 2026 alone, with GDP reaching AED 232 billion, according to figures reported via the official WAM news agency (Gateway Group UAE Weekly Business News). The UAE Central Bank’s own outlook projects national economic growth of 5.6% for 2026, outpacing the broader GCC average, with the hydrocarbon sector expected to grow 7.3% on higher oil production even as non-oil sectors — financial services, manufacturing, trade, tourism and transport — continue to carry the bulk of long-term momentum (Xinhua). Non-oil activity now accounts for roughly 75% of GDP, a diversification level that insulates the economy from oil-price shocks far more than headlines about the region typically convey (Tap Fiscal).

Why S&P and the Central Bank Both Say the UAE Can Absorb the Shock

A dedicated S&P Global Ratings assessment concluded the UAE’s banking sector has shown strong resilience and financial soundness through the recent period of regional volatility, and the agency expects solid loan growth to continue into 2027, supported by ample system liquidity amid expected monetary easing (Gulf News). S&P separately reaffirmed the UAE’s sovereign credit rating at AA/A-1+ with a stable outlook, citing strong fiscal buffers and one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth portfolios (Xinhua).

The scale of that buffer is difficult to overstate. S&P estimates the UAE’s consolidated net asset position will reach roughly 184% of GDP in 2026, with government liquid assets calculated at approximately 210% of GDP (Gulf News). That firepower sits across a small number of globally diversified institutions — the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Mubadala Investment Company, ADQ, the Investment Corporation of Dubai, and the Emirates Investment Authority — which generate income well beyond the oil sector and give the state fiscal flexibility that few conflict-adjacent economies possess (Gulf News).

The UAE Central Bank’s own Q1 2026 review points to the same conclusion from the market side: the Dubai Financial Market’s share price index rose 22.9% year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2025, the Abu Dhabi Securities Market General Index gained 6.6%, and credit default swap spreads for both Abu Dhabi and Dubai narrowed further — a signal of sustained investor confidence rather than flight (Central Bank of the UAE Quarterly Economic Review).

The Short-Term Noise Was Real — But It Didn’t Stick

None of this means the conflict has been costless. In the early days of escalation, some expatriates left the UAE, private jet charter prices to exit Dubai briefly spiked to as much as $250,000, and hotel occupancy dipped alongside disrupted aviation routes (Tap Fiscal). But the institutional and long-term investor data tell a different story than the panic-driven headlines: the Dubai International Financial Centre has resumed normal operations and remains home to nearly 9,000 active firms spanning wealth management, banking and capital markets (Tap Fiscal). A UAE government minister framed the resilience explicitly, describing the economy as structurally sound and built over decades to adapt to crisis rather than be destabilized by it (Tap Fiscal).

What’s Driving the Millionaire Inflow Specifically

High-net-worth migration to the UAE is not a new phenomenon, but 2025’s record net inflow suggests the safe-haven thesis is strengthening rather than fading. The pattern is consistent with what analysts describe as a flight to stable, low-tax jurisdictions with strong rule of law during periods of global uncertainty (Tap Fiscal) — a category the UAE has spent two decades positioning itself to fit, through free zones, golden visa programs, and a deliberately diversified, sovereign-wealth-anchored economy that does not rise or fall with a single sector or a single regional headline.

Risks Worth Watching

  • Banking system exposure to regional escalation: while S&P’s baseline case is resilience, further escalation involving direct disruption to Gulf shipping lanes or energy infrastructure would test the “limited and short-term” impact assumption analysts currently hold (Xinhua).
  • Real estate cooling: separate reporting on new vehicle and property registrations suggests parts of the UAE’s consumer economy are cooling from exceptional prior-year growth rates, even if not contracting (Arabian Business).
  • Global AI valuation correction spillover: as with other major financial centers, UAE sovereign funds carry meaningful exposure to global equity markets, including AI-related names that regulators elsewhere have flagged as a concentration risk.

Key Takeaways

  1. The UAE recorded the world’s highest net millionaire inflow in 2025 and Dubai’s economy grew 2.4% in Q1 2026 despite regional conflict.
  2. Sovereign wealth institutions (ADIA, Mubadala, ADQ, ICD) give the UAE a net asset position near 184% of GDP, its core buffer against geopolitical shocks.
  3. S&P has reaffirmed a stable AA/A-1+ sovereign rating, citing fiscal buffers and banking sector resilience.
  4. Early-conflict disruption (jet charter spikes, occupancy dips) proved short-lived; DIFC activity and equity indices have both strengthened.
  5. Non-oil GDP diversification, now at roughly 75%, is the structural reason the UAE decouples from pure oil-price and conflict-headline risk.

Sources: S&P/Gulf News UAE Resilience Analysis, Xinhua/UAE Central Bank, Tap Fiscal UAE Economic Outlook 2026, Central Bank of the UAE Quarterly Economic Review, March 2026, Gateway Group UAE Weekly Business News, Arabian Business


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Analysis6 days ago

Gulf Capital Retreat From Pakistan 2026: UAE Loan Freeze & What It Means

Banks6 days ago

Pakistan’s Most Reliable Export Is Its People: Remittances Hit $41.6 Billion, Overtaking Total Exports

Markets & Finance6 days ago

Indonesia’s Confidence Problem: Record Investment, a Sinking Rupiah, and a Widening Credibility Gap

Asia6 days ago

Down But Not Out: Inside the Slow Sinking of Russia’s War Economy

China Economy6 days ago

China’s Growth Slips to a Four-Year Low: Why Beijing Still Won’t Pull the Stimulus Trigger

Economic Corridors6 days ago

The Johor-Singapore Corridor: How Malaysia Became Southeast Asia’s AI Infrastructure Powerhouse

International Trade6 days ago

Canada’s Economy ‘On Pause’: Inside the CUSMA Deadline That Passed Without a Deal

Analysis6 days ago

Dubai’s Millionaire Magnet: How the UAE Turned Middle East Turmoil Into a Capital Safe-Haven Boom

Analysis6 days ago

Britain’s Sixth Prime Minister in a Decade: What Starmer’s Exit Means for Gilts, Sterling and Your Portfolio

AI7 days ago

Anthropic Offers Up to $600,000 Salary for Critical IPO Role as AI Giant Prepares for Wall Street Debut

Mining7 days ago

EU Readies Crisis Team for Potential China Rare Earths Stand-Off as Supply Chain Risks Mount

Analysis7 days ago

Singapore Weighs Hedge Fund Tax Cuts to Counter Hong Kong’s Growing Financial Challenge

Analysis7 days ago

Facebook and Instagram Experience Global Outage

Analysis7 days ago

Inside the $1 Billion Tap-to-Pay Fraud Rings Targeting Banks and Retailers

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2026 The Economy, Inc . All rights reserved .

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading