Connect with us

Banks

Global Order Is Changing, Not Collapsing: Finance Chiefs Challenge Mark Carney’s Davos Warning on Rules-Based System

Published

on

When former Bank of England governor Mark Carney declared at Davos this week that the rules-based international order is “effectively over,” he articulated a fashionable pessimism that has become almost reflexive among global elites. Yet within hours, a chorus of finance ministers and central bankers pushed back—not with denial, but with a more textured reading of transformation. The global order, they insisted, is fragmenting and rebalancing, not rupturing. The distinction matters enormously.

The debate playing out in the Swiss Alps is less about whether change is happening—that much is obvious—and more about whether we are witnessing institutional evolution or systemic collapse. The answer shapes everything from capital allocation to climate diplomacy, from trade policy to the very architecture of multilateral cooperation that has underpinned prosperity since 1945.

Carney’s Realism Meets Institutional Inertia

Mark Carney’s assessment was stark. Speaking at a World Economic Forum panel on January 23, he argued that the post-war consensus built on open markets, multilateral institutions, and predictable rules has given way to a world governed increasingly by power politics rather than legal frameworks. His diagnosis drew on a Thucydidean realism: nations pursue interest, not principle, and the veneer of rules merely reflects the balance of power beneath.

The evidence he marshaled is familiar but potent. The World Trade Organization has been functionally paralyzed for years, its appellate body dormant since 2019. Climate negotiations lurch from compromise to gridlock. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank remain dominated by voting structures that lag decades behind shifts in economic gravity. Even the language of “America First” or “strategic autonomy” signals a retreat from collective governance toward unilateral assertion.

Yet Carney’s framing—an ending, a collapse—struck several finance chiefs as both premature and misleading. German Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who has rarely shied from confrontation with Berlin’s partners, countered that “what we are experiencing is not the end of rules but their multiplication and contestation.” French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire echoed the point: the global system is not breaking; it is becoming plural, regionalized, and more contested.

Fragmentation Is Not Failure

The distinction between rupture and fragmentation is not semantic. A collapsing order implies chaos, unpredictability, and the breakdown of cooperation. Fragmentation, by contrast, suggests a more complex reality: overlapping spheres of governance, competing rule-sets, and selective adherence depending on interests and power.

Consider the evidence. Global trade has not collapsed—it has regionalized. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in Asia, and the European Union’s expanding network of bilateral deals show that rule-making continues, just not universally. The WTO’s failure has not stopped countries from negotiating enforceable agreements; it has merely shifted the locus.

Similarly, climate governance has not ended with the stalling of UN processes. The Paris Agreement remains legally operative, and coalitions of willing actors—from the EU’s carbon border mechanism to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act—are embedding climate rules into trade and investment. These are not perfect substitutes for universal frameworks, but they are frameworks nonetheless.

Financial regulation offers another case study. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Financial Stability Board, and networks of central bank cooperation continue to set standards that shape trillions in cross-border capital flows. These institutions lack the drama of summits but possess the durability of technocratic consensus. As Agustín Carstens, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, noted at Davos, “the plumbing still works, even if the architects are arguing.”

Thucydides in the Age of Capital Flows

Carney’s invocation of Thucydidean realism is intellectually compelling but risks overstating its modern applicability. The ancient historian’s world was one of zero-sum struggles for security and dominance. Today’s global economy, by contrast, is defined by deep interdependence that makes pure power politics costly and often self-defeating.

China and the United States may compete for technological supremacy and strategic influence, but their economies remain entangled through supply chains, debt holdings, and consumer markets. Europe may chafe at American extraterritoriality in sanctions, but it depends on the dollar system and NATO security guarantees. Even as geopolitical tensions rise, the incentives for selective cooperation in finance, health, and technology remain high.

This is not naiveté about cooperation—it is recognition that power in a globalized system is exercised differently than in antiquity. Economic statecraft, regulatory leverage, and technological dominance matter as much as military might. The rules-based order was never purely rules-based; it always reflected American hegemony. What is changing is not the presence of power but its distribution and the willingness of other actors to contest its terms.

The Myth of the Liberal Order

Part of the confusion at Davos stems from a lingering myth: that the post-1945 order was ever a pure expression of liberal values. In reality, it was a Cold War construct designed to contain Soviet influence, underwritten by American military and economic dominance, and sustained by institutions that favored Western interests.

The Bretton Woods institutions were never neutral technocracies—they were instruments of American and European power. The WTO’s trade liberalization benefited advanced economies disproportionately for decades. The very language of a “rules-based order” obscured the extent to which those rules were written by the victors of World War II and tailored to their interests.

What we are witnessing now is not the collapse of a liberal utopia but the end of Western monopoly over rule-making. Emerging economies—China, India, Brazil, Indonesia—are demanding seats at the table and, when denied, building parallel institutions. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS New Development Bank, and regional payment systems are not rejections of rules; they are alternative rule-sets that reflect different priorities and power balances.

This is profoundly uncomfortable for those invested in the old architecture, but it is not apocalyptic. It is competitive multilateralism, messy and contested, but still multilateral.

Markets Price in Managed Disorder, Not Chaos

Financial markets, often sensitive barometers of systemic risk, have not behaved as though the global order is collapsing. Sovereign bond yields in advanced economies remain historically low, cross-border capital flows continue at scale, and currency markets—while volatile—show no signs of breakdown.

This does not mean markets are sanguine. Geopolitical risk premiums are rising, and investors are diversifying supply chains and currency reserves. But the behavior suggests adaptation to fragmentation, not preparation for collapse. Capital is finding new routes, not hoarding in panic.

As Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, observed at Davos, “we are moving from a single highway to a network of roads—some smoother than others, but still navigable.” This is a world of higher transaction costs and more complex coordination, not one of disintegration.

Middle Powers and the New Geometry of Influence

One of the most significant shifts in the changing global order is the rise of middle powers as swing actors. Countries like South Korea, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are no longer content to align reflexively with blocs. They are pursuing hedging strategies, maintaining economic ties with China while preserving security relationships with the United States.

This flexibility reflects a new geometry of influence. In a multipolar world, middle powers can extract concessions, broker deals, and shape regional outcomes in ways that were impossible in a bipolar or unipolar system. The Gulf Cooperation Council‘s pivot toward Asia, ASEAN’s centrality in Indo-Pacific trade, and the African Union’s assertiveness in global forums all signal this shift.

For the finance chiefs at Davos, this presents both challenge and opportunity. Fragmentation means more negotiating partners, more diverse coalitions, and more customized agreements. But it also means more durable, interest-based cooperation rather than ideological alignment. This is not the end of order—it is the beginning of a more pluralistic one.

Climate, Technology, and the Test Cases Ahead

If the global order is evolving rather than collapsing, the next few years will reveal whether fragmentation can sustain cooperation on the issues that matter most. Climate finance, pandemic preparedness, and the governance of artificial intelligence are test cases.

On climate, the proliferation of national and regional mechanisms may paradoxically accelerate action. The EU’s carbon border adjustment, China’s emissions trading system, and U.S. subsidies for green technology are competitive as much as cooperative, but competition can drive innovation and adoption faster than consensus.

On technology, the absence of universal rules is spurring regulatory experimentation. The EU’s AI Act, China’s data sovereignty laws, and U.S. antitrust enforcement represent divergent models, but they are all attempts to impose order. Over time, convergence or interoperability may emerge from this competition.

The risk, of course, is that fragmentation hardens into blocs that cannot cooperate even when existential threats demand it. But the history of international relations suggests that necessity eventually forces coordination, even among rivals. The question is whether we can afford to wait for necessity.

Conclusion: Mutation, Not Collapse

Mark Carney’s warning at Davos was valuable precisely because it forced a reckoning with uncomfortable realities. The old order is not coming back. American dominance is waning, European influence is constrained, and new powers are rising with different values and interests. The institutions built in the last century are outdated and under strain.

But the finance chiefs who pushed back were not in denial—they were offering a different diagnosis. The global order is not collapsing into chaos; it is mutating into managed disorder. Rules still matter, but they are contested, plural, and harder to enforce universally. Cooperation continues, but it is transactional, conditional, and coalition-based rather than institutional and automatic.

For investors, policymakers, and citizens, this means navigating a world of higher complexity and greater uncertainty—but not one of breakdown. The highways may be cracking, but the roads still connect. The challenge is not to mourn the old map but to learn the new terrain.

The question is not whether the rules-based order is over. It is whether we are wise enough to build something better from its fragments.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Banks

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

Published

on

Introduction

For the first time in the country’s history, money sent home by Pakistan’s overseas workers has exceeded the value of everything Pakistan actually sells abroad. Remittances hit a record $41.6 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, according to State Bank of Pakistan data — surpassing total merchandise exports for the same period and cementing a structural shift that economists are increasingly uneasy about (VOI World/State Bank of Pakistan).

The Numbers Behind the Milestone

Remittance inflows rose 8.6% year-on-year in FY26, up from $38.3 billion in FY25 (VOI World). Some reporting puts the full 11-month figure even higher at $38 billion before the final month was tallied, with May 2026 alone contributing $4.25 billion — an amount roughly equal to what the entire country spends on imports in a single month (Express Tribune). A separate Express Tribune report puts the full FY26 total even higher, at $41.58 billion, an increase of nearly $3.29 billion over the prior year, delivered “without structured educational, training or welfare support” for the overseas workforce generating it (Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support).

Saudi Arabia remained the single largest source of remittances in June 2026 at $829.6 million, followed by the UAE ($792.3 million), the United Kingdom ($514.9 million) and the United States ($296.8 million), with Italy and Oman each contributing more than $100 million (VOI World). That geographic concentration matters: a substantial share of Pakistan’s remittance base originates from the Gulf, leaving the country’s external account exposed to labor market reforms, economic cycles and geopolitical developments concentrated in a single, currently volatile region (Business Recorder Editorial).

Exports Have Been Stuck for Years

The remittance surge stands in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s export performance, which has shown little sustained dynamism despite years of concessional financing, preferential tariff regimes and subsidized energy for exporters (Business Recorder Editorial). The textile sector — long considered the backbone of Pakistan’s export economy — has been stuck in a $15–18 billion annual range for years, even as a handful of forward-thinking textile groups have managed to grow exports and diversify product lines under the exact same operating conditions others cite as prohibitive (Express Tribune). Separately reported nine-month data for the fiscal year showed exports contracting 5.8% to $23.3 billion even as imports rose nearly 8% to $46.8 billion, widening the trade gap further (Minute Mirror).

Over the three fiscal years from 2023 to 2025, Pakistan received $95.8 billion in remittances compared with $91 billion in merchandise exports — a gap that reflects, according to Business Recorder analysis, a deliberate policy orientation that has effectively institutionalized remittances as the default tool for stabilizing the current account rather than addressing the underlying export weakness (Business Recorder Opinion).

The Dutch Disease Warning

Independent economists have begun explicitly framing this pattern as a precursor to Dutch disease — the phenomenon where a large, easy source of foreign currency inflow reduces the pressure and incentive to build a competitive tradeable export sector (Business Recorder Opinion). The policy dimension is not incidental: under IMF program conditions, a long-standing subsidy that had encouraged banks to actively mobilize remittance transfers was withdrawn in the 2026 Budget, contributing to a temporary slowdown in inflows during the early months of the fiscal year before the government released Rs30 billion from its contingency fund to help revive momentum (Business Recorder Opinion).

A Business Recorder editorial published in July 2026 was blunt about the implication: Pakistan’s overseas workers have effectively become the country’s “most reliable export,” with its own people functioning as its largest export commodity — a framing the editorial explicitly calls an unsustainable foundation for long-term development strategy (Business Recorder Editorial).

The Silver Linings

The remittance boom has provided genuine macroeconomic stabilization. Total liquid foreign reserves crossed $23.98 billion as of early July 2026, including $18.47 billion held by the State Bank of Pakistan itself, with the rupee holding relatively steady around Rs278 per dollar in the interbank market (Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support). Inflation has also been easing, and large-scale manufacturing showed signs of recovery with 5.9% growth in earlier-reported data, while agricultural lending rose 14.4% during July–February, extending credit access to farmers (Minute Mirror). Separately, Pakistan has reportedly repaid roughly Rs4,722 billion in debt ahead of schedule and posted a historic milestone in IT sector exports, suggesting pockets of genuine structural improvement exist alongside the broader export stagnation (Radio Pakistan).

Why This Matters Beyond Pakistan

Pakistan’s experience is a useful case study for other remittance-dependent emerging economies navigating IMF program conditions. The core tension — using a reliable, low-effort capital inflow to paper over a harder structural problem in the tradeable goods sector — is not unique to Pakistan, but few economies illustrate the scale of the imbalance as starkly as a country where remittances now formally exceed total exports.

Key Takeaways

  1. Pakistan’s FY26 remittances hit a record $41.6 billion, surpassing total merchandise exports for the first time in the country’s history.
  2. Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain the largest single sources, concentrating external account risk in the Gulf region.
  3. Textile exports have been stuck between $15–18 billion annually for years despite sustained government support.
  4. Economists are increasingly framing the remittance-export imbalance as a Dutch disease risk rather than a stabilization success story.
  5. Reserves have strengthened to nearly $24 billion and the rupee has stabilized, but the underlying export competitiveness problem remains unresolved.

Sources: VOI World, Express Tribune — Remittances Dwarf Exports, Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support, Business Recorder Opinion, Business Recorder Editorial, Minute Mirror, Radio Pakistan


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Southeast Asia’s Two-Speed Economy: AI Chips Boom While a Quieter Halal Corridor Expands

Published

on

Singapore’s non-oil domestic exports rose 20.7% year-on-year in June 2026, driven by a 115.4% surge in integrated circuit shipments tied to AI demand, even as a separate and less-covered trade story unfolds next door: Malaysia-Indonesia bilateral trade is projected to grow 10% to US$29.3 billion in 2026, powered by expanding halal-sector cooperation.

The story most coverage is missing

Regional business press has extensively covered Singapore’s semiconductor export boom. What’s had far less coverage is the parallel, non-tech growth engine developing in the halal trade corridor between Malaysia and Indonesia — a structural, policy-driven trade relationship that is scaling steadily even as the AI trade headlines dominate attention.

Singapore: the AI supply chain’s export barometer

Singapore’s June non-oil domestic exports climbed 20.7% year-on-year, with integrated circuit exports jumping 115.4% and disk media products and personal computers rising 170.9% and 95.8% respectively — a direct read on how deeply the AI infrastructure buildout is flowing through the city-state’s electronics trade (VietnamPlus/VNA). Non-electronic exports told a different story, falling 2.9% in June after a 17.7% rise in May, mainly on weaker shipments of non-monetary gold, petrochemicals and food preparations — evidence the export strength is narrowly concentrated in the AI-linked segment rather than broad-based.

Singapore’s economic gravitational pull on its neighbours is intensifying too: a joint study by the Singapore Business Federation, Restaurant Association of Singapore and Singapore Retailers Association found Singaporean consumers are projected to spend an additional S$1.05 billion (roughly US$810 million) annually in Johor Bahru, just across the Malaysian border — a cross-border consumption pattern that is becoming a meaningful line item in regional retail planning (VietnamPlus/VNA).

The halal corridor: a steadier, policy-built growth story

While AI exports grab headlines, Malaysia’s bilateral trade with Indonesia is forecast to grow 10% to US$29.3 billion in 2026, according to Malaysia’s Chargé d’Affaires in Jakarta, Farzamie Sarkawi — up from US$26.61 billion in 2025, itself a 5.3% increase on the year before (BusinessToday Malaysia).

The driver is structural rather than cyclical: a halal Memorandum of Cooperation signed by the two countries in 2023 established mutual recognition of halal certification, easing product movement and market access across sectors. Sarkawi described the arrangement as delivering “positive progress” through knowledge exchange, training and improved market access for businesses in both countries (BusinessToday Malaysia). The ambition extends beyond the bilateral relationship: intra-D-8 trade — spanning the eight-nation Developing 8 bloc of Muslim-majority economies — currently runs between US$150 billion and US$160 billion annually, with a stated target of US$500 billion by 2030.

The macro backdrop: a region growing, unevenly

The Asian Development Bank’s July 2026 outlook shows Indonesia’s growth forecast holding steady at 5.2% for both 2026 and 2027, while Malaysia’s outlook is unchanged at 4.6% for 2026 and 4.5% for 2027 (ADB). Regional growth leadership, per McKinsey’s Q1 2026 review, sits with Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam, while the Philippines lagged as domestic challenges weighed on activity (McKinsey).

Indonesia’s investment story has particular momentum: foreign direct investment grew for a second consecutive quarter, rising 8.1% to 249.9 trillion rupiah (roughly US$14.5 billion) in the first quarter of 2026, with Singapore remaining Indonesia’s largest single foreign investor at US$4.6 billion, ahead of China, Japan, Hong Kong and the United States (McKinsey). Realised investment for full-year 2025 reached a record Rp1,931.2 trillion (about US$120.7 billion), exceeding the government’s own target, driven by downstream industrial projects outside Java (BERNAMA).

Indonesia’s central bank has flagged currency management as an active watch item, signalling readiness to step up both onshore and offshore FX intervention to curb rupiah weakness and keep inflation within its 2026-2027 target band (McKinsey). Foreign investment in Indonesian government bonds has nonetheless rebounded, with net inflows of 17.7 trillion rupiah following outflows in the first quarter, alongside cumulative foreign holdings of 174 trillion rupiah in Bank Indonesia Rupiah Securities (BERNAMA).

Institutional context: Singapore’s coming ASEAN chairmanship

Adding a governance dimension to the economic picture, Singapore is set to take over the ASEAN chairmanship from the Philippines in 2027, with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong pledging a smooth transition — a leadership handover that will shape how the bloc coordinates trade and investment policy, including the halal-corridor and semiconductor-trade dynamics described above, through the second half of the decade (BERNAMA).

The bottom line

Southeast Asia’s 2026 growth story is not a single narrative but two distinct, converging tracks: a high-velocity, AI-linked export boom concentrated in Singapore’s electronics trade, and a steadier, policy-engineered halal-sector trade corridor between Malaysia and Indonesia that is quietly scaling toward a $500 billion bloc-wide target by 2030. Investors and policymakers tracking only the semiconductor headlines risk missing the second, structurally more durable growth engine sitting right alongside it.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Why Fed Independence Is Hanging by a Thread

Published

on

The Federal Reserve’s independence faces its most serious test in decades: a Justice Department investigation into Chair Jerome Powell over building-renovation costs, a Supreme Court case over Trump’s attempt to fire Governor Lisa Cook, and an incoming chair nomination openly tied to Trump’s demand for rates cut “by a lot” — all unfolding as the Fed tries to keep monetary policy decisions separate from the White House.

An institutional crisis hiding inside a rate-cut story

Most financial coverage this year has framed the Federal Reserve story as a simple tug-of-war over interest rates. That framing understates what is actually happening: a structural challenge to the 111-year-old convention that US monetary policy sits outside presidential control — a convention every advanced economy has treated as a prerequisite for market credibility.

The three fronts of the fight

1. The Powell investigation. In January, federal prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas tied to Powell’s congressional testimony about roughly $2.5 billion in cost overruns on the Fed’s headquarters renovation. Powell called the inquiry a “pretext” for punishing the central bank for not cutting rates as quickly as the administration wants, and warned it should be viewed “in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure” on the institution (CNBC). Every living former Fed chair signed a joint statement calling the probe an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial pressure to undermine central bank independence (NBC News).

2. The Lisa Cook case. The Supreme Court has separately taken up whether Trump can remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage-fraud allegations she denies — a case with direct bearing on whether a president can reshape the Fed’s voting board outside the normal confirmation process (Euronews).

3. The succession fight. Trump has said publicly that Powell’s replacement — due when his term as chair ends in 2026 — should be someone who “believes in lower interest rates, by a lot” (Bloomberg). Analysts note this is a break from decades of precedent in which presidents, whatever their private preferences, avoided direct pressure on the Fed’s leadership pipeline.

Why markets are watching the mechanics, not just the rhetoric

It’s worth noting a structural check that has received less attention than it deserves: the Fed chair casts only one of twelve votes on the Federal Open Market Committee. Appointing a more compliant chair does not, by itself, guarantee the rate cuts Trump wants — any change still requires majority support across the full committee (CBS/AOL).

That has not stopped the market repricing. Following Powell’s Jackson Hole remarks suggesting the Fed could act if the labour market kept weakening, traders moved to price an 85% probability of a September rate cut, sending the S&P 500, Nasdaq and Dow higher while the dollar index and Treasury yields fell — a reaction some economists read as evidence that political pressure is already bleeding into policy expectations, independent of the FOMC’s actual vote (Barchart).

At the same time, inflation data complicates the picture for anyone expecting an easy capitulation. The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the PCE price index, sat at 2.8% year-over-year as of November — still above the Fed’s 2% target — while the FOMC’s December dot plot showed a more cautious rate path than markets had previously expected, with the median policymaker view placing the federal funds rate in the low-to-mid 3% range by the end of 2026 (CNBC).

Why it matters beyond the US

Central bank independence is not a purely domestic US concern. The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency, and Treasury yields’ function as the global risk-free benchmark, mean that any erosion in perceived Fed independence has second-order effects on borrowing costs from London to Karachi. Emerging-market central banks — including the State Bank of Pakistan and Bank Indonesia — routinely calibrate their own policy against expected Fed moves; a Fed seen as politically compromised makes that calibration harder and potentially more volatile for every economy that prices debt off US Treasuries.

RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas has predicted Powell will use his public platform to mount “an erudite but accessible defense of central bank independence” at upcoming FOMC press conferences — a sign that Fed leadership itself views the institutional question, not just the rate decision, as the story that matters (AOL/CBS).

What to watch next

  • Whether the DOJ investigation into Powell produces formal charges or fizzles amid criticism of its timing
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Cook removal case, which could set precedent for presidential authority over independent agency officials generally
  • Trump’s formal nomination for the next Fed chair, and how openly that nominee campaigns on a specific rate target
  • Whether the FOMC’s committee-based voting structure continues to act as a moderating check regardless of who chairs the meetings

The rate-cut headlines will keep coming. The more consequential story is whether the institutional guardrails around the Fed — designed explicitly to keep monetary policy insulated from electoral cycles — hold through 2026.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Labour16 minutes ago

US Forced-Labour Tariffs on 60 Countries: The Hidden Trade Shock of 2026

Analysis23 hours ago

Global Central Banks 2026: Fed, BoE and BoJ Decisions Could Reshape Markets

Analysis1 week ago

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

Banks1 week ago

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

Markets & Finance1 week ago

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

Asia1 week ago

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

China Economy1 week ago

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

Economic Corridors1 week ago

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

International Trade1 week ago

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

Analysis1 week ago

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

Analysis1 week ago

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

AI1 week ago

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

Mining1 week ago

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

Analysis1 week ago

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

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