Economic News

Economic News

Market Talk – September 3, 2025

ASIA: The major Asian stock markets had a mixed day today: • NIKKEI 225 decreased 371.60 points or -0.88% to 41,938.89 • Shanghai decreased 44.577 points or -1.16% to 3,813.557 • Hang Seng decreased 153.12 points or -0.60% to 25,343.43 • ASX 200 decreased 161.80 points or -1.82% to 8,738.80 • SENSEX increased 409.83 points or 0.51% to 80,567.71 • Nifty50 increased 135.45 points or 0.55% to 24,715.05 The major Asian currency markets had a mixed day today: • AUDUSD increased 0.00299 or 0.46% to 0.65485 • NZDUSD increased 0.00173 or 0.30% to 0.58784 • USDJPY decreased 0.601 or -0.40% to 147.974 • USDCNY increased 0.00158 or 0.02% to 7.13986 The above data was collected around 12:15 EST. Precious Metals: • Gold increased 30.23 USD/t oz. or 0.86% to 3,565.01 • Silver increased 0.303 USD/t. oz. or 0.74% to 41.213 The above data was collected around 12:18 EST. EUROPE/EMEA: The major Europe stock markets had a green day today: • CAC 40 increased 65.46 points or 0.86% to 7,719.71 • FTSE 100 increased 61.30 points or 0.67% to 9,177.99 • DAX 30 increased 107.47 points or 0.46% to 23,594.80 The major Europe currency markets had a mixed day today: • EURUSD increased 0.0043 or 0.37% to 1.16757 • GBPUSD increased 0.00703 or 0.53% to 1.34515 • USDCHF decreased 0.00207 or -0.26% to 0.80324 The above data was collected around 13:01 EST. US/AMERICAS: US Market Closings: Dow declined by 24.58 points (-0.05%) to 45,271.23 S&P 500 advanced by 32.72 points (+0.51%) to 6,448.26 NASDAQ advanced by 218.10 points (+1.03%) to 21,497.73 Russell 2000 declined by 3.11 points (-0.13%) to 2,349.10 Canada Market Closings: TSX Composite advanced by 136.86 points (+0.48%) to 28,752.48 TSX 60 advanced by 7.90 points (+0.47%) to 1,704.79 Brazil Market Closing: Bovespa declined by 553.18 points (-0.39%) to 139,781.98 ENERGY: The oil markets had a mixed day today: • Crude Oil decreased 1.598 USD/BBL or -2.44% to 63.992 • Brent decreased 1.469 USD/BBL or -2.12% to 67.671 • Natural gas increased 0.0356 USD/MMBtu or 1.18% to 3.0446 • Gasoline decreased 0.0261 USD/GAL or -1.28% to 2.0164 • Heating oil decreased 0.0144 USD/GAL or -0.61% to 2.3600 The above data was collected around 13:03 EST. • Top commodity gainers: Natural Gas (1.18%), Orange Juice (1.93%), Palladium (2.06%) and Platinum (2.33%) • Top commodity losers: Canola (-1.85%), Crude Oil (-2.44%), Brent (-2.12%) and Oat (-1.80%) The above data was collected around 13:11 EST. BONDS: Japan 1.6370% (+3.06bp), US 2’s 3.61% (-0.033%), US 10’s 4.2080% (-5.5bps); US 30’s 4.89 (-0.067%), Bunds 2.7370% (-5.29bp), France 3.5410% (-4.44bp), Italy 3.640% (-7.07bp), Turkey 32.815% (+259.5bp), Greece 3.469% (-5.2bp), Portugal 3.178% (-6.3bp); Spain 3.345% (-5.8bp) and UK Gilts 4.7490% (-6.03bp) The above data was collected around 13:15 EST.

Economic News

Get the latest global GDP growth forecasts via our daily tracker

Leer en Español Global economy to lose steam this year: The FocusEconomics World GDP Consensus Forecast—based on 3,500 individual projections for GDP growth across 198 countries—shows that the global economy is on track for its slowest growth since the Covid-19 slump of 2020 this year, dragged down by softer expansions in major players like Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and the U.S. But the picture isn’t bleak everywhere—Africa and the Middle East are set to accelerate, powered by rising OPEC+ oil output quotas that are giving regional GDP a welcome boost.   Forecasts display U-shaped trend: As the graph below shows, our World GDP Consensus Forecast was slashed in the wake of Donald Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs, but has since recovered somewhat. Economic activity in many parts of the world has proved more resilient than expected, higher tariffs in the U.S. are taking a while to filter through to prices, and the global AI boom is girding tech exports and investment.  G20 countries see divergent trend: The below graph shows the evolution of our 2025 GDP growth forecasts for select G20 countries over the last six months. Argentina has seen the largest upgrade, as the government’s aggressive reform agenda has borne fruit. China’s forecasts have also been upgraded—superficially surprising, given the country has been subjected to hefty new U.S. tariffs. Chinese economic activity has been boosted by record government bond issuance, strong global electronics demand, rapid electric-vehicle-sector growth, export frontloading and rerouting to avoid U.S. tariffs, and an expanded trade-in scheme that boosted household spending. At the other end of the spectrum are the economies of South Korea and Mexico, both of which are likely to suffer fallout from a more protectionist U.S.   Insight from our panelists:  On the outlook for the global economy, EIU analysts said: US trade protectionism is being met mostly with restraint in terms of retaliation, but deep policy uncertainty is moving the global economy into a worse equilibrium. The risk of policy missteps will be high in this environment of rapid change. Although we forecast that global short-term interest rates will continue to fall, the unpredictable application of US tariffs will make it difficult for central banks to decipher inflation trends. Under the second Trump administration, the US is working to rebalance its economic and security relations. The manner in which the agenda is being pursued, however, will strain traditional alliances and drive geopolitical and economic realignment. Conflict risk and geopolitical brinkmanship will be key features of the global landscape, contributing to high risk premia and sustaining the risk of commodity price shocks.  On U.S. trade policy, ING’s Carsten Brzeski said: “Trump is demanding that trading partners show him the money in the form of investment pledges or face astronomically high tariffs. […] It’s unclear whether investment aspects of trade talks will move beyond headline figures and vague commitments. Unlike tariffs, which are straightforward to enforce, investment pledges and purchase commitments are harder to monitor, especially since entities like the EU lack the authority to guarantee them, leaving delivery to corporations. Japan and South Korea’s promises are mainly in the form of loans. This raises questions about how the U.S. might respond if countries fall short. And even with a deal – and I’m looking at you, Switzerland – the tariff issue persists. For Trump, tariffs are a versatile tool, used well beyond trade balance concerns. We can only guess at the long-term implications of such economic power play. Disrupted supply chains, strained diplomatic ties, economic selfishness, and less efficient global trade are just a few things to come to mind.”  Our latest analysis:  Israel’s economy clocked a surprise contraction in Q2.  Japan’s exports worsened again in July.  The post Get the latest global GDP growth forecasts via our daily tracker appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Economic News

The Majority Must be Wrong

QUESTION: I asked GOK who thinks the stock market will crash. It gave a list of people all expecting a crash. It also noted that Buffet was bearish and J.P. Morgan was calling for a 20% drop. The reasons were “High valuations, particularly in tech and AI, are compared to historical bubbles (e.g., dot-com, railroads). Recession fears, driven by tariffs, high interest rates, and consumer debt, are seen as potential catalysts. Ongoing conflicts (e.g., Middle East, Russia-Ukraine) and trade policy shifts add volatility.” It even said: “Samuel Benner’s Historical Chart (Referenced on Medium): Prediction: A 150-year-old financial cycle chart by Samuel Benner, cited in a Medium article, has historically predicted major crashes, including the Great Depression, dot-com bust, and 2020 COVID crash. It suggests warning signs for a potential crash in 2025.” You seem to be standing alone. What do you think about the Benner chart? SY ANSWER: That’s good. The majority is always wrong. Just as Rogoff said, the forecasts at Davos are always wrong. Most of these people forecast markets based on personal opinion, and they tend to be very myopic. They do not look at the world because they believe they can forecast in isolation. The claim that Benner’s Cycle predicted the Great Depression is false. The chart that was published in the Wall Street Journal altered Samuel Benner’s cycle, which was based on agriculture. It predicted a high in 1927, not 1929, and the low in 1930, not 1932. Claims that Benner’s work calls for a crash in 2025 are flat-out wrong. His target years would be 2019 and 2035, based on his data, not the altered, fake news published by the WSJ in 1933. Benner was a farmer. Applying his cycle to the economy today is no longer effective, any more than the Kondratieff Wave. Both were based on the economy, with agriculture being the #1 sector. As the Industrial Revolution unfolded, those cycles remain relevant for commodities, but not the economy. Agriculture, when Benner developed his model, accounted for 53% of the economy. Today it is 3%. If they were alive today, they would have used the services industry. Capital flows are still pointing to the dollar, given the prospect of war and sovereign defaults outside the USA.      

Economic News

Term Premium and Trsy-TIPS Breakeven

The 10yr term premium has risen, as has the 5yr TIPS-Trsy breakeven, in the wake of Mr. Trump’s campaign to subjugate the Fed. Figure 1: Ten year term premium, in % (blue). Light orange shading denotes period between Vought letter to Powell and Trump’s visit to Fed. Source: NY Fed.  Figure 2: Five year Treasury-TIPS breakeven, in % (blue). Light orange shading denotes period between Vought letter to Powell and Trump’s visit to Fed. Source: Treasury via FRED.  If Trump continues to browbeat the Fed into lowering the fed Funds rate, then the path of future nominal rates may be lowered, but higher expected inflation will tend to increase the term premium. Which dominates? That’s ambiguous. Believers in the Fisherian relation know the answer.

Economic News

Misleading Q2 US GDP Figure

The U.S. economy did post a headline-grabbing 3.3% gain in Q2, but that figure is misleading. It’s driven largely by the collapse in imports—not by true domestic growth. Remember the GDP formula: GDP = C + I + G + (X – M). A sharp drop in imports boosts that (X – M) term artificially, making GDP look better even while the underlying fundamentals stagnate. Consumer spending rose only modestly at 1.6% and private domestic final sales rose 1.9%. They relay a lower estimate and then state the true figure, acting as if the figure should be celebrated. Meanwhile, business spending remained weak. We’ve also noted that household debt surged by $185 billion in Q2, with rising mortgage, credit-card, auto-loan, and student-loan balances. Delinquency rates are up, and real incomes are under pressure. Consumers are treading in deep waters. Imports tanked by 29.8% after nations began to panic buy last quarter ahead of tariffs. Exports declined 1.3%. The import volatility has inflated figures and does not mark sustainable economic growth. Investment into the US has also improved as capital has nowhere else to go, but again, the expansion is not enough for the long-term. The economy contracted 0.5% in Q1, and the Commerce Department is reporting that the economy rose 3.3% in Q2, with growth averaging 2.1% or a bit above 1% per quarter. Stagflation is not simply high inflation with low growth. It is the direct result of government mismanagement. When politicians and central banks try to manipulate the economy, they destroy confidence. That is the fuel behind stagflation.

Economic News

What’s the outlook for uranium prices?

Leer en Español The mid-2010s doldrums: In the mid-2010s, uranium prices languished below USD 20 per pound. This was a small fraction of the over USD 100 per pound prices reached in the heady days before the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. In the post-crisis years, the uranium spot price was weighed on by the Fukushima disaster in Japan—which led to some developed countries going off nuclear power—rising uranium supply and a tapering of the irrational market exuberance that marked the 2007 price bubble.    Impressive resurgence: Over the last decade, however, uranium has made a comeback, with prices increasing more than fourfold between 2017 and 2024. Multiple factors have been at play. Asian countries, in particular, added nuclear power capacity at a brisk rate during the period—China’s was up around two-thirds, for instance. This was coupled with producers reining in output in the face of low prices. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine war fueled many countries’ concerns over the security of fossil fuel energy supplies, sparking renewed interest in nuclear as an alternative and reliable energy source. Another key development has been the increasing financialization of the market. Most notably, the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust launched in 2021 and has since rapidly accumulated tens of millions of pounds of uranium, tightening spot market supply.   Price outlook for the rest of this decade: The Consensus among our panelists is for uranium prices to remain well above the levels that prevailed in the 2010s for the rest of this decade, with prices forecast to hover between USD 65 and 80 per pound. The latest edition of the World Nuclear Association’s Nuclear Fuel Report penciled in a 28% increase in uranium demand from 2023 to 2030 vs an 18% increase in supply. Higher demand will be driven by several factors: Rising economic development levels in emerging markets, higher electricity demand caused by AI, greater interest in modular nuclear reactors, and governments’ ongoing desire to ensure energy security in a more uncertain world. That said, panelists don’t see a return to the highs of 2024, a period when the spot price likely got ahead of underlying market fundamentals due to investor exuberance.   Insight from our panel of analysts Economists at Goldman Sachs said:  “Supply/demand dynamics are supportive of higher uranium prices: We forecast a structural supply deficit of ~20mn lbs in 2025 to grow to ~130mn lbs by 2040, or representing 40%-45% undersupply. This view is supported by increasing demand for uranium as the global nuclear fleet expands to support growing power needs amid a lack of meaningful potential supply to come online.”  Our latest analysis   Argentina’s economy continued to boom in annual terms in June, but shrank month on month.  New Zealand’s central bank cut rates again in August amid a dour economic panorama.  The post What’s the outlook for uranium prices? appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Economic News

What’s the outlook for uranium prices?

Leer en Español The mid-2010s doldrums: In the mid-2010s, uranium prices languished below USD 20 per pound. This was a small fraction of the over USD 100 per pound prices reached in the heady days before the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. In the post-crisis years, the uranium spot price was weighed on by the Fukushima disaster in Japan—which led to some developed countries going off nuclear power—rising uranium supply and a tapering of the irrational market exuberance that marked the 2007 price bubble.    Impressive resurgence: Over the last decade, however, uranium has made a comeback, with prices increasing more than fourfold between 2017 and 2024. Multiple factors have been at play. Asian countries, in particular, added nuclear power capacity at a brisk rate during the period—China’s was up around two-thirds, for instance. This was coupled with producers reining in output in the face of low prices. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine war fueled many countries’ concerns over the security of fossil fuel energy supplies, sparking renewed interest in nuclear as an alternative and reliable energy source. Another key development has been the increasing financialization of the market. Most notably, the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust launched in 2021 and has since rapidly accumulated tens of millions of pounds of uranium, tightening spot market supply.   Price outlook for the rest of this decade: The Consensus among our panelists is for uranium prices to remain well above the levels that prevailed in the 2010s for the rest of this decade, with prices forecast to hover between USD 65 and 80 per pound. The latest edition of the World Nuclear Association’s Nuclear Fuel Report penciled in a 28% increase in uranium demand from 2023 to 2030 vs an 18% increase in supply. Higher demand will be driven by several factors: Rising economic development levels in emerging markets, higher electricity demand caused by AI, greater interest in modular nuclear reactors, and governments’ ongoing desire to ensure energy security in a more uncertain world. That said, panelists don’t see a return to the highs of 2024, a period when the spot price likely got ahead of underlying market fundamentals due to investor exuberance.   Insight from our panel of analysts Economists at Goldman Sachs said:  “Supply/demand dynamics are supportive of higher uranium prices: We forecast a structural supply deficit of ~20mn lbs in 2025 to grow to ~130mn lbs by 2040, or representing 40%-45% undersupply. This view is supported by increasing demand for uranium as the global nuclear fleet expands to support growing power needs amid a lack of meaningful potential supply to come online.”  Our latest analysis   Argentina’s economy continued to boom in annual terms in June, but shrank month on month.  New Zealand’s central bank cut rates again in August amid a dour economic panorama.  The post What’s the outlook for uranium prices? appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Economic News

The Crude Chronometer: How Geopolitical Shocks Shake the Oil Market

Leer en Español Major Geopolitical Events and Their Effect on Oil Prices For decades, the price of crude oil has been a sensitive barometer of global stability. More than just a commodity, its cost is a fever chart of geopolitical health, spiking with conflicts and crashing with unforeseen calamities. To understand the ebb and flow of the world’s most critical energy source is to read a history of modern crises. From Arab-Israeli tensions to a global pandemic, major events have consistently demonstrated their power to convulse the oil market, reshaping economies and international relations in the process. The Oil Crisis of the 1970s: A Rude Awakening The 1970s shattered the post-WW2 illusion of cheap and abundant energy. The decade was punctuated by two major oil shocks that fundamentally reconfigured the global economic landscape. The first, in 1973, was a direct consequence of the Yom Kippur War. In response to American support for Israel, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed an embargo on the United States and other nations. This was not merely a commercial dispute; it was the weaponization of oil. The effect was immediate and dramatic. The price of oil per barrel quadrupled, soaring from around USD 3 to nearly USD 12 by the time the embargo was lifted in March 1974. For a world built on cheap oil, the shock was profound. The United States, where domestic production had peaked in 1970, was particularly vulnerable, having become increasingly reliant on imports. The iconic images of the era are of long queues of cars snaking around petrol stations, a visceral symbol of a new era of energy scarcity. The second shock of the decade arrived with the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow of the Shah and the ensuing chaos crippled Iran’s oil industry, removing millions of barrels from the daily global supply. The subsequent Iran-Iraq War further decimated the production of both nations. While other OPEC members increased their output to compensate, it was not enough to prevent another price surge. By 1980, oil prices had more than doubled again, reaching over USD 36 per barrel, a fourteen-fold increase from the start of the 1970s. The decade served as a harsh lesson in the strategic importance of oil and the immense power wielded by those who control its flow. The Gulf War (1990–1991): A Swift, Sharp Shock The summer of 1990 brought another stark reminder of the Middle East’s critical role in energy security. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August immediately threatened a significant portion of the world’s oil supply. Iraq and Kuwait together accounted for a substantial slice of OPEC’s output. The invasion, motivated by Iraq’s heavy debts from the Iran-Iraq war and its accusation that Kuwait was overproducing and depressing prices, sent a jolt through the market. Oil prices reacted with predictable alarm. The average monthly price of a barrel shot up from USD 17 in July to USD 36 by October. The fear was not just the loss of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, but the potential for the conflict to spill over into neighboring Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. The United Nations responded by imposing an embargo on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, further tightening supply. However, the 1990 price shock proved to be less severe and of shorter duration than those of the 1970s. The swift and decisive military intervention by a U.S.-led coalition to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait calmed market fears of a prolonged supply disruption. As the coalition’s military success became apparent, prices began to fall. The episode demonstrated that while the market remained highly sensitive to geopolitical ructions in the Gulf, a rapid and effective international response could mitigate the economic fallout. The 9/11 Attacks: A Demand-Side Shock The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 were a tragedy that shook the world. Their impact on the oil market, however, was different from previous crises. Rather than a supply shock, 9/11 triggered a sudden and severe demand-side shock. The immediate aftermath saw the world’s aviation industry grind to a halt. The grounding of aircraft and the subsequent deep aversion to air travel led to a collapse in the demand for jet fuel, a key component of oil consumption. This precipitous drop in demand sent oil prices tumbling. The attacks created a climate of profound economic uncertainty, further dampening consumer and business confidence and, consequently, energy consumption. While the price drop was significant, it was relatively short-lived as the global economy gradually found its footing. The 9/11 attacks highlighted a different kind of vulnerability for the oil market: Its deep integration with the rhythms of the global economy and the sudden impact that a non-energy-related catastrophe could have on demand. The Global Financial Crisis: A Cascade of Collapsing Demand The financial contagion that began in the American subprime mortgage market in 2007 and erupted into a full-blown global crisis in 2008 delivered the most significant demand-driven oil price shock in modern history. In the first half of 2008, oil prices had surged to unprecedented highs, peaking at over USD 147 a barrel in July. This was driven by a combination of robust demand, particularly from emerging economies like China, and stagnant production. Then, the bottom fell out of the market. As the financial crisis crippled the world’s leading economies, industrial activity seized up and commerce slowed dramatically. Demand for energy plummeted. As a result, oil prices went into a freefall, collapsing to a low of USD 32 a barrel by December 2008. This represented a staggering 80% drop in just a few months. The crisis demonstrated with brutal clarity how intertwined the fate of the oil market is with global economic health. No amount of supply-side discipline from OPEC could counteract a demand shock of this magnitude. The Iranian Nuclear Deal: A Glimmer of New Supply For years, Iran’s vast oil reserves were largely kept off the mainstream market by stringent international sanctions aimed at curbing its nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),

Scroll to Top