Economic Slowdown Forces Restaurant Closures Across South Korea

Economic

Summary:

A growing number of cafes, restaurants, and convenience stores in South Korea are shutting down as domestic consumption weakens and financial pressures mount...

Service Sector Hit Hard by Economic Fatigue

South Korea’s restaurant and retail landscape is undergoing a contraction amid prolonged economic stagnation and falling consumer demand. According to newly released data from the National Tax Service (NTS), the first quarter of 2025 recorded a notable decline in the number of operating food and beverage establishments nationwide, highlighting the fragility of small businesses in a saturated and cost-heavy market.

The number of operating cafes fell to 95,337 as of March 2025—a decrease of 743 outlets compared to the same period last year. This marks the first year-on-year drop since cafe data tracking began in 2018, signaling a potential turning point for the once-thriving coffeehouse culture in South Korea.

Fast Food and Retail Also Feel the Squeeze

The contraction is not limited to cafes. The number of fast food outlets declined by 180 units year-on-year, falling to 47,803 as of Q1. Similarly, the count of convenience stores dropped by 455 locations, totaling 53,101. This broad-based downturn across different segments of the service sector reflects both oversaturation and broader economic malaise.

According to analysts, many businesses—especially small and independent operators—are closing due to persistent revenue declines and unsustainable operational costs. A key financial burden has been the steep commission fees demanded by delivery platforms, which have become an essential but costly distribution channel in the post-pandemic era.

Declining Revenues Highlight Structural Challenges

The struggles of South Korea’s small business ecosystem are further underscored by falling average revenues. In Q1 2025, the average income for small business owners was approximately 41.79 million won (USD 30,558), down 0.72% from the same quarter in 2024. While the decline appears modest, it is significant in a high-cost, low-margin sector and suggests that profitability is steadily eroding.

This drop comes despite persistent efforts by businesses to attract foot traffic and diversify their service offerings, and underscores that the recovery in consumer spending has been uneven and fragile.

Broader Economic Implications

South Korea’s consumption-driven sectors are often viewed as a barometer of the country’s middle-class confidence and spending power. The closures and revenue decline hint at more systemic challenges, including stagnating wage growth, high household debt, and demographic pressures such as an aging population and shrinking workforce participation.

Moreover, the market saturation—especially in urban areas like Seoul, where cafe and convenience store density is among the highest globally—has made survival even more difficult for new or small-scale entrants.

Restructuring Ahead for South Korea’s Service Economy

The recent wave of closures signals a sobering moment for South Korea’s food and retail industry. As high fixed costs, digital platform fees, and soft demand converge, many businesses are finding the current climate unsustainable.

Unless broader economic conditions improve and structural reforms are introduced—such as reducing operational burdens or revising platform fee structures—the country may witness a continued contraction in small-scale service businesses. This trend not only threatens local entrepreneurship but may also reshape urban consumer culture in one of Asia’s most vibrant retail markets.

Source: The Korean Herald

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

India–Palestine conflict

Economic

Surging External Financing Amid Domestic Economic Fragility

In a bid to avert a worsening balance-of-payments crisis, Pakistan has successfully mobilized $16.08 billion in external financing during the first 10 months of its fiscal year, approaching its full-year target of $19.2 billion by June 30. Despite economic instability and delays in IMF disbursements, this financial inflow has been critical in stabilizing foreign exchange reserves and fulfilling external debt payments.

Nearly half of the total came from renewed bilateral loan arrangements—primarily from China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—highlighting Pakistan’s growing dependence on a narrow group of strategic partners.

IMF Support Helps But Delays Persist

The slow release of funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been a major drag on Pakistan’s financing strategy this year. While the country received an initial $1 billion disbursement under the $7 billion Extended Fund Facility early in 2024, only a second tranche of $1 billion has followed so far.

The delays have impacted investor confidence and restricted access to commercial borrowing, resulting in a 15% year-on-year decline in total new loans and aid disbursements between July and April.

Bilateral and Commercial Lending Show Diverging Trends

One of the more concerning developments is the 58% decline in bilateral lending outside core partners. This reflects growing hesitation among international governments to lend amid Pakistan’s ongoing macroeconomic fragility. Nonetheless, Pakistan secured rollover agreements worth $3 billion from China and Saudi Arabia and $2 billion from the UAE, temporarily shoring up net foreign reserves to approximately $3.3 billion.

On the commercial front, international lenders—primarily UAE-based banks—have provided just $706 million in loans so far, far below the government’s $3.8 billion target. This underperformance illustrates the increasing difficulty Pakistan faces in accessing market-based funding due to elevated risk perceptions.

Multilateral Support and Remittances Provide Relief

Multilateral institutions such as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank have remained steady in their support, contributing $1.25 billion and $1.07 billion, respectively. These funds are critical in filling Pakistan’s external financing gap and sustaining vital development programs.

Additionally, remittances through the Naya Pakistan Certificates (NPCs)—an initiative targeting the Pakistani diaspora—have surged. The program brought in $1.61 billion, a significant jump from $886 million in the same period last year. This increase reflects renewed confidence from overseas Pakistanis and offers an encouraging alternative funding channel.

Crisis Management Through Strategic Partnerships and Diaspora Engagement

While Pakistan’s ability to raise over $16 billion in external financing during a period of fiscal turbulence is a short-term achievement, it also underscores its growing vulnerability. The country’s dependence on a small group of bilateral partners, coupled with limited success in commercial debt markets, exposes structural weaknesses in its economic resilience.

Sustained support from institutions like the IMF, ADB, and World Bank, along with innovative funding from remittances, are keeping the economy afloat. However, long-term stability will depend on broader fiscal reforms, improved creditworthiness, and diversification of funding sources to reduce overreliance on geopolitical alliances and emergency rollovers.

Source: DailyTimes

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Rate Cut Expectations Fade as Fed Opts for Caution

Just a month ago, markets were pricing in more than a 90% chance of a Federal Reserve rate cut before July. Now, that optimism has been sharply revised. According to the CME FedWatch Tool as of May 25, there's a 94% probability the Fed will hold rates steady in June, and a 74% chance of the same outcome in July. The shift reflects growing consensus among Fed officials that it’s premature to ease monetary policy in the current environment.

Rather than preparing to pivot, Fed leaders are reinforcing a message of restraint, emphasizing that the economic picture remains clouded by domestic policy shifts and global uncertainty.

Fed Officials Signal Extended Wait-and-See Period

Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, though not a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), expressed in a recent interview that he would prefer to wait until late summer—if not longer—before reassessing policy direction. “We need three to six more months to get a clearer view,” he stated, referencing data volatility and unpredictable fiscal policy developments.

New York Fed President John Williams echoed this sentiment at a conference, emphasizing that June and July are unlikely to provide sufficient clarity. “We are still in a phase of watching, waiting, and collecting more data,” he said.

These statements align with a broader trend of caution across the Federal Reserve system, as economic uncertainty grows amid new U.S. trade and tax policies under President Trump’s administration.

Economic Crosscurrents Complicate Policy Calculus

The Fed is contending with a number of unresolved dynamics: inflation remains above target in certain sectors, wage pressures persist, and the job market, while cooling, has not weakened dramatically. At the same time, looming policy shifts—especially concerning tariffs, corporate regulation rollbacks, and changes to immigration enforcement—add layers of ambiguity to future growth prospects.

Officials like St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem are emphasizing this complexity. In remarks at the Minnesota Economic Club, he warned of economic turbulence across the next several quarters: “New policies around trade, taxes, immigration, and regulatory reforms will impact the economy differently—and not all effects will be visible right away.”

The unpredictability of these impacts makes it difficult for policymakers to determine the right course of action. Should the Fed act too soon, it risks reigniting inflation. If it waits too long, it may miss the opportunity to cushion an economic downturn.

A Delicate Balance Between Inflation and Recession Risk

The Fed’s current stance reflects the challenge of balancing inflation containment with the risk of recession. While headline inflation has cooled from its post-pandemic highs, core measures remain sticky. Meanwhile, business investment shows signs of hesitation, consumer sentiment is fluctuating, and geopolitical tensions—including the fallout from U.S. trade policy—are dampening global demand.

In this context, maintaining higher rates may help anchor inflation expectations, but it also heightens risks of stagnation and job losses. The central bank is clearly weighing these trade-offs and has chosen to prioritize stability until the path forward becomes clearer.

Market Patience Will Be Tested

The Federal Reserve is signaling a firm hold on rates for the foreseeable future, disappointing investors who had hoped for a summer pivot toward monetary easing. With no immediate relief on the horizon, market sentiment may remain subdued in the coming months.

The Fed’s cautious tone underscores the complex, data-dependent environment of 2025—one shaped as much by domestic policy experiments as by macroeconomic fundamentals. Until the effects of new tariffs, tax reforms, and immigration rules are better understood, the Fed appears firmly in wait-and-see mode. Investors and businesses alike may need to brace for a longer period of policy inertia, as the central bank seeks clarity in a world defined by growing economic uncertainty.

Source: Investopedia

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Stocks

China–U.S. Trade War

Foreign Investors Pull Back as U.S. Tariff Rhetoric Escalates

The Canadian stock market has become collateral damage in the latest wave of U.S. protectionist policy under President Donald Trump. According to The Globe & Mail and data from Statistics Canada, the first quarter of 2025 saw a net foreign capital outflow of $35 billion CAD (approximately $25.3 billion USD) from Canadian equities—marking a significant shift in global investor sentiment.

The withdrawal coincides with Trump’s return to the White House and renewed warnings from the U.S. administration about rapid tariff implementation. Although no specific tariffs on Canadian exports have yet been finalized, the political signal alone was enough to spook foreign investors, who now perceive heightened geopolitical and economic risks in North America.

Contradiction Between Market Performance and Capital Flight

Interestingly, despite the scale of the capital exodus, the benchmark S&P/TSX Composite Index inched upward during Q1. This performance was largely underpinned by domestic investor activity. Many Canadian investors, especially retail participants, responded by reallocating capital from U.S. equities to Canadian stocks, essentially filling the vacuum left by departing foreign investors.

Martin Roberge, a portfolio strategist at Canaccord Genuity, noted that the foreign investor retreat stems from risk aversion and the perceived volatility linked to the uncertain direction of U.S.–Canada economic relations. Yet this has opened opportunities for local investors to reposition their holdings domestically, benefiting from lower asset prices and more predictable fiscal policy at home.

Canada's Fiscal Credibility Stands in Contrast to U.S. Turbulence

Another key factor behind the divergence in investment flows lies in sovereign credit ratings. While the U.S. recently suffered a credit downgrade by Moody’s due to rising debt and persistent deficits, Canada has retained its top-tier AAA rating. This suggests that despite short-term economic softness—or even a looming recession—Canada is still viewed as a safe and fiscally sound environment for long-term investment.

This is further evidenced by the $50 billion CAD worth of Canadian government bonds purchased by non-resident investors in Q1 2025. These inflows into fixed-income markets reflect a continued trust in Canada’s macroeconomic stability, even as equity markets face turbulence.

Equity Market Anxiety Offset by Bond Market Confidence

Foreign capital is increasingly shunning Canadian equities due to fears over U.S.-led trade disruptions, yet these same investors are simultaneously parking their funds in Canadian government bonds, attracted by the country’s fiscal discipline and top-tier credit rating. The resulting dynamic reveals a bifurcation in investor confidence—distrust in North American equity volatility, but faith in Canadian institutional resilience.

While domestic investors may continue to support stock prices in the short term, sustained foreign outflows could weigh on equity market liquidity and valuations. Much now depends on whether U.S. tariff threats materialize or recede, and how Canada leverages its fiscal credibility to restore investor trust amid regional uncertainty.

Source: Globe and Mail

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

A Legislative Milestone with Deep Socioeconomic Consequences

Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the new legislative package marks a defining moment in the Trump administration’s economic policy. Passed by the House after intense lobbying and last-minute drafting, the bill combines major tax cuts with deep reductions to federal welfare programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps). While Republicans frame it as an efficiency-driven economic reform, critics argue it constitutes a reverse wealth transfer—from the most vulnerable citizens to the richest.

Although the bill still faces hurdles in the Senate, where opposition is expected even within the GOP, its passage in the House signals a radical fiscal pivot: slashing over $1 trillion in social support to finance tax relief, largely favoring high-income earners.

Tax Cuts: Disproportionate Gains for the Wealthy

The bill’s core is an extension of Trump-era tax cuts originally set to expire at the end of 2025. Without Congressional action, most Americans would have seen their taxes rise. However, the renewed tax breaks predominantly benefit top earners.

According to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, 60% of the tax reductions would flow to the top 20% of income earners—those earning above $217,000 annually. The top 5% alone (earning $460,000+) would receive over a third of the total cuts. In contrast, those earning under $35,000 would see only modest gains, averaging $160 per year—equivalent to a mere 0.8% boost in after-tax income.

This disparity underscores the regressive nature of the policy: higher earners gain substantially more both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of income. Meanwhile, lower- and middle-income Americans receive only marginal relief, insufficient to offset rising living costs or the policy’s hidden trade-offs.

Social Program Cuts: A Deep Blow to the Poor

To partially offset the $3.8 trillion in tax-related revenue loss over a decade, the bill proposes aggressive reductions in federal spending on health and nutrition programs. Medicaid, which provides health coverage to low-income Americans, would see nearly $700 billion in federal spending cuts. SNAP funding would be reduced by $267 billion, with new work requirements and eligibility restrictions that would affect both individuals and families.

The combined impact of these cuts is expected to push millions off coverage and support programs. Particularly at risk are children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and rural residents, whose access to health services and food assistance is already constrained.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model forecasts net negative outcomes for the lowest income brackets: those earning under $17,000 annually would lose an average of $820 per year, equivalent to a 14.6% decrease in income after accounting for both tax relief and lost benefits. Middle-income groups would see modest gains, while the top earners would experience the greatest financial uplift—averaging $12,000 annually.

A Ballooning Deficit and Avoidance of Structural Reform

While one of the GOP’s core arguments is deficit reduction, the bill paradoxically worsens the national debt. The U.S. debt currently exceeds $37 trillion, and independent analyses project this legislation would add over $3.1 trillion more within a decade, primarily driven by tax cuts that outweigh spending reductions.

Furthermore, the bill sidesteps fundamental fiscal challenges—most notably, the unsustainable trajectories of Medicare and Social Security. With the baby boomer generation retiring en masse, these programs face solvency risks. Yet, both parties have largely avoided reforms, deeming them politically toxic. Ideas like gradually raising the retirement age or expanding payroll taxes on high earners remain excluded from serious policy discussions.

Uncertain Senate Fate and Political Risk

Despite House approval, the bill’s survival in the Senate is uncertain. Republican senators are split—some demand further austerity, while others are wary of the backlash to Medicaid cuts. Proposals to enhance child tax credits may complicate consensus, and procedural constraints could strike out non-budgetary provisions altogether.

If the Senate passes a revised version, the bill must return to the House for final reconciliation. Speaker Mike Johnson has shown skill in navigating intra-party dynamics, but the Senate's new Majority Leader John Thune faces his first major test in brokering cross-factional alignment.

A Bold Move with Polarizing Impact

Trump’s “super bill” illustrates a bold ideological wager: that economic growth and fiscal responsibility can be achieved by shrinking government support while enriching upper-income taxpayers. Yet the bill’s structure suggests a different outcome—growing inequality, limited macroeconomic stimulus, and deeper fiscal imbalances.

As the debate moves to the Senate, the legislation’s fate will hinge not only on partisan politics but on public response. For now, it represents one of the most consequential attempts in recent history to reshape the economic foundations of American society—tilting the balance of public policy decisively toward the affluent, while leaving the nation’s most vulnerable with less support and more uncertainty.

Source: Yahoo Finance

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

Market Optimism Reversed by Sudden Escalation

In recent weeks, initial agreements with the United Kingdom and China had sparked cautious optimism on Wall Street and among multinational corporations. Investors speculated that the Trump administration was preparing to ease its long-standing tariff campaign. However, President Trump’s May 23 declaration of possible 50% tariffs on EU imports and 25% on smartphones shattered that sentiment. Global equity markets declined sharply, the U.S. dollar fell to a new low since 2023, and corporate leaders were forced to confront a familiar reality: policy uncertainty remains a defining feature of Trump’s trade strategy.

Economist Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics remarked that these developments confirm trade volatility will persist—potentially for the rest of the year. “Peace has not arrived,” he warned, suggesting the cycle of escalation and reprieve may continue in unpredictable bursts.

G7 Disappointment Fuels Trump’s Aggressive Posture

Insiders suggest that President Trump’s reaction may have been influenced by the perceived lack of progress at the recent G7 finance ministers’ meeting. Compared to his quick agreement with the UK, the EU’s cautious negotiation style appeared frustratingly slow. Steve Bannon, a long-time Trump ally, implied that the EU’s failure to meet U.S. expectations reinforced the president’s belief in leveraging aggressive, public pressure tactics to force movement at the negotiation table.

According to White House officials, the 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs—currently underway—was intended to provide room for bilateral trade breakthroughs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed on May 24 that deals with several key economies, including India, are nearing completion, and that the administration hopes to announce more before the truce period expires.

EU Readies Retaliation as Trust Deteriorates

The European Union, caught off guard by Trump’s renewed threats, is now preparing a second wave of retaliatory measures. If negotiations falter, Brussels plans to impose additional tariffs on U.S. goods worth €95 billion ($107 billion), targeting sensitive American exports. This would follow earlier EU authorizations to retaliate against Trump’s prior steel and aluminum tariffs.

Earlier this month, the EU had agreed to suspend its own countermeasures for 90 days, following Trump’s decision to reduce existing retaliatory tariffs to 10% for most partners. But the President’s continued threats—paired with his suggestion of forthcoming duties on copper, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, timber, and aerospace parts—signal that this suspension may be short-lived.

Goldman Sachs: Tariffs to Remain High, Growth Impact Limited

In a research note dated May 24, Goldman Sachs projected that the U.S.’s effective tariff rate will likely rise by 13 percentage points this year, potentially reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression era. Yet, the firm cast doubt on the administration’s core objective. “Higher bilateral tariffs are unlikely to drive significant gains in domestic manufacturing,” the report noted.

Instead of stimulating industrial output, these tariffs may increase costs for businesses and consumers while damaging global trade relationships. The ongoing use of tariffs as a strategic threat—even against nations with existing trade agreements—has begun to erode international trust in the durability of any U.S.-brokered deal.

Trust Deficit Undermines U.S. Trade Credibility

Perhaps the most consequential outcome of Trump’s tariff rhetoric is its long-term impact on U.S. credibility. As Marcus Noland highlighted, the administration’s willingness to target even partners with formal trade agreements—such as South Korea and Australia—raises red flags about the enforceability and consistency of U.S. commitments. This unpredictability complicates negotiations, as partner nations must now weigh not only the economic terms of a deal but also its political durability.

With investors jittery, allies cautious, and adversaries emboldened, the global trade environment faces renewed uncertainty. The administration’s tariff-first strategy has become a source of economic and diplomatic volatility—one that undermines both near-term stability and longer-term cooperation.

While President Trump’s tariff threats may serve immediate negotiating objectives, they come at a growing cost. Markets are destabilized, international confidence is shaken, and the prospect of genuine “trade peace” grows increasingly remote. As the 90-day pause on tariff escalation nears its end, businesses and governments worldwide are preparing not for resolution, but for another round of economic brinkmanship. The message is clear: the era of transactional diplomacy and strategic tariff warfare is far from over.

Source: Axios

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Mounting Tensions in a Critical Transatlantic Relationship

The U.S.–EU trade relationship, long considered a cornerstone of global economic stability, is now teetering on the edge of a full-scale tariff war. President Donald Trump’s surprise threat on May 23 to impose 50% duties on EU imports starting June 1 marks a sharp deterioration in talks and exposes a deepening strategic rift over how trade policy should be conducted in an increasingly fragmented world order.

While initial trade negotiations had shown modest optimism, Trump’s sudden escalation has alarmed European officials and market observers alike. According to the Wall Street Journal, the dispute reflects more than just tariff levels—it uncovers structural disagreements in negotiation styles, regulatory philosophies, and the geopolitical calculus around China.

Three Core Frictions Undermining U.S.–EU Dialogue

Trump’s economic advisers have expressed consistent frustration with what they see as an obstructive and bureaucratic EU approach to trade talks. Three main grievances have emerged:

First, sluggish negotiation progress. The U.S. has criticized the EU’s cumbersome consensus model, which requires alignment among 27 member states. This, they argue, has led to procedural delays and a lack of actionable counterproposals.

Second, regulatory and fiscal tensions. Washington is demanding changes to EU digital service taxes, auto regulations, and competition law fines targeting American tech firms—penalties Trump has called “disguised tariffs.” These measures, in Trump’s words, illustrate how “the EU was formed to exploit the U.S.”

Third, diverging strategies on China. The U.S. wants Europe to join in placing direct trade pressure on Beijing, particularly through reciprocal tariffs on Chinese industrial exports. Although EU leaders share concerns about Chinese subsidies, they have refrained from committing to U.S.-style retaliatory action. In contrast, the post-Brexit UK has already moved closer to Washington’s position, agreeing to tariff measures on Chinese steel.

Trump’s Abrupt Ultimatum and the EU’s Cautious Pushback

Trump’s May 23 threat—issued via social media—was met with disbelief in Brussels, especially given recent hopes of constructive dialogue. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič reiterated the bloc’s commitment to ongoing talks but emphasized that negotiations must be based on mutual respect, not coercion. “We are prepared to defend our interests,” he said.

Officials clarified that China is not the main obstacle in current discussions; rather, it is the sharp contrast in negotiation frameworks. Trump favors rapid, unilateral pressure tactics. The EU, by contrast, operates on consensus and institutional procedure, which while more methodical, often slows decision-making. This misalignment has become a key source of U.S. frustration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently echoed these concerns, pointing to the EU’s rigid stance on VAT policy and digital regulations as sticking points. These areas have proven especially contentious, as the U.S. perceives them as discriminatory against its global tech champions.

China’s Role: Common Concern, Divergent Tactics

Although both the U.S. and EU view China’s state-backed industrial practices with suspicion, their methods of response differ substantially. Washington prefers aggressive economic countermeasures and seeks allies to isolate China strategically. The EU, however, views China as both a competitor and a crucial export destination, making it reluctant to provoke Beijing with harsh trade sanctions.

This divergence illustrates a broader transatlantic gap—not in threat perception, but in the tools and pace deemed appropriate for addressing it. Europe’s hesitancy reflects internal divisions as well as economic pragmatism, particularly given China’s importance to German manufacturing and French agriculture.

Retaliation Looms as Trade War Edges Closer

Trump’s tariff threats, even if not immediately enacted, have already provoked a defensive stance in Brussels. The EU previously authorized retaliatory tariffs on $21 billion worth of U.S. goods and has drafted a secondary list targeting an additional €95 billion should negotiations fail.

This escalation risks reigniting a tit-for-tat trade war reminiscent of U.S.–China tensions in earlier years. If implemented, such measures would affect a wide array of industries, from autos and aviation to pharmaceuticals and electronics, with ripple effects across global supply chains.

From Strategic Partnership to Structural Confrontation

The U.S.–EU trade dispute is no longer just a temporary rift—it is evolving into a structural confrontation rooted in incompatible worldviews. Trump’s high-stakes, transactional approach clashes with the EU’s multilateralist philosophy, making compromise increasingly difficult.

While both sides acknowledge shared challenges—especially regarding China—their conflicting priorities and negotiation tactics are pulling them further apart. As the June 1 deadline approaches, the risk is no longer just tariffs, but a long-term unraveling of the transatlantic trade alliance that has underpinned global economic cooperation for decades.

Source: NBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

Economic Slowdown Forces Restaurant Closures Across South Korea

Service Sector Hit Hard by Economic Fatigue

Fast Food and Retail Also Feel the Squeeze

Declining Revenues Highlight Structural Challenges

Broader Economic Implications

Restructuring Ahead for South Korea’s Service Economy

Source: The Korean Herald

Pakistan Secures Over $16 Billion in Aid and Loans Amid Prolonged Economic Crisis

Surging External Financing Amid Domestic Economic Fragility

IMF Support Helps But Delays Persist

Bilateral and Commercial Lending Show Diverging Trends

Multilateral Support and Remittances Provide Relief

Crisis Management Through Strategic Partnerships and Diaspora Engagement

Source: DailyTimes

Fed Dampens Summer Rate Cut Hopes as Uncertainty Clouds Economic Outlook

Rate Cut Expectations Fade as Fed Opts for Caution

Fed Officials Signal Extended Wait-and-See Period

Economic Crosscurrents Complicate Policy Calculus

A Delicate Balance Between Inflation and Recession Risk

Market Patience Will Be Tested

Source: Investopedia

U.S. Tariff Policy Triggers Foreign Capital Flight from Canadian Stocks

Foreign Investors Pull Back as U.S. Tariff Rhetoric Escalates

Contradiction Between Market Performance and Capital Flight

Canada's Fiscal Credibility Stands in Contrast to U.S. Turbulence

Equity Market Anxiety Offset by Bond Market Confidence

Source: Globe and Mail

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” and the Great American Wealth Shift

A Legislative Milestone with Deep Socioeconomic Consequences

Tax Cuts: Disproportionate Gains for the Wealthy

Social Program Cuts: A Deep Blow to the Poor

A Ballooning Deficit and Avoidance of Structural Reform

Uncertain Senate Fate and Political Risk

A Bold Move with Polarizing Impact

Source: Yahoo Finance

Fading Hopes of Trade Peace as Trump’s Tariff Threats Renew Market Volatility

Market Optimism Reversed by Sudden Escalation

G7 Disappointment Fuels Trump’s Aggressive Posture

EU Readies Retaliation as Trust Deteriorates

Goldman Sachs: Tariffs to Remain High, Growth Impact Limited

Trust Deficit Undermines U.S. Trade Credibility

Source: Axios

U.S.–EU Trade War Escalates: Trump’s Tariff Threat Deepens Strategic Divide

Mounting Tensions in a Critical Transatlantic Relationship

Three Core Frictions Undermining U.S.–EU Dialogue

Trump’s Abrupt Ultimatum and the EU’s Cautious Pushback

China’s Role: Common Concern, Divergent Tactics

From Strategic Partnership to Structural Confrontation

Source: NBC

Risk Disclosure